FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Chris Whittington]

But it would be nice if you would have told the full story of the lost source and not only half.

As I had not heard "this half" of the story, I would see no reason for Harvey to know about it either.

In December 2012 source code was recovered of an in between R1 - R2 version which was suggested as a base for an indepedent unbiased expert to close the matter once and for all. Levy did chicken out. Like Levy did chicken out to grant Rajlich an appeal via the same circus (Panel | Secratary | Board).

If Rajlich had mentioned this in his "appeal", perhaps Levy would have taken this into consideration after having received new pieces of evidence.

I should have been more clear on that yes, that source code was available, my bad. It's there between the lines.

• Good morning David,
  
  Two points.
  
  1. I don't understand your refusal to re-open the Rybka-Fruit case. In the past (the WCCC in Graz 2003) the ICGA banned a suspect program (the LIST program of Fritz Reul) because he refused to cooperate in an investigation. Later Reul did cooperate and Reul was reinstated after he handed over his source code to (expert) Dr. Chrilly Donninger who inspected the LIST source code and found it original. So if Reul was granted an appeal I don't understand your refusal for Rybka especially now that a sea of contra evidence is available.
  
  An alternative to the time consuming nature of an appeal is to follow the same procedure as the ICGA did in the LIST (Fritz Reul) case and ask an independent expert both sides agree on and his decision will be final. My suggestion would be Dr. Donninger again. As an intermediator I can lobby for the precedent you set in the LIST case with Vasik.

Nevertheless I think it wouldn't matter much. David was quite abrupt from the beginning. You might find my behaviour towards David vexatious, in reality it shows his unwillingness to a reasonal request with respect a precedent he set himself in the past with Reul.

I am guessing that email was from you to David not from Vas?

You are not guessing, you know Mark knows.

But now that you are here, isn't the request a reasonable one with the Reul case in mind?

I am afraid I don't know/remember as I don't live and breath this case 24/7 as you seem to. I have moved on and I am sure Vas has as well. The ICGA should look at the life sentence.

And Levy should resign. I already listed several reasons. Creating a Secretariat of unbelievable bias thus setting the tone for an unbearably biased "expert" report/verdict/sentence/personal attack overstepping any definition of "expert report" would be enough in itself. So I'll add that too. A CEO of any self-respecting commercial organisation with Levy's record would have stepped down long ago, taking his board with him. Wiser heads could then prevail in case Rajlich.

[syzygy]

Anyway the FIDE EC was quite clear on the poor quality of the David - Vas email exchange, quoting :

Levy was of the opinion that one should first decide on the guilt, and then on the punishment. But as the EC pointed out, there was a necessity of (explicitly) informing Rajlich of the possible penalties/sanctions. However, given that Rajlich knew it was clear that the ICGA had no intention of handling things in a fair manner, I can't think that such a "right to be heard" would be seen by him as anything more than perfunctory.

I'm not sure why you added the "however" sentence. Do you think it takes something away from the preceding sentence?

Whether or not it was reasonable of Rajlich to suspect that there was no intention of being fair, the ICGA should have properly communicated the possible penalties/sanctions. (Well... those sanctions should have been put on paper before the tournament, which would also have taken care of their proper communication, or not been imposed at all.)

If Rajlich's suspicion was not reasonable, then a proper conduct of the procedure would have ensured that the procedure would actually have been fair.

If Rajlich's suspicion was reasonable, then a proper conduct of the procedure would not have repaired that, but even then a proper conduct should be preferred over an improper one.

Hmm, you probably meant that communicating the sanctions would most likely not have made him more active in his defence and therefore would not have changed the final outcome (and Bob might add that the outcome would not have changed even if he had defended more actively). That may well be true, but at least courts don't find such speculation appropriate when it concerns fundamental violations of the right to a fair trial. One should always be open to the possibility that the accused comes up with a defense that improves the outcome for him.

[syzygy]

The MAIN thing wrong with that request is that it did NOT come from Vas. In most court systems, ONLY the accused can request any sort of appeal or re-hearing. Not disinterested third parties.

What a complete nonsense. It was submitted on behalf of Vas and that is sufficient. That it was also submitted in the name of other parties that were not considered to have an interest is irrelevant. (Actually those parties explained why they considered themselves to have an interest. This was not accepted by the EC, but that does not harm the case in any way. I guess one has to have had some legal training to understand such obvious things?)

I don't know if Vas signed a "power of attorney" or signed the letter himself, but if the EC had had any doubt it would certainly have asked for clarification.

I'm not quite sure what the argument is, but I thought [as evident from later parts of his post] that hyatt was talking about the (Aug 27) request by Schröder to the ICGA regarding an appeal et al. Given that (to my knowledge) Rajlich only sent an email to the ICGA regarding Schröder's capacity as his representative on Oct 5, I am not sure why the ICGA should accept anything Schröder says ("on behalf" of Vas or otherwise) before that? Maybe you two are talking about different things?

OK, I thought, most likely incorrectly, that this was still about the EC judgment.

I just took a look at the correspondence related to the request for an appeal.

Vas has no right to appeal at this stage, having refused all of our invitations to defend himself.

That is very clear and does not suggest in any way that it mattered whether Ed could show that he was authorised by Vas. Levy simply does not ask for an authorisation or any other kind of clarification.

If Levy had been willing to grant an appeal, he could have asked for some sort of authorisation if he doubted that the appeal was being requested on behalf of Vas.

If Levy was not willing to entertain a request for appeal unless he knew it was actually filed on behalf of Vas, he should have informed Ed accordingly.

If Levy, for whatever personal reasons, was not willing to deal specifically with Ed, he could have been explicit about that. Or he could have simply ignored his mail.

But he did none of that. He simply and clearly refused the request. (And in itself I find it perfectly reasonable to refuse a request for appeal if no appeal instance was foreseen in the first place.)

So, if the suggestion that "the MAIN thing wrong" is that "it did NOT come from Vas", then I am still puzzled by that suggestion.

[BB+]

I'm not sure why you added the "however" sentence. Do you think it takes something away from the preceding sentence?

It was probably just me being cynical, having seen (certainly in academia) how organisations can often be certain to meet various rules and procedures while at the same time doing so just as a formality, with no real intent therein other than to keep up appearances (in the extreme, the accused will refer to these methods as "Kafkaesque", and indeed might "boycott" the process the same way that the presumptive losers in South American elections will "boycott" the polls so as not to lend legitimacy --- it is not always easy to differentiate between actual fraudulence and a self-fulfilling prophecy). Or to phrase it after-the-factly: even if the ICGA had done everything by-the-book, Rajlich and his representatives would simply find something else to chatter about. [On the other hand, I do agree that as a professional organisation, the ICGA should be (much) more attuned to formalities].

Levy's lifetime ban [properly the ICGA's lifetime ban, though I think my phrasing here is closer to reality] was quite a surprise to me when it was announced, and largely seemed like publicity to me (furthering his imitation of "Olympian" ideas), though as I already said back in 2011, if Rajlich isn't interested in competing in future events, as a practical matter the issue is essentially moot. Perhaps too my upbringing in the US leads me to think that a "lifetime ban" (or the more severe "permanent ban") is usually a misnomer, indeed the Wikipedia page on baseball bannings explicitly mentions: Terms such as "lifetime ban" and "permanent ban" are misnomers, as a banned person may be reinstated (i.e., have the ban removed) on the decision of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, and in the case of Hall of Fame induction the ban can extend beyond a person's lifetime.

There are also ways of enforcing a "lifetime" ban without making it explicit. For instance, in 2008 Levy rejected the entry of KCC Paduk due to: past problems with [this] program in other computer Go tournaments, which dated back almost a decade (see the last paragraph before 1.1 here for more info and links to the evidence). Another example is Gian-Carlo Pascutto, who is a persona non grata over a dispute on whether he should have paid the commercial entry fee one year (the ICGA is demanding the difference of 250 euros I think, and he won't pay it, and thus would not be allowed to compete until this is resolved [he was partially interested in entering Sjeng in Tilburg 2011] -- undoubtedly a similar point would be made over Rajlich's 2010 prize monies).

So, if the suggestion that "the MAIN thing wrong" is that "it did NOT come from Vas", then I am still puzzled by that suggestion.

I am not going to put words in hyatt's mouth, but it seems that the "formal" issue of Schröder acting as Rajlich's representative could be considered the "MAIN" thing for the EC vis-a-vis Rajlich's appeal and the ICGA's possible ethical violations therein. However, I would think this would be remedied by the email of Oct 5. Levy, on the other hand, ignored any formalities, and already on Aug 27 stated (to Schröder) that no appeal was possible, and reiterated this to Rajlich on Oct 6. The stated reasons for the denial of appeal are predicated upon Rajlich's previous aloofness (and implicitly the lack of higher authority than the ICGA Board to which to address the appeal), but I might say that this is making the issue a bit terse: the side issues of repeated badgering (by Schröder) for the appeal, and moreover the lack of any citation of remotely viable grounds for the appeal -- both of these likely had some role in Levy's decision/wording.

Incidentally on the webpage for correspondence regarding the appeal one finds:

As evidence for that consider Mark Watkins remarks during the programmer meeting in Japan (2013) when he said, "The LOOP case is not so clear", he considered his previous statements as wrong and changed his mind.

This is simply false: I never said the quoted words (in any context AFAIK, and certainly not in comparison to Rybka/Fruit); furthermore they do not represent my opinion; and finally I consider my previous statements to be correct and have not "changed my mind." If these were put forth by Rajlich (through his representative) as grounds for an appeal [Oct 6 email to Levy], I would consider it to be a deliberate mischaracterisation.

And Levy should resign.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just buy out the ICGA election? It's got to be what, something like 50-100 votes at 40 euros a membership? Surely there's enough Rybka forum acolytes who would sign up for this... and as a bonus you could now revoke Hyatt's 1983/86 Championships! Sadly, the deadline for 2015 election candidates passed a few days before the EC decision arrived.

[BB+]

In practice we interpret carte blanche to mean that Ed and I brainstorm possible actions and make forum posts as we think fit. Before going beyond an idea for a plan and taking any action we consult Vas as to whether he agrees or not.

From this I infer that the breaching of the Panel privacy requirements was thus OK'd by Rajlich (cf. March 2015 publication on Rybka forum). Good to know, and indeed yet another reason why the ICGA should deny any appeal. [The purloining of said Panel discussions, and particularly subsequent "blackmail" attempts by Schröder therein, was a subject in Yokohama, and generally it seems that this type of behaviour is bound to ensure that the "Panel" is not going to be used in subsequent cases, at least not in the same form]. Should I also assume that various defamatory forum posts and/or web hostings by Schröder are also actionable as deriving from Rajlich?

[Rebel]

Incidentally on the webpage for correspondence regarding the appeal one finds:

As evidence for that consider Mark Watkins remarks during the programmer meeting in Japan (2013) when he said, "The LOOP case is not so clear", he considered his previous statements as wrong and changed his mind.

This is simply false: I never said the quoted words (in any context AFAIK, and certainly not in comparison to Rybka/Fruit); furthermore they do not represent my opinion; and finally I consider my previous statements to be correct and have not "changed my mind." If these were put forth by Rajlich (through his representative) as grounds for an appeal [Oct 6 email to Levy], I would consider it to be a deliberate mischaracterisation.

I don't have much time today, so lemme only respond on the above, the green.

Take it up with Jaap van den Herik, he is the source, your talks with him in Japan.

I have the email in front of me and it states:

Ed - "There is another thing that bothers me, the Fritz Reul Loop case. Contrary to Rybka this is an undoubtedly 100% clone. Now with Rybka the ICGA was able to setup a Panel within a couple of months after the Fabien Rybka complaint to the ICGA. The Fabien Loop complaint is now more than 2 years old and nothing yet has happened."

Jaap - i can imagine that it bothers you. I may admit that it bothers me too. you know that i eliminated the program List from the tournament in graz. thereafter we ( ICGA board) had a long discussion and many things happened. The result was that reul was given the opportunity to return. then even more things happened, he came to me to ask me for the possibility of being his supervisor which i did. I spoke in Yokohama with mark watkins and gave him the opportunity to tell his story to the assembled chess porgrammers. Mark did so and informed us on the state of affairs. from his point of view it was not as clear as you stated but there were pointers.

This in response to previous statements you made here (on this forum) Loop undoubtly being a Fruit clone.

to the assembled chess porgrammers, indicates there were witnesses.

I am not responsible for your miscommunications especially not when feed with contradictive statements.

Again, take it up with Jaap.

You are smart enough to realize the keyword Nintendo is worth a consideration.

[BB+]

I have the email in front of me and it states:

Yes, on October 1st you inquired to me about this email. It was about the time of your ChessVibes article, and I think I ignored it (I have no record of an outgoing email), as it was obvious you were deliberately interpreting Jaap's words to your own desire.

I am not responsible for your miscommunications especially not when feed with contradictive statements.

You are, however, responsible for deliberately twisting the words to your/Rajlich's advantage, quoting them incorrectly and out of context in an official(-ish) email to Levy.

There is another thing that bothers me, the Fritz Reul Loop case. Contrary to Rybka this is an undoubtedly 100% clone. ...

from his point of view it was not as clear as you stated

Here the phrase "as you stated" clearly referred to LOOP being "an undoubtedly 100% clone" as can be seen from your inquiry above. I agree with this, LOOP is not "100% clone" for the obvious reason that at the very least it is a bitboard rewriting, moreover it does have one or two new eval features (like a bonus for being on-tempo). And if one were to use the argumentation you use (or should I say "Rajlich uses", if you are indeed his representative?), then one could presumably enumerate up to "36 indisputable differences" in the evaluation (see page 58 of Rybka Reloaded PDF or your ChessVibes articles) including Fen parsing is different and Fruit has a 16*16 square mailbox, Rybka has an 8*8. [Note that Riis only had 10 "evaluation differences" in his original article (page 15-17), though I disputed all but at most 3-4 of these (page 7 of my rebuttal), and he later copied the first 21 of your enumeration into his follow-up in Entertainment Computing].

Let's review this again: At Yokohama, I gave a presentation to the 6 programmers, about clones in general, and mentioned LOOP. You later wrote to Jaap about LOOP, called it "an undoubtedly 100% clone", to which he replied that [MarkW said] from his point of view it was not as clear as you stated. You then relayed this to Levy as: As evidence for that consider Mark Watkins remarks during the programmer meeting in Japan (2013) when he said, "The LOOP case is not so clear", he considered his previous statements as wrong and changed his mind. See how you conveniently (as Rajlich's representative) ignored Jaap's words "as you stated", and put quotes around something I never said! My best recollection is that what I said is "LOOP is essentially a bitboard rewrite of Fruit, with a few minor changes."

The Fabien Loop complaint is now more than 2 years old and nothing yet has happened.

Part of the reason is that Reul has not (yet) been able to be contacted. Whereas Rajlich was sentenced in absentia only in the mind of Riis (and indeed, in the above article he repeats this error, even though both Levy and I corrected him in our rebuttals to his original ChessBase piece), Reul's case does seem that it will end up being that way.

La lucha continua.

Do you mean this, or La lucha continúa? The first means "The endless fight", while the second means "The fight continues"... Then again, I guess "I am not responsible for your miscommunications"...

[BB+]

Sorry, I should have specifically addressed this one too:

As evidence for that consider Mark Watkins remarks during the programmer meeting in Japan (2013) when he said, "The LOOP case is not so clear", he considered his previous statements as wrong and changed his mind.

Your source for this being an email of Jaap's, which said

I spoke in Yokohama with mark watkins and gave him the opportunity to tell his story to the assembled chess porgrammers. Mark did so and informed us on the state of affairs. from his point of view it was not as clear as you stated but there were pointers.

From Jaap's words, how exactly do you derive [MarkW] considered his previous statements as wrong and changed his mind ??

You are purposefully stretching Jaap's words beyond any possible imagination (after first removing them from the "undoubtedly 100% clone" context), simply to serve your own purposes. In any event, Levy was himself in Yokohama, and would likely have been aware that you were simply lying (or making up some story, based upon on a thoroughly dubious reading of Jaap's email) on Rajlich's behalf regarding my opinions. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously at this point?

This in response to previous statements you made here (on this forum) Loop undoubtly being a Fruit clone.

I cannot find any such statement by myself. I can only find you using that phrase in your email to Jaap.

My best recollection is that what I said is "LOOP is essentially a bitboard rewrite of Fruit, with a few minor changes."

I might point out that Amir Ban interrupted me on this, and he and SMK had an extended side discussion about whether (or to what extent) doing a bitboard rewrite of Fruit would be "legal", both from the "Nintendo" (copyright) standpoint and also concerning ICGA's Rule #2 on originality.

[Rebel]

This in response to previous statements you made here (on this forum) Loop undoubtly being a Fruit clone.

I cannot find any such statement by myself. I can only find you using that phrase in your email to Jaap.

Let's see what we have -

1. On this forum - I made a cursory glance at Loop 2007 (the 64-bit version). It uses exactly the same PST as Fruit 2.1. The pawn eval uses the same scores. It shifts the mobility count as with Fruit (by 4,6,7,13) before multiplying, and then the arithmetic is the same (4 for N, 5 for B). I'm not that interested in going further.

2. From the Panel discussion - though with now Loop 2007 looming (which seems even more obviously a Fruit/Toga clone),

Then following the words of Jaap we read -

1. I spoke in Yokohama with mark watkins and gave him the opportunity to tell his story to the assembled chess porgrammers. Mark did so and informed us on the state of affairs. from his point of view it was not as clear as you stated but there were pointers.

2. i admit i was interested in true facts and i spoke to mark watkins. amir ban went into discussion with mark, and a few other people from the audience too. the oral formulation of a kind of conclusion was that there is not a convincing proof, moreover there was a discussion to what extent .... . in brief, it was not clear whether the monks were equal, they might be similar, but the weighing of the proportional part was too difficult for the "audience judges".

----------

So which one of you is telling the truth?

Was Jaap truthful when he stated, "from his [Mark Watkins] point of view it was not as clear as you stated but there were pointers." It obviously conflicts your earlier statements about LOOP, calling it a clone.

Here is the deal, I am more than willing to change the page that annoys you with the answer you give, but you can't be both right.

[Rebel]

You are purposefully stretching Jaap's words beyond any possible imagination (after first removing them from the "undoubtedly 100% clone" context), simply to serve your own purposes. In any event, Levy was himself in Yokohama, and would likely have been aware that you were simply lying (or making up some story, based upon on a thoroughly dubious reading of Jaap's email) on Rajlich's behalf regarding my opinions. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously at this point?

Your loyalty to the ICGA is heartbreaking, you were played.