Author: Dennis Lothspeich
Date: 13:11:32 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 15:26:18, robert michelena wrote: >As for this legal terminology argument, let me see if I can help. > >I do not believe it is possible for any human player who is not a Grandmaster or >International master to be capable of defeating a top commercial program at >their strongest setting. > >I do not believe I can make it any clearer then this. > >As for the sudden emergence of "legal" experts, taking me to task for alleged >misapplication of the rules of evidence, please direct your attention to the >Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801 (c): Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, >other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, >offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. > >For that "alleged" practicing attorney (ha ha ha ha- you people are really >creative! ) I suggest you go over my statement, and go over your hornbook on >evidence and try not to let your partners know you made such a statement. I >won't tell on you. :) You have correctly cited the rule. Now, why don't you read it, and try to understand it. You started the legal analogy by comparing posts here to testimony in court. Probably a poor analogy. There have been several posts (read testimony) by several people here stating that they have defeated a top commercial program. These statements are not statements "other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial." You can choose not to believe them, but that is a credibility issue and not one of admissibility. If you can't understand this you are going to have trouble with the Bar exam.
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.