Voir Dire

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Dann Corbit
Posts: 9424
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Voir Dire

Post by Dann Corbit » Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:18 am

If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.

bob
Posts: 20358
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Voir Dire

Post by bob » Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:29 am

Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 9424
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Voir Dire

Post by Dann Corbit » Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 am

bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?

User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: Voir Dire

Post by geots » Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:51 am

Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?

It is no surprise to me that Bob gets a thrill trying to talk me down, but with you he wants to "shift gears" and change the subject. Wonder why that would be?- Dann, if Vas is guilty of anything, he needs to pay the price if it was bad enough. But 2 things need to be included- 1. Be sure of the extent of his wrongdoing. 2. Every commercial programmer has to take the same litmus test and take his medicine. Wonder if Hyatt has a problem with that?

Best to you, Dann

bob
Posts: 20358
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Voir Dire

Post by bob » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:10 am

Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?
One rule: Programmer must provide source code when there is a protest. Vas refused. If you break a rule, what should happen? Should you not be kicked out of that event, or if it is over, have the title stripped away?

I do not even begin to understand your reasoning here. It is just continual "this should not have happened, I don't know why, but it just shouldn't"

BTW, if I don't like the defendant, I can still testify against him. Absolutely _nothing_ in the legal system prevents that. Neither side is allowed to make false statements (oops, Vas did that repeatedly). Neither side is allowed to fabricate evidence (none was fabricated). The prosecution is not allowed to hide exculpatory evidence that would help the defence. None of that was done here...

bob
Posts: 20358
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Voir Dire

Post by bob » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:16 am

geots wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?

It is no surprise to me that Bob gets a thrill trying to talk me down, but with you he wants to "shift gears" and change the subject. Wonder why that would be?- Dann, if Vas is guilty of anything, he needs to pay the price if it was bad enough. But 2 things need to be included- 1. Be sure of the extent of his wrongdoing. 2. Every commercial programmer has to take the same litmus test and take his medicine. Wonder if Hyatt has a problem with that?

Best to you, Dann
If someone cheats, I believe they should be held accountable. Whomever gets caught up in the process. But point 2 "every commercial ..." is false. And is not a part of our legal system. Madoff was found guilty. Not every investor needs to be tried to see if they are guilty of the same things, until there is some evidence that suggests that they are. Feel free to invest your time in looking at the insides of all the commercial programs. If you find one that appears to be illicit, I'll be more than happy to help you take it to the ICGA for the same kind of investigation. I'm not going to spend my time looking at every program, however, without some reasonable suspicions.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 9424
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Voir Dire

Post by Dann Corbit » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:19 am

bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?
One rule: Programmer must provide source code when there is a protest. Vas refused. If you break a rule, what should happen? Should you not be kicked out of that event, or if it is over, have the title stripped away?

I do not even begin to understand your reasoning here. It is just continual "this should not have happened, I don't know why, but it just shouldn't"

BTW, if I don't like the defendant, I can still testify against him. Absolutely _nothing_ in the legal system prevents that. Neither side is allowed to make false statements (oops, Vas did that repeatedly). Neither side is allowed to fabricate evidence (none was fabricated). The prosecution is not allowed to hide exculpatory evidence that would help the defence. None of that was done here...
Re:
"Programmer must provide source code when there is a protest"
Does this apply to commercial programmers?
I have heard that such a rule has been proposed, but I understood that the commercial programmers never agreed to it.

If there was such a rule in place and Vas both agreed to and violated that rule, then whatever the exact penalty proposed in the original documentation is exactly what should have been enforced.

Is that the case in fact?

User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: Voir Dire

Post by geots » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:24 am

bob wrote:
geots wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?

It is no surprise to me that Bob gets a thrill trying to talk me down, but with you he wants to "shift gears" and change the subject. Wonder why that would be?- Dann, if Vas is guilty of anything, he needs to pay the price if it was bad enough. But 2 things need to be included- 1. Be sure of the extent of his wrongdoing. 2. Every commercial programmer has to take the same litmus test and take his medicine. Wonder if Hyatt has a problem with that?

Best to you, Dann
If someone cheats, I believe they should be held accountable. Whomever gets caught up in the process. But point 2 "every commercial ..." is false. And is not a part of our legal system. Madoff was found guilty. Not every investor needs to be tried to see if they are guilty of the same things, until there is some evidence that suggests that they are. Feel free to invest your time in looking at the insides of all the commercial programs. If you find one that appears to be illicit, I'll be more than happy to help you take it to the ICGA for the same kind of investigation. I'm not going to spend my time looking at every program, however, without some reasonable suspicions.

So lets leave things as they are. We wont wonder why one update to Shredder was only 9 elo stronger, and after that it just got better and better. Hmm. Shit, i forgot. We have to abide by what YOU call reasonable.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 9424
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Voir Dire

Post by Dann Corbit » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:30 am

geots wrote:
bob wrote:
geots wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?

It is no surprise to me that Bob gets a thrill trying to talk me down, but with you he wants to "shift gears" and change the subject. Wonder why that would be?- Dann, if Vas is guilty of anything, he needs to pay the price if it was bad enough. But 2 things need to be included- 1. Be sure of the extent of his wrongdoing. 2. Every commercial programmer has to take the same litmus test and take his medicine. Wonder if Hyatt has a problem with that?

Best to you, Dann
If someone cheats, I believe they should be held accountable. Whomever gets caught up in the process. But point 2 "every commercial ..." is false. And is not a part of our legal system. Madoff was found guilty. Not every investor needs to be tried to see if they are guilty of the same things, until there is some evidence that suggests that they are. Feel free to invest your time in looking at the insides of all the commercial programs. If you find one that appears to be illicit, I'll be more than happy to help you take it to the ICGA for the same kind of investigation. I'm not going to spend my time looking at every program, however, without some reasonable suspicions.

So lets leave things as they are. We wont wonder why one update to Shredder was only 9 elo stronger, and after that it just got better and better. Hmm. Shit, i forgot. We have to abide by what YOU call reasonable.
I do not think that there is anything wrong with learning about (for instance) LMR or material imbalances as described in Larry Kaufman's paper. If there is a big jump in Shredder's strength, I do not think it is any grounds for assumption of guilt.

I keep bringing up the fundamental algorithms, but I really do not think anything is wrong with using them. Rather, I think you are an idiot if you do not learn from new technology. The reason I keep bringing up the various facets of a chess program is that it is quite difficult to tell by looking whether or not someone has copied the ideas and edited them or has memorized the idea and then written his own version.

I also do not know that Vas is innocent. To the contrary, I think it is not unlikely that he has done something wrong. But I think making decisions about whether someone else is a wrongdoer should be handled very carefully and only by persons who have no axe to grind. If there is malice, even a little bit, in someone's heart, then the impartial scales of justice have been tipped.

That is my objection.

bob
Posts: 20358
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

Re: Voir Dire

Post by bob » Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:36 am

geots wrote:
bob wrote:
geots wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
bob wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:If the juror has already formed a fixed opinion based on prior knowledge or prejudice related to a material issue in the case, then he will be excused from serving on that jury.
Irrelevant: adjective; not connected with or being related to something.

I nor none of the panel were on the "jury". Can we switch gears to something relevant now???

Again, for the record, the "jury" was the ICGA board. Why not go thru voir dire? Because this is not a criminal court. It is an organization with an event and rules that must be followed. Ever seen a jury voir dire when NASCAR disqualifies a car for using illegal parts? Of course not. Again: irrelevant.
I guess that NASCAR has their rules written down in writing and if there is a disagreement, there is a book that they can go to and say, "These are the rules, here are the penalties, these are the appeal procedures". I guess that they would use these rules. I guess that if a ruling were to go against the FORD team, NASCAR would not get the information about whether FORD was guilty from CHEVY, HONDA, and TOYOTA.

Yes, a court of law is only a metaphor to explain my feelings. And yes, courtroom procedures were not followed here. And yet the actions very much have a courtroom sort of outcome. Reputations are destroyed, livlihoods are destroyed, etc. Just like a real court case.

I do recognize that the board of programmers in opposition probably felt, almost to a man, that they were doing the right thing. But there is a reason that courtrooms have very specific rules about admissibility of evidence, selection of jurors, etc. and these rules are good rules. If you form a body, and if the decisions of the body have the weight and impact of law (e.g. destruction of reputation and livlihood), then I think that legal sorts of procedures should be followed and I think that these sort of things should be spelled out in advance.

Do you not believe that at least one person involved might have had personal feelings against Vas, and also that such involvement would be bad? Even if such a person did not feel that their anger towards Vas would color their opinions, do you not see the reason that such things are disallowed from a court of law?

It is no surprise to me that Bob gets a thrill trying to talk me down, but with you he wants to "shift gears" and change the subject. Wonder why that would be?- Dann, if Vas is guilty of anything, he needs to pay the price if it was bad enough. But 2 things need to be included- 1. Be sure of the extent of his wrongdoing. 2. Every commercial programmer has to take the same litmus test and take his medicine. Wonder if Hyatt has a problem with that?

Best to you, Dann
If someone cheats, I believe they should be held accountable. Whomever gets caught up in the process. But point 2 "every commercial ..." is false. And is not a part of our legal system. Madoff was found guilty. Not every investor needs to be tried to see if they are guilty of the same things, until there is some evidence that suggests that they are. Feel free to invest your time in looking at the insides of all the commercial programs. If you find one that appears to be illicit, I'll be more than happy to help you take it to the ICGA for the same kind of investigation. I'm not going to spend my time looking at every program, however, without some reasonable suspicions.

So lets leave things as they are. We wont wonder why one update to Shredder was only 9 elo stronger, and after that it just got better and better. Hmm. Shit, i forgot. We have to abide by what YOU call reasonable.
Where do _I_ come in on the Shredder discussion? I am not an author of that program. Crafty gained over +200 Elo between one version and the next. Why don't you take the old and new versions and diff 'em and see how much code we copied, and how much of the gain came from a lot of eval and search parameter tuning, with little real changes in the code? Might be enlightening to you and others...

I can give specific version numbers if needed, but the comments in main.c also point the versions out where this happened during our cluster testing / tuning.

Not every big Elo jump is the result of plagiarism. Only _some_.

Post Reply