Voir Dire

[bob]

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?

It is absolutely the case. Here is the precise rule from the ICGA WCCC rules:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

That rule applies to each _entrant_ commercial or not. It has been in the ICGA and ICCA rules since I have been participating.

[geots]

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.

Dann, i guess that is why i have always had such respect for you. You play the game of life fairly. I am sure Vas is not totally innocent- I never said he was. But if he crossed a line he shouldnt have, "where exactly is that line?" You wont find 3 people who would mark it at the same place. The gray areas make it almost laughable when someone trys to defend their actions with Vas. Look, this is the biggest bunch of crapola I may hav e ever seen, and it is really starting to stink right now.

[geots]

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_.

You really didnt understand Nelson's comment about your self-righteousness"?! Guess that is what happens when you are getting your butt kicked from 3 different directions at the same time.

[bob]

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_.

You really didnt understand Nelson's comment about your self-righteousness"?! Guess that is what happens when you are getting your butt kicked from 3 different directions at the same time.

Sorry, but your foot is nowhere near my butt, rather it is pretty well buried in your mouth at the present...

But keep up with the aspersions on others. It makes you look "real good."

[geots]

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_.

You really didnt understand Nelson's comment about your self-righteousness"?! Guess that is what happens when you are getting your butt kicked from 3 different directions at the same time.

Sorry, but your foot is nowhere near my butt, rather it is pretty well buried in your mouth at the present...

But keep up with the aspersions on others. It makes you look "real good."

I see now what some of your so-called friends meant when I learned that when you are not around they call you "Lord Hyatt" and make fun of you. Personally, if it was me- i wouldnt waste the time

[bob]

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_.

You really didnt understand Nelson's comment about your self-righteousness"?! Guess that is what happens when you are getting your butt kicked from 3 different directions at the same time.

Sorry, but your foot is nowhere near my butt, rather it is pretty well buried in your mouth at the present...

But keep up with the aspersions on others. It makes you look "real good."

I see now what some of your so-called friends meant when I learned that when you are not around they call you "Lord Hyatt" and make fun of you. Personally, if it was me- i wouldnt waste the time

Sure, more of those "imaginary friends" of yours.

delusional comes to mind...

[hgm]

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?

This is the key point. A protest has been filed. Based on preliminary evidence, the suspicion did not seem unfounded, and ICGA had no reason to dismiss the case. So they start an investigation. To do that properly, they need source code, and request it. Vas does not comply.

At that point, if I had been ICGA, the limit of my benevolence would have already been exceeded, and I would have declared an immediate ban and revoking of titles. (Not a lifelong one, I am against that as a matter of principle, but certainly until he complied with the request for source code.)

What do you think happens, for instance, to cyclist champions that refuse to have themselves tested for doping control? Will the UCI install a panel of investigators, that will go along the road with dogs to sniff out trees where the champion might have relieved himself during the race, to take samples there? (And make sure the dogs employed have never barked to the champion in question?) I don't think so!

ICGA was lenient, however. They went at out of their way to prove that the suspicion was not unfounded, appointed a committee of expert witnesses to get evidence the hard way without Vas' cooperation. But, if anything, this only enhanced the suspicion, to the point where many already consider it proven. No reason at all to call it off. But still refusal to comply with the rules...

[Hood]

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.

Is it a common practice in chess programmers area to copy someones code? Do you want to defend such a practice ?

[El Gringo]

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?

This is the key point. A protest has been filed. Based on preliminary evidence, the suspicion did not seem unfounded, and ICGA had no reason to dismiss the case. So they start an investigation. To do that properly, they need source code, and request it. Vas does not comply.

At that point, if I had been ICGA, the limit of my benevolence would have already been exceeded, and I would have declared an immediate ban and revoking of titles. (Not a lifelong one, I am against that as a matter of principle, but certainly until he complied with the request for source code.)

What do you think happens, for instance, to cyclist champions that refuse to have themselves tested for doping control? Will the UCI install a panel of investigators, that will go along the road with dogs to sniff out trees where the champion might have relieved himself during the race, to take samples there? (And make sure the dogs employed have never barked to the champion in question?) I don't think so!

ICGA was lenient, however. They went at out of their way to prove that the suspicion was not unfounded, appointed a committee of expert witnesses to get evidence the hard way without Vas' cooperation. But, if anything, this only enhanced the suspicion, to the point where many already consider it proven. No reason at all to call it off. But still refusal to comply with the rules...

Fully agreed !! If Vas refuses to show his source code to the ICGA panel that says a lot to me..
Normally it should be enough for the ICGA to ban Rybka.
It's a very bad case, but for me there is enough evidence that Rybka is heavily based (copied) from Fruit and Crafty (bitboards). And it is not fair to the people who deserves the credits (Hyatt and Letouzey).

Best
Johan

[Shaun]

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?

It is absolutely the case. Here is the precise rule from the ICGA WCCC rules:

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

That rule applies to each _entrant_ commercial or not. It has been in the ICGA and ICCA rules since I have been participating.

But asking for the source 5 years later is not reasonable...

For historical reasons you keep previous versions of Crafty and that is great, however most? certainly a large percentage of people would not keep very old source.

Also with Rybka you have the version that plays in tournaments and the UCI version - I dont know at what point the versions split however I would suspect they are quite different now.