Dann Corbit wrote:[...] I have said all along that my real objections were to the process.
Who are you to object to the ICGA process? If you don't like their rules, then don't play in their events. All this noise you guys make, Vas can speak for himself. He decided not to. Did any of you guys present evidence to support Vas at the ICGA? I'm not talking about your theories either. The answer is no, and Vas did not either.
Several forum posts were made in the past years that questioned the evidence in the Fruit case. It is possible that making a tough document putting all of this together would have been better, but it remains completely unexpected for me to see a 100% agreement of the panel, without considering any doubts that had obviously been raised in the past.
Furthermore, a balanced process would have included to publish the whole report before taking the decision, to give some sort of final opportunity for providing counter evidence. But I have the impression that there was little interest in that.
bob wrote:The ICGA was formed _by_ programmers. We wrote the rules we compete by. [...] "we" (the programmers that are involved in participating) defined the process...
Who exactly formed the ICGA? Who exactly wrote the rules?
Sven
A group of us, at the 1977 (2nd) World Computer Chess Championship, held in Toronto that year. Barend Swets led the "charge".
The rules have evolved and are typically updated at each WCCC event when the players meet prior to the first round. There, rule issues are discussed, occasionally something is clarified or modified based on a vote by the participants. Etc...
The current rules represent 30+ years of evolution.
Dann Corbit wrote:[...] I have said all along that my real objections were to the process.
Who are you to object to the ICGA process? If you don't like their rules, then don't play in their events. All this noise you guys make, Vas can speak for himself. He decided not to. Did any of you guys present evidence to support Vas at the ICGA? I'm not talking about your theories either. The answer is no, and Vas did not either.
Several forum posts were made in the past years that questioned the evidence in the Fruit case. It is possible that making a tough document putting all of this together would have been better, but it remains completely unexpected for me to see a 100% agreement of the panel, without considering any doubts that had obviously been raised in the past.
Furthermore, a balanced process would have included to publish the whole report before taking the decision, to give some sort of final opportunity for providing counter evidence. But I have the impression that there was little interest in that.
Sven
Vas was given the final report 30 days prior to the ICGA ruling on it. He was free to show it to anyone he wanted in order to obtain help.