A Crime by a Board of Old Imposters

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
The ICGA will be sorry for that crime of banning LIST the program of Fritz
Reul. LIST doesn't use bitboards as I am told so how could it be a Crafty
clone
at all??
Dann Corbit had seen the source of a former version and he judged all as
completely different to CRAFTY. Ulli Tuerke (COMET) say that the two progs
are
totally different in their behaviour.

These imposters should imediately retire after this tournament. People
like
Bruce Moreland and other younger characters should lead the union of
computerchess. Fritz Reul has his examins in mathematics this week so it
is a
crime to disturb him at his home. Disgusting these imbeciles.

I don't see how they can say both these programs are even close to the same.
I may not have the most recent version of each, but I did take a peek in hex
at both programs and see major differences. They are nowhere near the same
size in bytes, both are compiled with a different version of Visual C++ and
with different compile options, both have major structural differences in
code. I am no expert, and this is by far not an extensive test, but I find
that it is better to presume someone innocent unless *proven* guilty; even
with suspicions.

My personal instinct is that both programs are different and without proof
otherwise then List should be allowed to compete. A better strategy would
be to allow competition of any program unless it can be conclusively proven
to be a clone. If later proof can be established, only then would it be
removed from the competition. It seems entirely possible to keep an
internal list (no pun intended) of suspicious entries. This situation could
be better handled through private correspondence with the author of the
suspected clone. Perhaps it would be beneficial to have a discussion with
both the suspected author and the other author. Establishing communication
rather than publicly airing suspicions would be in the best interest of us
all. It would also be respectful to give an author reasonable time to
respond, especially if they are in the middle of exams. Education is
important and I would think would merit understanding that it should take
precedence over something of lesser importance. I know that many of us
relish chess, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there has to be
priorities. These are just my personal opinions, but it just makes sense
not to take actions such as this without irrefutable proof.

--
matt -`;'-

In many jurisdictions copyright infringement is a criminal offense in
addition to civil actions.
.....

Your point of view attempting to transfer criteria of criminal justice
(innocent until proven guilty) to this case would mean that any
programmer could copy the code of any program, then refuse to show the
code to the review board, and continue to participate as long as he
wanted.

....
Henri

It is not BS. My subjective belief is irrelevant; I do not know if he
copied any code or not. My point is that giving a person roughly 48 hours
to answer allegations of copyright infringement and then banning him for a
couple of years is not a fair procedural process. Perhaps the later
poster's recommendation could be used - source code is provided under a
non-disclosure agreement and may be examined ONLY to evaluate copying
allegation.

As for your offensive tone, it is not warranted, and only illustrates the
"guilty until proven innocent" ignorance of unfair people.


"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
since you defend the programmer, then you don't think his 'reputation is
damaged beyond repair" either or you wouldn't bother trying to do just
that.
cut the bull****.

"Fritz Reul" wrote

Dear Chess Fans,

[...CUT...]

Yours
Firtz Reul

I appreciate your post and I think anyone else does.
Ok, now you have a couple of years to work on a new chess engine ..... Good
luck ;-)

Tommy

i think you are confused because i did not speak about f. ruel's innocence
or guilty. I wrote about logical inconsistency in the tone of your oratory
with the opinions expressed therein relating to your call for action. I
called for a clarification of your assessment.
Perhaps you are not capable of this.
"Znarf" wrote in message
...
It is not BS. My subjective belief is irrelevant; I do not know if he
copied any code or not. My point is that giving a person roughly 48 hours
to answer allegations of copyright infringement and then banning him for a
couple of years is not a fair procedural process. Perhaps the later
poster's recommendation could be used - source code is provided under a
non-disclosure agreement and may be examined ONLY to evaluate copying
allegation.

As for your offensive tone, it is not warranted, and only illustrates the
"guilty until proven innocent" ignorance of unfair people.


"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
since you defend the programmer, then you don't think his 'reputation is
damaged beyond repair" either or you wouldn't bother trying to do just
that.
cut the bull****.

henri Arsenault wrote:
Besides, the rule of "innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal
law. If this case went to court, it would not be subject to criminal
law but to civil law. It is clear that no court would make a decision
such as this under civil law without having the code of both programs
submitted to the opinion of experts. If the accused refused to show his
code, the court would have no choice but to determine that he was guilty
(or to condemn him for contempt of court).

Obviously, this varies from country to country. I believe that what would
happen in a British court is that he would be served with a writ ordering
him to hand over his source code. If he refused, he would be tried for
something like contempt of court, which would probably be a criminal
offence, whereas copyright infringement (or, more likely, breach of
contract with the tournament organizers) is a civil offence.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Edible Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cat but you can eat it and it'll
break the bank!

To Whom it may concern:
snip
Yours
Firtz Reul


I suppose you know it's not legal to pose as someone else. Perhaps that's why
you misspelled "Fritz"?


Dave

lemme see, you called the tournament commitee of the igca 'a bunch of
imposters' because you don't like their decision, but of course my tone
offends you.
i suggest you resort to critiquing the manners of others and disregarding
your own because you are on the losing side of a stupid debate than cannot
be won on the basis of facts and content.
"Znarf" wrote in message
...
It is not BS. My subjective belief is irrelevant; I do not know if he
copied any code or not. My point is that giving a person roughly 48 hours
to answer allegations of copyright infringement and then banning him for a
couple of years is not a fair procedural process. Perhaps the later
poster's recommendation could be used - source code is provided under a
non-disclosure agreement and may be examined ONLY to evaluate copying
allegation.

As for your offensive tone, it is not warranted, and only illustrates the
"guilty until proven innocent" ignorance of unfair people.


"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
since you defend the programmer, then you don't think his 'reputation is
damaged beyond repair" either or you wouldn't bother trying to do just
that.
cut the bull****.

Ulrik Løye wrote:
"Rolf Tueschen" wrote:
Just read about the incident in Hamburg shortly before the team travelled
to NY. Who should pay the Army which should protect these codes.

Did you just compare this event with 9/11/2001 !?

Er, no. He's referring to the break-in at the Chessbase offices.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1301

To be honest, I'm at a loss to work out how you thought that had anything
to do with 9/11.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Permanent Radio (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but it'll be there for ever!

I never called the ICGA imposters; it was the subject to which I replied.
Please double check your facts. Thus, it appears the premise of your retort
is faulted. Additionally, read again my original post; there are no
denigrating states of the ICGA per se.

As for the losing side of a debate, I suggest you again look at the merits
of your position. I am an attorney and know about the law (at least in the
US) of copyright infringment and the burden of proof in both civil and
criminal court. While the ICGA is not a judicial body, it was acting in a
quasi-judicial role. My point is some procedural process should be in place
rather than an ad-hoc demand for source code within a couple of days. The
culpability of the accused is not my concern, it is the process by which the
accused was *ASSUMED* culpable and had the *BURDEN OF PROOF* to prove he was
not culpable that I found to be troublesome, and the willingness to publish
an adjudication without giving the accused a *REASONALBE AMOUNT OF TIME* to
respond.




"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
lemme see, you called the tournament commitee of the igca 'a bunch of
imposters' because you don't like their decision, but of course my tone
offends you.
i suggest you resort to critiquing the manners of others and disregarding
your own because you are on the losing side of a stupid debate than cannot
be won on the basis of facts and content.
"Znarf" wrote in message
...
It is not BS. My subjective belief is irrelevant; I do not know if he
copied any code or not. My point is that giving a person roughly 48
hours
to answer allegations of copyright infringement and then banning him for
a
couple of years is not a fair procedural process. Perhaps the later
poster's recommendation could be used - source code is provided under a
non-disclosure agreement and may be examined ONLY to evaluate copying
allegation.

As for your offensive tone, it is not warranted, and only illustrates
the
"guilty until proven innocent" ignorance of unfair people.


"marc margolies" wrote in message
...
since you defend the programmer, then you don't think his 'reputation
is
damaged beyond repair" either or you wouldn't bother trying to do just
that.
cut the bull****.