Rolf Tueschen wrote:

If you are a tournament director, you have the obligation to make
objective rulings in case of problems. As far as possible, you will have
to rely on the rules as set in the tournament's regulations. This is
what they did with the LIST incident; the tournament regulations
explicitly stipulate that you have to be prepared to show source code to
the tournament directorate in case of dispute.

Pardon me, you failed to show me a good argument since you forgot to mention
why a tournament director should ask for such a code.

Because he is judging a dispute, and asking to see the code is the best
means of passing judgement; moreover, it is specifically stated in the
rules that this is within his jurisdiction. What's the problem?

What happened before? Know what I mean? And you are calling from a university? Uhem.

No, I don't know what you mean. Could you perhaps be a bit clearer?

Mr. Reul failed to do so;

Yes, right. Because there was no case.

There was a dispute. As to whether there is a case: You don't know and I
don't know.

And I gave other reasons why he was in time pressure plus stress.

If this is the reason he didn't comply, I'm truly sorry for him.
However, the tournament director is also in time pressu he has a
tournament to direct, after all.

I think the tournament director and Mr. Reul should meet and try to work
out the situation (including a code review) and issue a joint statement,
in a few weeks time, about how sorry they are that things went the way
they did. This would also clear Mr. Reul, assuming he is indeed in the
clear.

this left the directors with no choice other than to disqualify his entry.

Yes, if you define them as dickheads. Please read what a number one expert from
the USA is telling you about that decision.

Provide some references please.

Knee jerking comes to mind. Of course they had other possibilities.
In special let LIST play to the end. And research later.

Yes, this would also have been an option. However, as TD you have to
weigh: what if LIST must be disqualified afterwards, you'd have to
re-score the tournament, perhaps with consequences. The option chosen
now minimizes the influence of LIST on the end score. It's a though call.

As for the Shredder/Johnny threefold repitition: this case is not
clearly covered by the rules, so the tournament director must use his
best judgement in order to proceed. All this hinges on the fact that the
participants trust the tournament director to make a just and objective
call. If a participant does not subscribe to this, he should pack his
stuff and leave.

Objection, Sid. I would always believe Henk nut Henk had the wrong question he
answered.

I truly don't understand this sentence. Could you rephrase?

And who is this Henk nut Henk you speak about? I'm very much prepared to
discuss this issue with you, but please abstain from this childishness.

Jonny author wanted to play on although machine said REMIS. Know what
I mean? - You are correct. What Henk decided was ok. But the question was a
different one.
Please read what Hyatt wrote about it. And also Amir. Now Henk looks like a
clown(e).

No, I don't know what you mean. Who is Henk?

I've been a judge at an entirely non-related type of event (a
programming contest, if you want to know), and sometimes things happen
that are not planned. You then consult the rules and do your job, which
is to take hairy decisions in hairy situations. If you cannot do this,
or are not able to do this when push comes to shove, you shouldn't be in
that position.

Right. I agree. But you must also be sure that you have the details of the
problem. That wasn't kosher for both cases. 1. No need to throw out LIST for
the last 3 rounds.

If a competitor does not comply by the rules, there's little choice. Now
all the exam pressure and stuff, that's all very well, but you have to
be available for discussing issues with the TD, or otherwise appoint a
spokesperson. It's not like the TD didn't try to contact Mr. Reul.

2. T.D. must ask what a player plans to do or did do.
Again read Hyatt, also a professor, Sid.

Please provide a reference.

As for your cheapshots at Prof. van der Herik's alleged "academic
sluggishness": I have met the man, and although I have no particular
like or dislike of him, I feel that he is the perfect man for the job
and would always try to pass objective judgement, within the framework
of the written rules if possible, but based on what is just in other
circumstances. I don't think you have a clue on his standing in the
computer chess community. I have his PhD thesis sitting in my bookshelf,
which is about using advanced search algorithms for chess endgames, he
wrote this when your parents probably didn't even conceive of conceiving
you. Who are you to judge this man?

Actually I would be the best you can get.

What are your qualifications? Academically, and in the chess world?

BTW I met him in person. Very sympathetic man. His science is another problem.

I take it you mean "issue".

Here we are talking about a
spare time job. And you become old at times, Sid. You know what, you remember
me in your argumentation of the German Ingo Althöfer. Also a prof. And because
he's a prof for a field in mathematics he thinks that he can make the best
experiments in Dreihirn and stuff like that. But he forgets about the
documentation... Know what I mean?

No I don't know what you mean. In fact this entire paragraph doesn't
make much sense to me. Could you please be somewhat clearer?

Ingo is as amateurish as he can be. Brightness in maths seldom speaks for
talents in all other fields. But he always behaves as if he had something
important to decide with his vote.

And this Ingo fellow is relevant to our discussion because.... ?

With the same sluggishness Henk overlooked what I saw in seconds. Hyatt again:
there are no _rules_ for what happens when someone accuses a collegue of
plagiatism. But such rules should exist.

Ah, there's the mysterious "Henk" again.

Could you provide references to "Henk" and Hyatts reaction? The former I
doubt exists, the latter I haven't read.

But if they don't then I have a new freedom to make decisions also in dubio pro
reo! Know what i mean?

Golly, no. Please work a bit on your communication skills, this is
getting ridiculous. Feels a bit like I'm talking to a 1960's Lisa program.

Until now nobody said exactly what the reasons had been for suspicions. I must
conclude that there are no reasons.

No, you must not. It is perfectly normal not to publicise suspicions
without due process having taken place. In fact, it would be unethical
not to do so.

BTW if there had been strong reasons then all is fine. But I tend to believe
that Fritz Reul is kosher.

We can all agree, I think, that we hope this has all been a tragic
misunderstanding. But I have no reason to believe one way or another.

Of course Mr. Reul is innocent until proven guilty. However, given the
nature of the suspicions, he should cooperate to clear his name. I'm
sure the TD would be very, very willing to help in that respect.

If you have doubts with my reasoning then please reflect how Henk would have
decided if someone had accused SHREDDER of having Crafty code. You believe Henk
had made the same decision???

Do you mean Prof. van der Herik when you say "Henk" ?

If someone had presented founded suspicions to this effect, then, yes, I
think Prof. van der Herik would act similarly.

Finally, all the best to your own career,

Well, quite. Same to you then.

Sidney