Re: Plagiary problem

[cesczx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chen Zhixing)]

Dear Mr. Yoshikawa,

I received your proposal for treatment of a case of plagiarism in a tournament
and considered it earnestly for a long time.  In my opinion, you made a
proposal with good willing, but I am afraid that it can scarcely solve such
problems.

The main points of the proposal are as follows:

>a) The participant submits a copy of the registered program
>in a sealed envelop on the first day of the tournament.

>b) The program is securely stored under the surveillance of
>the organizing committee. The program is never used except
>in the case of allegation of a fraud.

>c) The participant whose program is alleged of a fraud is
>contacted by the committee and required to collaborate with
>the investigation using the submitted copy of the program.

>d) If a program is alleged of a fraud, the submitted copy of
>the program is used to confirm if the same game record
>exhibited in the tournament can be reproduced...

>e) If the investigation determines the allegation to be
>reasonably credible, some members of the participants, as
>well as the organizing committee, may be asked to join the
>investigation...

>3. Treatment of Fraud
>
>(1) Procedure
>
>Step 1: If a program is considered to be fraudulent, any
>person involved in the tournament can present his/her
>allegation to the organizing committee anytime during the
>tournament and within one year after the tournament.  The
>person should give the organizing committee the reason for
>his/her allegation in an e-mail.
>
>Step 2...

I think the problem will arise in Step 1.  How can one consider a program to
be fraudulent?  Is it enough to be the 'reason' that 'why the program
becomes so strong'?  If the alleger does not obtain a copy of the alleged
program, he will be unable to provide enough reason to allege.

I want to remind the course of the cases in the 4th FOST Cup.

Hamlet is the first one to be suspected as a plagiary from Handtalk.  The
first sight is that its move style likes Handtalk.  The first evidence is
that it played a joseki seldom used but included in Handtalk.  The sound
evidences could be obtained because I obtained a copy of Hamlet from
exchangement.  I can read it to know how it copied Handtalk's engine.

Silver Igo is suspected only by the fact 'why it becomes so strong in such a
short period'.  As its owner refused to exchange programs, I cannot get any
evidences from its tournament version.  I can only get evidences from its
sold version, thus I alleged it to the organizer of FOST Cup.  The owner of
Silver Igo recognized plagiarism in its 3rd FOST Cup version, but denied
plagiarism in its 4th FOST Cup version.  (BTW, if Yoshikawa's proposal is
valid, Silver Igo should be refused to participate any international
tournament in 3 years, because its 3rd FOST Cup version has been recognized
to be plagiary).

They presented the 4th FOST Cup version to the organizer for investigation,
but demanded that the program cannot be shown to me.  As a result, the
investigation cannot be done.  As you know, it should spend 10 times or more
labor to obtain evidences without the aid of the writer of the program being
plagiarized.

I was told that another sold program, Family Igo, is similar to the 4th FOST
version, and I was told that 'if Family Igo includes plagiary, so the 4th
FOST version of Silver Igo also includes plagiary'.  The owner sent me a
copy of Family Igo for investigation.  I obtained evidences of plagiarism
from it immediately.  However, the problem is still unsolved.

In my opinion, the key is:

   Participated programs should be allowed to exchange with each other.

I.e., the participated programs submitted to the organizer can be copied by
any other participant if he requests it.  So that he can readily obtain
evidences of plagiarism if any.

That is my earnest suggestion.

I hope the members of the Mailing List and the members of CGF will discuss it.


Chen Zhixing
www.wulu.com