FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Rebel]

This is poppycock. Ed stated on more than one occasion that he had made "a complete backup of the Wiki" even though he had formally left and stopped participating. He's published bits and pieces multiple times. So this "anonymous person" is pure bullshit.

Yes, I published bits and pieces. See thread Wiki leaks at RF.

Are you implying more than that?

[Chris Whittington]

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?

Wrong on several counts.

No you can't infer anything other than a signed document or a formal appeal/approach/complaint to an external body is agreed by Vas Rajlich. Forum posts don't require Rajlich approval, those are independent postings as I and Ed have been making on forums since 1995 on and off.

Secondly you have no idea at all as to the source of the panel discussion leak. User Trotsky stated that he was sent a PM with a link into the sky from an unknown account which has never posted before or since. Could have been any disgruntled panel member. Accusations against Ed merely show your bias. Each shown piece of your bias detracts from the alleged impartiality status of COMP EVAL, a document involving weird metrications to incrimate Rajlich and depending on a curious choice of six comparison programs, chosen by you, some very weird and often incorrect categorisations of program elements, chosen by you, and some highly subjective little numbers, also chosen by you. But please feel free to continue showing dislike of Vas and anyone associated with him and cherry pickign internet quotes to justify actions against him and reason for not putting those right .... we will use the sample examples you have provided.

This is poppycock. Ed stated on more than one occasion that he had made "a complete backup of the Wiki" even though he had formally left and stopped participating. He's published bits and pieces multiple times. So this "anonymous person" is pure bullshit.

BTW was your last statement made to Ed or to Mark? Because Ed has made a statement and then attributed it to mark, and then tried to use that statement (which Mark did not make as given) to suggest Mark had then changed his mind about loop. Mark just pieced together the conversation to show how it was distorted by leaving out context.

I'm having problems parsing your last paragraph. Too convoluted.

First para. Whether Ed made back ups or not is not relevent. User Trotsky stated he received a link to a site in the sky via an anonymous PM from a poster who had never posted before or afterwards. That anonymous source could have been anybody on the panel, or even someone who received the data from some one on the panel. Nobody has any idea. Yet, Mark Watkins states firmly it was Ed, as does biased Hyatt (no surprise there) when there is insufficient EVIDENCE to make that assertion. This demonstrates a BIASED view. We know in Hyatt case that bias entes into all his comments, and his comments and work on the case have to be suspect. In Watkins case, demonstrations of bias become problematical for the integrity of the EVAL COMP document into which he was able to put much influencial subjective input. The comparator programs. The defined program components to be compared. The little numbers that supposedly defined the "similarities".

[Harvey Williamson]

Perhaps Jaap misunderstood part of the discussion but my recollection of it is as Mark has posted.

I think the misunderstanding is at least 90% that of Mr. Schröder.

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

I think if Vas was to directly contact the ICGA it could be worked out. Perhaps the sentence could be reduced to 3 years and Vas will be able to enter future world championships providing past winnings and trophies are returned. He might of course have to have his current source examined by an agreeable 3rd party.

The bottom line here is put up or shut up. The verdict will not change the sentence might. If you want to take it further go to court otherwise nothing will change.

[Chris Whittington]

Perhaps Jaap misunderstood part of the discussion but my recollection of it is as Mark has posted.

I think the misunderstanding is at least 90% that of Mr. Schröder.

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

I think if Vas was to directly contact the ICGA it could be worked out. Perhaps the sentence could be reduced to 3 years and Vas will be able to enter future world championships providing past winnings and trophies are returned. He might of course have to have his current source examined by an agreeable 3rd party.

The bottom line here is put up or shut up. The verdict will not change the sentence might. If you want to take it further go to court otherwise nothing will change.

Neither you nor Hyatt are authorised negotiators or bearers of offers from the icga. Thai is proven after your constant "offers" that if Vas were to apply for an appeal it would be granted, only to be overruled by Levy stating that no appeal would be entertained whether from Vas or not. The bottom line therefore is that YOU can shut up with "proposals" that have no validity. The non-proposal outlined is in any case unsatisfactory and inadequate.

If ICGA wish to negotiate with Vas Rajlich they should approach his negotiators, myself and Ed.

[Harvey Williamson]

Neither you nor Hyatt are authorised negotiators or bearers of offers from the icga. Thai is proven after your constant "offers" that if Vas were to apply for an appeal it would be granted, only to be overruled by Levy stating that no appeal would be entertained whether from Vas or not. The bottom line therefore is that YOU can shut up with "proposals" that have no validity. The non-proposal outlined is in any case unsatisfactory and inadequate.

If ICGA wish to negotiate with Vas Rajlich they should approach his negotiators, myself and Ed.

So you make my point Vas will not directly contact the ICGA. So the case is closed and nothing will change. If in the so called previous appeal Vas had made it directly I would have supported it. He did not so I did not. Now the discussion is about the sentence and if Vas directly contacts the ICGA I would support that discussion taking place.

[Chris Whittington]

Neither you nor Hyatt are authorised negotiators or bearers of offers from the icga. Thai is proven after your constant "offers" that if Vas were to apply for an appeal it would be granted, only to be overruled by Levy stating that no appeal would be entertained whether from Vas or not. The bottom line therefore is that YOU can shut up with "proposals" that have no validity. The non-proposal outlined is in any case unsatisfactory and inadequate.

If ICGA wish to negotiate with Vas Rajlich they should approach his negotiators, myself and Ed.

So you make my point Vas will not directly contact the ICGA. So the case is closed and nothing will change. If in the so called previous appeal Vas had made it directly I would have supported it. He did not so I did not. Now the discussion is about the sentence and if Vas directly contacts the ICGA I would support that discussion taking place.

as you know perfectly well, Rule 2 (of that date) allows ONLY for invalidation of the program AT the tournament in question. It does not allow for bans of any duration, interference in tournament results or anything else, other than program invalidation, that tournament only. We'll see if icga does the RIGHT THING. So far, from comments from associated persons, that seems unlikely.

[Rebel]

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

Ah, it's you again with your selective memory.

History check -

I have dwelled over a 20 year period in several (7-9) ICGA tournaments. I have heard things not meant for my ears, saw things I was not supposed to see. And then came the Panel validation and I knew what kind of justice was coming my way. And I don't buy it for a moment you can not remember the simple question I asked you. Did you (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not? Then came the idiotic verdict. And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first before any definite measures were taken and rushed to the keyboard.

You guys hurt people.

[Harvey Williamson]

Agreed. Sadly Ed is prepared to bend the truth to whatever outcome Chris commands. Vas, probably, has no idea what Ed and Chris are doing, supposedly, in his name.

Ah, it's you again with your selective memory.

History check -

I have dwelled over a 20 year period in several (7-9) ICGA tournaments. I have heard things not meant for my ears, saw things I was not supposed to see. And then came the Panel validation and I knew what kind of justice was coming my way. And I don't buy it for a moment you can not remember the simple question I asked you. Did you (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not? Then came the idiotic verdict. And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first before any definite measures were taken and rushed to the keyboard.

You guys hurt people.

The case is closed. Get a life.

[Harvey Williamson]

as you know perfectly well, Rule 2 (of that date) allows ONLY for invalidation of the program AT the tournament in question. It does not allow for bans of any duration, interference in tournament results or anything else, other than program invalidation, that tournament only. We'll see if icga does the RIGHT THING. So far, from comments from associated persons, that seems unlikely.

So put up or shut up the case is closed except for discussion about the sentence. And then only with Vas directly.

[Chris Whittington]

as you know perfectly well, Rule 2 (of that date) allows ONLY for invalidation of the program AT the tournament in question. It does not allow for bans of any duration, interference in tournament results or anything else, other than program invalidation, that tournament only. We'll see if icga does the RIGHT THING. So far, from comments from associated persons, that seems unlikely.

So put up or shut up the case is closed except for discussion about the sentence. And then only with Vas directly.

It si already proven that you are not an appointed negotiator. What you say has no force. If Levy wants to send messages via you he will need to state so. Else YOU shut up