David Levy responds to Chessbase's response to ICGA verdict

[MoldyJacket]

Sure didn’t live up to the explosive hype forecast by some. In spite of the obvious attempts to inflate the issue and inject innuendo, Dr. Levy remained clear and direct.

[wgarvin]

Good job by David Levy. A lot of the questions seemed biased, but I guess that is to be expected. His answers were clear and to the point.

[hyatt]

Good job by David Levy. A lot of the questions seemed biased, but I guess that is to be expected. His answers were clear and to the point.

Most of the questions were almost more "innuendo" than "query". To be expected. Some trace back directly to Ed/Chris. Some might notice one particular question that uses a very common "Ed-ism". In any case, I thought the response was well-done. David formed the answers, then we were asked to review them, particularly if they needed any technical bolstering, which most did not... Ed was expecting something "dramatic" from part 2. Didn't happen, however.

Wonder if he realizes that he is doing Vas WAY more harm than good, by keeping this discussion going, rather than letting it die out and the bad memories fade... With friends like him, Chris, banned for life, Sorin Riis, AP (not going to try to spell such a ridiculous name), Vas really does not need any enemies... They are NOT helping his cause one scintilla...

[lmader]

I'm actually rather impressed that Chessbase engaged in posting this interview with David Levy. It's remarkable to me that they are providing a forum for the ICGA to give detailed explanations about the case against VR. This opens up the issue very publicly, and allows for strong information and detailed rationale about the decision to be aired. They don't seem to be trying to hush it up or sweep it under the carpet, and given that they sell the product (Rybka), this seems pretty cool.

I wonder, wasn't Frederich Friedel involved in the investigation panel somehow? Perhaps he wants this opened up because he has a sense about the veracity of the evidence?

[K I Hyams]

Sure didn’t live up to the explosive hype forecast by some. In spite of the obvious attempts to inflate the issue and inject innuendo, Dr. Levy remained clear and direct.

My impression about the latest series of questions is that they quickly became ragged and the answers were solid enough to deny the opportunity for damaging follow up questions. Aware that my impression might be less than objective, I asked my wife, who is not well versed in the matter, to read and offer comments. Her verdict was that Levy appeared calm and competent.

What you see depends on where you are standing and so I have just been across to the Rybka site to get an alternative perspective. At the time of writing this, the comments in the topic “Levy speaks part 2” show no evidence that Rajlich’s apologists think that the questioning helped their case.

[hyatt]

Sure didn’t live up to the explosive hype forecast by some. In spite of the obvious attempts to inflate the issue and inject innuendo, Dr. Levy remained clear and direct.

My impression about the latest series of questions is that they quickly became ragged and the answers were solid enough to deny the opportunity for damaging follow up questions. Aware that my impression might be less than objective, I asked my wife, who is not well versed in the matter, to read and offer comments. Her verdict was that Levy appeared calm and competent.

What you see depends on where you are standing and so I have just been across to the Rybka site to get an alternative perspective. At the time of writing this, the comments in the topic “Levy speaks part 2” show no evidence that Rajlich’s apologists think that the questioning helped their case.

From long-ago debating coach advice, when a debate swings to personal issues, the side "swinging" has lost. You can see the antagonism in the questions, the way they are phrased, the way they appear to be real questions, but in reality are nothing but innuendo/accusation comments in disguise. The questions got worse as they were formed. For the record, David was sent 2-3 questions at a time. He framed the answers, several of us reviewed and made a suggestion here and there, then he fired the response back to them. And then after a couple of days, 2-3 more questions. Repeated for the entire interview. I suppose they got more and more frustrated as the thing progressed, to the point of trying to instigate some sort of melt-down / name-calling, but it didn't happen...

ChessBase had to admit that "outsiders" had helped, after Ed posted his statement... I don't buy his "one question" unless the question he quoted here (or in CCC, wherever it was discussed) was a fabrication, because there is another question in the list with a word that only he uses... incorrect usage as it is...

[wgarvin]

I also thought it was funny that they tried to make it sound as if David Levy was taking several days to answer each of their questions, and that was the reason the interview took so long. Based on what Bob posted, and a few posts I read this morning on talkchess, I am inclined to believe the delays were mostly on the Chessbase side. I suppose it took time for them to send Levy's responses off to Chris, Ed, et al. and wait for their suggestions of what to ask next.

Either way, I don't really care -- I'm glad Chessbase published it at all, because even with their evident bias I really don't think it helped advance the pro-Rybka agenda much, and if there are any chess fans out there who visit the Chessbase site but were genuinely unaware of the events Levy described, then they might have learned something from his answers.