Oh, I finally get it, since it's the person who is getting excluded, and not the software, now, it's irrelevant if Rybka 4.1 and future versions are clean, since proof that Rybka 1.6.1 is a clone of Crafty would be enough to exclude Vas.
That's the argument of some, particularly those who favour an "author-based" approach rather than one based merely on entries. Namely, once an author is found to be "cloning", said author should be excluded until such matters are cleared up, apologies are rendered, etc. The example of ElChinito [and maybe List] comes to mind as a precedent for this. However, given the
ex post facto nature of much of the Fruit/Rybka question, there seems to be greater inclination than might be otherwise for an "entry"-based diagnosis [which from my standpoint at least means a lot of extra gruntwork]. I fully expect that the ICGA would not accept a
future entry from Rajlich until the Crafty/Fruit episodes are satisfactorily resolved to their mind -- this is my interpretation of the intent of Statute [3h][iii] as quoted above. But as Bob (and others) have pointed out, trying to figure out if/how to re-write the tournament history would be a somewhat different matter.
Good, fast, cheap -- choose two...
Thorough, documented... And if it turns out that either of the Turin/Amsterdam WCCC entries from Rajlich differed from the commercial versions, I expect to get another load of work.
Even the question of whether the Paderborn entry (late Dec 2005) was "sufficiently close" to Rybka 1.0 Beta (early Dec 2005) has been raised.