Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 05:55:58 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 08:19:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 06:33:35, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>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 > > >Fine, if you know him so well. I doubt that you can say anything at all about >the LIST affair. But I can certainly ask you a question: would you think that >Jaap would also ask Fritz or Shredder for their source code if Vincent claimed >that they were partly Crafty clones? Would you really think that Jaap would want >to hurt his own sponsor? Now show me how good you know him. I met him twice BTW. What makes you so sure it was Vincent who made the complaint? I was told that it was not him. But that is hearsay. As to your question about Fritz and Shredder, I don't know. I was talking about this specific case, where I believe Jaap acted correctly. I'm off on holiday in a couple of hours, so I won't be able to respond for the next week or so. 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.