> A principle well-known to both medical researchers and stage magicians is that "People see what they expect to see."
> That is why criteria and methods for evaluating the similarity of codes must be publicly specified in advance, and subsequent evaluation must be blinded.
> Departing from these standards leads swiftly to pseudo-science.
> It is dismayingly commonplace for people to ignore these principles. The reason is that pretty much everyone---scientists and lay-people alike---places great faith in their own rationality. Yet experience has shown over and over that this faith is utterly misguided, even among the most senior and experienced investigators.
This ignited considerable discussion on the talkchess forum ... in particular, Bob Hyatt posted more than thirty responses.
It is a very regrettable circumstance that (apparently) the ICGA in general, and Prof. Hyatt in particular, subsequently saw fit to ignore this advice. By what process, and upon what grounds, was this decision made?
That's annoying ... and so anyone who cares to "clone" the above post to the TalkChess Forum, has my permission to do so.
Please sure to clone it without changes, and include the archive link, so folks can read for themselves what was said back at the beginning of this process.
This Talkchess thread sheds a great deal of light on how monomaniacally obsessed Hyatt was even back then at branding Vas- and so quick to disregard anything out of hand- any indications that may prove otherwise-without consideration.
As a private organization, the ICGA is certainly free to do as they please, but the thing that really sticks in my craw is the way that the ICGA handled the press after the report was issued. In the immortal words of Léon The Professional, "No women. No kids. That's the rules." The panel members are fortunate that Vas doesn't seem to be a litigious guy. If I were in his position and a professional organization orchestrated a hit piece that involved my wife, I'd have been hunting for favorable jurisdictions and letting the subpoenas fly within hours.
>the thing that really sticks in my craw is the way that the ICGA handled the press after the report was issued. In the immortal words of Léon The Professional, "No women. No kids.
Where.... where, where, where.... where, where, where in the world did you see the ICGA press release involve anyone but Vas?
> where in the world did you see the ICGA press release involve anyone but Vas?
I didn't say the ICGA mentioned anyone other than Vas. I'm talking about the way the ICGA pushed the press release into the mainstream media which in turn led to several articles that included unnecessary photos of Vas with his wife. Computer chess doesn't get that much press coverage unless there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to get the story out there. Defamation is no joke.
>I'm talking about the way the ICGA pushed the press release into the mainstream media
ok fine... then can you tell me in "what way" ICGA pushed the press release? I am aware of them "pushing it" (poor word choice on my part) to one writer on one chess site.
>Computer chess doesn't get that much press coverage unless there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to get the story out there
iwo just curious how you know this.
That has been crystal clear from the beginning. It doesn't matter what you do with the money you steal. You go to jail for stealing. Even if you donate it to a worthy cause...
Same principle applies here.
The title of the essay is "The Criminal Trial Is Not About Justice for the Victim." This essay explains why in all judicial proceedings (both civil and criminal, both formal and informal) the quality of the process has precedence over the quality of the justice.
That is the common-sense reason why arguments of the form "our procedures were flawed, but there's no problem, because justice was done" are completely and utterly wrong.
Persons and organization who lack understanding of the process-before-justice principle, have no business passing judgment ... for the simple reason that they do not understand what justice is about, or how it works.
were they able to get a word in edgeways?
So, in your usual level of "thoroughness" I guess we have to spoon-feed you once again and point them out???
Remember, I only _respond_ to posts. I have not originated one single thread on this process since the ICGA ruled. If you look at the threads here, I have not responded to every post. So _way_ less than 50% of the total posts are mine... food for thought, eh?
Were they even designed with the help of outside review?
No to both? No to either?
Then the procedures were flawed, Bob.
Because without review, science and justice equally are fatally flawed.
In my opinion, an outside judge and jury would have reached _exactly_ the same verdict, and most likely the same penalties, in light of no defense...
If you want to say that you don't understand the evidence, that is fine. But an experienced chess programmer will _not_ come to the same conclusion you are espousing, unless he has some hidden agenda and is not being truthful in his comments...
Have you _read_ Mark Watkin's analysis, the one signed by him at the bottom???
>there is a very nice essay by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
For the love of Pete... John.
I thought you were pointing us to some scholarly work, instead it's some intro law ideas (law 101) that could be presented to a class of high schoolers. (edit: which obviously has not been done in most high schools when you see all the media talking heads and most people's reaction)
John your statement:
>That is the common-sense reason why arguments of the form "our procedures were flawed, but there's no problem, because justice was done"
demonstrates your understanding is "completely and utterly wrong".
>for the simple reason that they do not understand what justice is about, or how it works.
What are you? Capt. America?
Or is this an episode of Superman? (truth, justice and the american way...)
>ICGA's judicial procedures
Everyone and their brother here wants to turn ICGA proceedings into some sort of civil or criminal trial. Well... once ICGA finds a plot of land, sets up a Constitution, a Government, and a set of laws... then y'all can jump in here with your Huff Post law 101 articles and say how screwed up they are.
Until then, you ought to be using your noodle to think about what this really is. As I said, your post clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of what took place. (which leaves me utterly flabbergasted, but that is "neither here, nor there").
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill