Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:51:25 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 03:04:24, Russell Reagan wrote: >On August 22, 2004 at 00:12:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Actually, when a defendent does _not_ take the stand in his own defense, that >>tends to put the jury on notice that there is something in his background that >>he wants to keep out of the trial. It does influence the result and defense >>attorneys only use that tactic when the potential damage is worse than keeping >>the defendent off the stand and biasing the jury against him. >> >>It _is_ strange that he did not respond. It is contrary to human nature to not >>respond to accusations when they are really false and damaging... > >Most of us take computer chess pretty seriously. Perhaps he doesn't take it as >seriously as the rest of us. Maybe ICGA's decision doesn't bother him like it >would bother you. > >I bet all of the hardcore tiddlywinks players sit around speculating about the >guy who was accused of cheating and never defended himself. Maybe, just maybe, >that guy really doesn't care if the hardcore tiddlywink fanatics think he >cheated ;-) > >Would you really take time to defend your case if you weren't invited back to >your neighborhood Friday night yahtzee game? You'd probably laugh at those >"nerds" for being so serious. Meanwhile they're discussing whether or not you >are a cheater on their message board... For me, the answer is "yes". I would certainly defend myself, _IF_ the accusers had real credibility. IE just as I did against Berliner's "there is a suspicion about Cray Blitz in the 1986 WCCC event because it played moves no computer would ever play..." He had credibility. I thought it important to respond...
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.