FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[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.

The case is closed. Get a life.

You (or Bob, or Lefler) did consult David about Chris subscription to the Panel. Yes or No?

You (Bob and Lefler) were too much involved not to remember this crucial question.

So you or Bob simply can tell.

This, "I don't remember tactic" only works in Hollywod productions.

[hyatt]

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?

Can you read? Chris wants to use this "some anonymous person". Not very many "anonymous people" had access to the Wiki. You seemed to have copied it in violation of the AUP of the Wiki. I can add 2 + 2 pretty easily.

[hyatt]

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".

User "trotsky" is pretty stupid if he believes that anyone is going to buy that crap sandwich, much less actually eat it.

It doesn't demonstrate a biased view by either Mark or myself. It shows a reasonable degree of common sense and logical deduction skills. I mean you guys have not exactly taken the "high road" to this point, so there is no reasonable expectation that will suddenly change. You like to twist, distort, take out of context and even make up fictitious stuff as you go along...

[hyatt]

Ditto for you guys and Vas. HE can do whatever he wants. You can do nothing. Until HE makes the decision to approach the ICGA nothing is going to change. You guys can whine and complain all you want. You just produce noise however. And it reminds me of the old question "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present, does it make any noise?" You guys are NOT the ones that are going to get any attention from the ICGA. YOU guys are not going to get any attention from a court. YOU guys are not going to get any attention from anybody other than your "self-whiner" group on the RF.

If you want to do something constructive, talk to Vas and get HIM to do something.

Otherwise the whole damned forest can fall down and it won't make a single sound.

[hyatt]

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.

You (or Bob, or Lefler) did consult David about Chris subscription to the Panel. Yes or No?

You (Bob and Lefler) were too much involved not to remember this crucial question.

So you or Bob simply can tell.

This, "I don't remember tactic" only works in Hollywod productions.

I certainly was asked about Chris. I spent a good bit of time trying to track down the emails from when we corresponded in the 90's. I could find nothing that matched the email in question. By the time I got that far, he had left in a huff. This was in 2011. Our emails dated back to the early 90's. That is a BUNCH of dvds to go through, and it takes time since they are not exactly speedy devices. I did not give this a 24/7 priority, we were involved in setting up the panel, I was teaching classes, and whatever else goes on around here that I have to deal with. Some took over a week to track down. He was not willing to wait. So yes I was involved. I can't speak directly for Mark/Harvey without going back through old emails again, which I don't intend to do. But at least one if not both were actively asking questions about the email address. Chris has not exactly had a clean past regarding emails so we could not be sure whether that was really him or not. At least until he stormed off with his little hitlers comment which convinced me, although a bit too late...

For me, I am old enough to set my own priorities, which I do. And while we were doing our best to get panel members accepted and included, it was not the #1 priority for anybody I don't think. We tried to do it in a timely way, but we did not go non-stop on this stuff to the detriment of our primary jobs...

[andreio]

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.

Why the illeism?

[hyatt]

If you were him would you want to refer to YOURSELF in 1st person?

Or even at all?

[BB+]

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). ... [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].

Secondly you have no idea at all as to the source of the panel discussion leak. ... Accusations against Ed merely show your bias.

Yet, Mark Watkins states firmly it was Ed ...

Your reading comprehension underwhelms me. I never accused (nor "stated firmly") Mr. Schröder of being the "source" of the Mar 2015 Rybka forum panel discussion leak (done by Trotsky/Whittington). I merely stated that Schröder had "blackmailed" various persons back in 2012/3 regarding this, and that the topic was brought up in Yokohama, particularly as to how this might affect the Panel in working with LOOP.

BTW, now that you spoken out, I have removed the text you took offense.

I don't see why you did After all, it was part of your email (as Rajlich's representative) to Levy, and thus part of the procedural history. A better option would have been to put a sidenote/footnote somewhere on the page saying "MarkW disputes the veracity of this account"...

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

I don't think the ICGA has any reason to accept Schröder and Whittington as representatives of Rajlich. If you want to drum up the "court" analogy again, leaking private documents (a la Trotsky/Whittington) would likely lead to disbarment, though admittedly the activities of Schröder [purloining these and then haranguing others about them] might only be seen as "contempt". Given these prior actions (among others), it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the ICGA would not accept either to act as Rajlich's representative.

Did you [Harvey] (or Bob or Lefler) consulted David to allow Chris (a critic) in or not?

Yes, they did. If you recall the history, ChrisW contacted me regarding his temporary ban from the Panel, and I was then involved in some circular emails with the above four. In particular, Levy was consulted by the Secretariat regarding the application of ChrisW, particularly the subsequent difficulties therein.

And you guys were deaf for Watkins plea to investigate R3 first

This is not my recollection. My opinion was that the ICGA should "move forward" (end the Panel Investigation) regarding the 2006-7 entries, and then if Rajlich had not sufficiently addressed the situation by (say) the next WCCC, then actions regarding later entries should be contemplated. I don't think I was ever eager to have the Panel "investigate R3" (even if I had already done lots of work vis-a-vis the R3/IPPOLIT), one reason being that it was not freely available to all Panel members.

[Chris Whittington]

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?

Can you read? Chris wants to use this "some anonymous person". Not very many "anonymous people" had access to the Wiki. You seemed to have copied it in violation of the AUP of the Wiki. I can add 2 + 2 pretty easily.

"anonymous" means unsigned PM from unknown source.

it is not logical to stretch that simple description to the source being generally anonymous. obviously he/she isn't, else wouldn't have panel access.

Sent anonymously. It's quite a simple concept

[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?

Can you read? Chris wants to use this "some anonymous person".

And there we go again, why is this untruthful? Because it's Chris who says it?

There was indeed a document circulating on the internet (dropbox, mediafire or so) and someone notified me, I downloaded it and it wasn't mine. My copy is in IE *mht (page by page) format, that one was (all in one) PDF version IIRC. And no, I am not going to tell you who notified me.

Not very many "anonymous people" had access to the Wiki. You seemed to have copied it in violation of the AUP of the Wiki. I can add 2 + 2 pretty easily.

Let's refresh your memory and see what an ugly (yet fascinating) guy you are at times.

I have stated that for historical reasons I would document every detail of this low point in the history of computer chess, hence my pages. And I was missing the Panel deliberations. While going through them after 3-4 times I noticed there was nothing that couldn't see the dayight, just technical stuff, no insults, nothing that folks possibly would like to retract. So in a group mail I asked (each of) the Panel members if they had an objection to document their input for reasons of transparency and being accountable for their reasoning that led to their vote. And I got mixed reactions. Some had no problem among them Ken. Some needed to think it over. Some were flat-out against it. In the end I felt I had too little to work on and I informed the Panel members I dropped the idea.

Then let's review how you twisted my words, intentions.

1. Lie one.
2. Quoting out of context.
3. Lie two.

And now recently the word is out after all while the PDF document is IIRC at least 1-1½ year old.