Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: List is NOT a Crafty clone, ... etc

Author: Andrew Williams

Date: 03:33:35 08/22/04

Go up one level in this thread


On August 21, 2004 at 20:42:17, Mike Byrne wrote:

>On August 21, 2004 at 16:14:08, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On August 21, 2004 at 15:48:11, Graham Banks wrote:
>>
>>>Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?
>>
>>Yes but in the case of List the suspect is stronger than some baseless
>>accusation because the ICGA decided to ban list.
>>
>>I expect that innocent person in this situation will do some steps to defend
>>himself and Fritz did nothing.
>>
>>If some newspaper claim bad things about you and you do nothing against the
>>newspaper then it is natural that people believe the newspaper inspite of the
>>fact that there is no proof excpet the fact that it was written in the
>>newspaper.
>>
>>Uri
>
>I hope you are not picked as a juror with your preconceived notions of innocence
>and guilt based on behavior patterns.  The "requirement" to defend if you are
>innocent is degrading and I can understand perfectly well why he elected not to
>defend.  It has no relevancy on his guilt or innocence.    Also,If you believe
>everything you read in a newspaper that is not refuted is true, not all your
>beliefs will be true.  It will serve you well to always carry around healthy
>dose of professional skepicism.   Btw, we're talking about a program that plays
>a "game" -- in the big picture it may be that important to Reul to defend.

Fritz Reul entered the WCCC. The rules of the WCCC state that if the tournament
director requests it, the participant must provide a copy of his source-code for
inspection. There's not "innocent until proven guilty" here; this was a
competition with its own set of rules. He had the opportunity to prove his
innocence, per the rules, and decided not to do so. This doesn't make him guilty
of copying crafty, but it does make him guilty of breaking the rules, for which
he was disqualified.

I feel the same about this case as I do about cases where athletes avoid drug
tests. Under law they are entitled to be assumed innocent of taking drugs (which
may or may not be illegal outside of the competition) until proven guilty. Under
the rules of the competition, they must submit themselves for drug testing. If
they want to refuse to submit themselves for drug testing, they shouldn't enter
the competition.

I understand that the cases are not identical because in the WCCC rules, the TD
has to have some reason to believe that a program is a clone of another (in
atheletics it's just random). But I'm inclined to believe the TD in this
instance. I can't imagine Jaap v.d. Herik suddenly getting up on his hind legs
and accusing someone of something this serious without a VERY good reason. I
have the advantage of you, I presume, because I have met him a couple of times.

Andrew




This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.