FIDE Rules on ICGA - Rybka controversy

[Chris Whittington]

Apologies here, and I'm timed out to be able to edit. I used the expression "dungbeetle" a Rybka Forum term, for Harvey, forgetting this is open-chess, and I shoudl have used his proper name. Apologies to the forum.

Apology accepted However I have got used to you calling me that as a term of endearment.

I wasn't apologising to you. My apology was directed to the forum.

Rolf has neatly extended the "term of endearment", don't you think?

[Rebel]

In fact, we had decided to accept that email but by the time everyone concurred you had left. And you DID "leave in a huff." And Ed left right behind you. It is always "in your way, on your time-frame, etc." I have to wait on others all the time. I have joined message boards where it took 2-3 weeks for approval. I don't expect everyone to work according to MY time frame. You should do the same. Then you would have been on the panel and at least THAT point would not be up for discussion. But we weren't fast enough for you, even though we had 30-40 applications to deal with. Not to mention other responsibilities. That seems to be more an issue of your lack of patience rather than our lack of interest.

Just tell the truth for a change so we can bury this subject. Chris subscribed and you guys went into panic mode. Consulted David. And in the meantime (the next days) I saw others approved. Then you guys came up with this poor excuse the delay was about identification of Chris while a) I already told you were connected to Chris and b) you answered Chris with -

From: Robert Hyatt <....>
To: chrisw......@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:54:17
Subject: Re: Wikispaces request to join icga from chriswhittington

here we go.



--------

Indicating you very well knew who was subscribing.

You guys were buying time, right?

I have explained that email once. I will do so again, for the last time.

UAB had made several attempts to combine several schools into one college. For reasons most of us never bought in on. The first time it came up a huge debate erupted about promotion and tenure, and how can we have uniform rules when the disciplines are so different. For example, a science department writes journal and conference proceedings articles and applies for research funding that is peer-reviewed. What about a music department? When they compose a musical score is that equivalent to a journal article? A conference article? What about a nursing department? History? English? I went through that discussion when I was at USM. And it happened again. This died down. Then along comes the decision to form the college of arts and sciences even though nobody was against it. I simply pointed out that this is once again going to degenerate into a promotion/tenure/publication debate. And about the time the panel was being formed, I had just gotten an email from a faculty friend that sent me an excerpt from a discussion that had just re-started on this topic. I was in the process of replying to him, when the email from either Mark or David showed up. My "here we go" went to that email by pure accident. In retrospect, HAD it been intentional, it would have been quite prophetic don't you think? But it was really nothing more than my communication to another faculty member here indicating that we were obviously going to have this debate yet one more time, when it had NEVER been settled previously.

If "here we go" is that damning a statement to you, you have serious problems. I don't do that very often, but I have sent email to the wrong recipients on occasion. In the past three months our dean has done it three times and then sent out "cancellation requests" for those emails. It happens. It does not mean any dark plot is afoot.

The only time _I_ tried to buy was enough time to search through old emails to match the one Chris used. I could not find that email address ANYWHERE. I believe what I had was somehow related to oxford or oxfortsoft or something similar. And just that search took forever. You should try copying 4.5 gigabyte chunks of old emails, then unzipping them, then trying to search through them for an email you are not sure how to spell. My .signature has not changed in years. Search for "Hyatt" is good enough since that has always been my UAB and USM username. For Chris? Who knows. Chris. ChrisW. Trotsky. I don't remember all the names he has used. So yes, for me at least, it took time. Time that eventually led to "I have no record of that email, sorry." For most user applications, David was involved. For many we would tell him how we confirmed, for a couple he confirmed for us, etc. And while there might have been some approved while he was pending, there were a couple that were pending for far longer than his. And they didn't leave in a huff, they waited patiently and politely, something that would have easily gotten him on the panel.

Nonsense.

I just read the correspondence again.

Even the "little hitlers" excuse is false (which more or less became the excuse for the preemptive ban) because it wasn't directed at you but to the CCC mods hunting people by their IP address. So Chris wasn't willing to give his IP address for protection of his privacy, something you have your mouth full. And from the correspondence it's crystal clear you (Bob) knew who was talking to you. On top of that you ignored my confirmation.

But of course you will jump sky high when I would suggest to put the whole correspondence in the open and the dirty game that followed. Not to mention your personal bias against Chris (in RF) that he only would be an obstacle (or similar wordings) for the Panel when approved.

[hyatt]

It was noticed Ed was copying stuff from the Wiki and pasting on a forum. When we noticed we kicked Ed out of the wiki and the posts stopped. Ed, as you claim to be an honourable man, you can deny this if you want and I will accept your denial?

What denial?

Yesterday I posted I (at the time) started a thread on Rybka forum called Wiki leaks.

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=24065

Read my crime.

In my view the CC community has a right to know certain things, such as what the risks are participating in an ICGA tournament where the silver and bronze medalist are given the right to judge the gold medal winner. As such I was happy to serve as a whistleblower and your ban actually was a compliment.

I have attended these events many times. I was accused of cheating exactly once and evidence was 100% clear that was false. Didn't deter me from continuing to compete. I don't think it would deter ANY "non-cheater" from continuing to cheat. I think everyone hopes that these kinds of actions DO discourage the cheaters / copiers / etc from attending. IE Houdini... And it seems to be working...

[hyatt]

Nonsense.

I just read the correspondence again.

Even the "little hitlers" excuse is false (which more or less became the excuse for the preemptive ban) because it wasn't directed at you but to the CCC mods hunting people by their IP address. So Chris wasn't willing to give his IP address for protection of his privacy, something you have your mouth full. And from the correspondence it's crystal clear you (Bob) knew who was talking to you. On top of that you ignored my confirmation.

But of course you will jump sky high when I would suggest to put the whole correspondence in the open and the dirty game that followed. Not to mention your personal bias against Chris (in RF) that he only would be an obstacle (or similar wordings) for the Panel when approved.
User avatar
Rebel

Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:45 pm

Sorry. The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC. As far as the confirmation stuff goes, YOU could not give us a confirmation. This was something we had to do ourselves. As far as MY emails go, you can post whatever you want. I'm not a coward that hides behind a claim of privacy like, for example, Trotsky. There was no "dirty game" anywhere in the process. It is always amusing that someone "outside" the process presumes themselves to know _exactly_ what went on inside the process. Which means it is ALL based on pure assumptions, no facts at all. I'll see if I still have the "little hitlers" email, or if Harvey/Mike/David do. I don't mind posting such when it directly refutes false statements being made.

I notice _he_ has not chimed in here as he knows what he wrote.

[Chris Whittington]

What motive do _I_ have? You have never scored a single point with me. I could have listed several reasons why I personally thought you should not be on the panel, but I didn't. Very first thing that comes to mind is a lack of character. You have tried multiple times to rewrite history. In the rolf case I pointed out I had the emails at the time. You immediately started the "you do NOT have my permission to post any of my private emails..." Because you KNEW you had been had at that point.

Calm down and stop being insulting. This forum has a reputation for being able to accommodate differing views in discussion because the participants behave in a reasonably civil way to each other. You seem to be doing your best to provoke and render the discussion into chaos. Save that for talkchess, where that strategy works well for you.

Your motive was to stop the one technical person with a good track record of standing against Hyatt bombast and also known to consider the case against Rybka to be faulty. I guess you simply wanted to drive through the desired guilty verdict without much in the way of opposition. There's your motive.

*

[Chris Whittington]

In fact, we had decided to accept that email but by the time everyone concurred you had left. And you DID "leave in a huff." And Ed left right behind you. It is always "in your way, on your time-frame, etc." I have to wait on others all the time. I have joined message boards where it took 2-3 weeks for approval. I don't expect everyone to work according to MY time frame. You should do the same. Then you would have been on the panel and at least THAT point would not be up for discussion. But we weren't fast enough for you, even though we had 30-40 applications to deal with. Not to mention other responsibilities. That seems to be more an issue of your lack of patience rather than our lack of interest.

Just tell the truth for a change so we can bury this subject. Chris subscribed and you guys went into panic mode. Consulted David. And in the meantime (the next days) I saw others approved. Then you guys came up with this poor excuse the delay was about identification of Chris while a) I already told you were connected to Chris and b) you answered Chris with -

From: Robert Hyatt <....>
To: chrisw......@yahoo.com
Sent: Thu, 24 February, 2011 18:54:17
Subject: Re: Wikispaces request to join icga from chriswhittington

here we go.



--------

Indicating you very well knew who was subscribing.

You guys were buying time, right?

I have explained that email once. I will do so again, for the last time.

UAB had made several attempts to combine several schools into one college. For reasons most of us never bought in on. The first time it came up a huge debate erupted about promotion and tenure, and how can we have uniform rules when the disciplines are so different. For example, a science department writes journal and conference proceedings articles and applies for research funding that is peer-reviewed. What about a music department? When they compose a musical score is that equivalent to a journal article? A conference article? What about a nursing department? History? English? I went through that discussion when I was at USM. And it happened again. This died down. Then along comes the decision to form the college of arts and sciences even though nobody was against it. I simply pointed out that this is once again going to degenerate into a promotion/tenure/publication debate. And about the time the panel was being formed, I had just gotten an email from a faculty friend that sent me an excerpt from a discussion that had just re-started on this topic. I was in the process of replying to him, when the email from either Mark or David showed up. My "here we go" went to that email by pure accident. In retrospect, HAD it been intentional, it would have been quite prophetic don't you think? But it was really nothing more than my communication to another faculty member here indicating that we were obviously going to have this debate yet one more time, when it had NEVER been settled previously.

If "here we go" is that damning a statement to you, you have serious problems. I don't do that very often, but I have sent email to the wrong recipients on occasion. In the past three months our dean has done it three times and then sent out "cancellation requests" for those emails. It happens. It does not mean any dark plot is afoot.

The only time _I_ tried to buy was enough time to search through old emails to match the one Chris used. I could not find that email address ANYWHERE. I believe what I had was somehow related to oxford or oxfortsoft or something similar. And just that search took forever. You should try copying 4.5 gigabyte chunks of old emails, then unzipping them, then trying to search through them for an email you are not sure how to spell. My .signature has not changed in years. Search for "Hyatt" is good enough since that has always been my UAB and USM username. For Chris? Who knows. Chris. ChrisW. Trotsky. I don't remember all the names he has used. So yes, for me at least, it took time. Time that eventually led to "I have no record of that email, sorry." For most user applications, David was involved. For many we would tell him how we confirmed, for a couple he confirmed for us, etc. And while there might have been some approved while he was pending, there were a couple that were pending for far longer than his. And they didn't leave in a huff, they waited patiently and politely, something that would have easily gotten him on the panel.

Let's see now, who was involved as prime mover in each little episode ....

sends rude email: "here we go" in response to the application. Hyatt.
doesn't apologise for the rude email. Hyatt.
takes it apon himself to be email checker. Hyatt.
unable to check against 4.5 Gbytes of emails. Hyatt.
takes two days to not check. Hyatt.
rejects Ed's confirmation of the original email address. Hyatt.
pretends "little hitlers" was said about Secretariat and/or icga when it wasn't. Hyatt.
has track record of long and difficult arguing with Chris. Hyatt.

meanwhile, Lefler claimed he didn't know who Chris was, so he appears ro have no motive. Dungbeetle unlikely to care too much and anyway, just goes wit the flow. Levy not that stupid, would have waited for a good excuse later, if necessary, and made a ban.

Hyatt, you are guilty of deliberately sabotaging my application to the panel because you know perfectly well, that, when you are wrong, but trying to drive your points home, I am one of the most effective opponents around to stop you. That was your motive.

"Doesn't apologize?" You are an outright liar. I'll see if I can dig up the email which I PROMPTLY sent to you and the others. You KNOW there was an email, because you replied to it that you didn't believe my explanation. Once again, "hoist on your own petard" comes to mind. If you sent that email than I must have apologized, but if I did, then you lied above. So either way, your wonderful character is exposed for all to see...

As far as the rest of this crap:

sends rude email: "here we go" in response to the application. Hyatt.
doesn't apologise for the rude email. Hyatt.
takes it apon himself to be email checker. Hyatt.
unable to check against 4.5 Gbytes of emails. Hyatt.
takes two days to not check. Hyatt.
rejects Ed's confirmation of the original email address. Hyatt.
pretends "little hitlers" was said about Secretariat and/or icga when it wasn't. Hyatt.
has track record of long and difficult arguing with Chris. Hyatt.

Did send email.
Second line outright lie
third line lie. Did NOT "take it upon myself to check emails." The Secretariat AND David decided on this process to weed out anyone trying to get in just to cause problems. Which probably fit you to a T based on the last 4 years, but it was not the problem at the time.
line 4, another LIE. I said 4.5 gigabytes PER DVD. I also mentioned that I had many dozens of such DVDs.
Line 5, lie. We ALL tried to verify that email.
line 6, BIG LIE. Someone has posted a copy of that email somewhere, I will see if I can find it. It seems to be your favorite term and an ongoing proof of "Godwin's Law".
line 7. Guilty as charged. But then most everyone else falls into THAT category. Do you remember the early days of CCC. "I want Rolf excluded." Then, later on, "I never wanted Rolf excluded" and so forth. You pissed just about everyone in computer chess off at one point or another. Levy? Check. In fact I am not going to list all the names, I am not going to waste that much time.

Calm down. Stop with the insulting. I stand by all points above. You, Hyatt were the blocking agent to the application. Proof is below.

[Chris Whittington]

Nonsense.

I just read the correspondence again.

Even the "little hitlers" excuse is false (which more or less became the excuse for the preemptive ban) because it wasn't directed at you but to the CCC mods hunting people by their IP address. So Chris wasn't willing to give his IP address for protection of his privacy, something you have your mouth full. And from the correspondence it's crystal clear you (Bob) knew who was talking to you. On top of that you ignored my confirmation.

But of course you will jump sky high when I would suggest to put the whole correspondence in the open and the dirty game that followed. Not to mention your personal bias against Chris (in RF) that he only would be an obstacle (or similar wordings) for the Panel when approved.
User avatar
Rebel

Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:45 pm

Sorry. The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC. As far as the confirmation stuff goes, YOU could not give us a confirmation. This was something we had to do ourselves. As far as MY emails go, you can post whatever you want. I'm not a coward that hides behind a claim of privacy like, for example, Trotsky. There was no "dirty game" anywhere in the process. It is always amusing that someone "outside" the process presumes themselves to know _exactly_ what went on inside the process. Which means it is ALL based on pure assumptions, no facts at all. I'll see if I still have the "little hitlers" email, or if Harvey/Mike/David do. I don't mind posting such when it directly refutes false statements being made.

I notice _he_ has not chimed in here as he knows what he wrote.

Hyatt: The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC.

Wrong. Misremembering again perchance? The relevant email paragraph to Lefler:

And no, please do not track my ISP, the talkchess capability of giving immediate IP access/knowledge to mods is one reason I never log in there. Read Jeremy Bernstein's account of behaviour between the "mods" Conkie, Banks and various malicious endusers relating to IP addresses and telephone numbers, for just one example - all done with full knowledge of talkchess and the tcadmin. The danger is not from us humble readers but from site owners/administrators and the occasional little hitler tendency of "mods".
C W

This was quite clearly talking about talkchess "mods", named.


I take advantage of this post to show the proof that Hyatt was the blocking agent in the application. Everybody else, Lefler, Williamson and Levy had passed it and were "waiting on Hyatt":

28th Feb, Mark Lefler emailed: "David Levy and Harvey felt we should approve you. I have been waiting on Bob Hyatt's decision."

Seems pretty clear to me. Hyatt wanted to keep out known dissenters who argued, in order to be able to drive through the desired guilty verdict without realistic opposition. And he did. By delaying and declining to give an answer to his colleagues.

[hyatt]

Nonsense.

I just read the correspondence again.

Even the "little hitlers" excuse is false (which more or less became the excuse for the preemptive ban) because it wasn't directed at you but to the CCC mods hunting people by their IP address. So Chris wasn't willing to give his IP address for protection of his privacy, something you have your mouth full. And from the correspondence it's crystal clear you (Bob) knew who was talking to you. On top of that you ignored my confirmation.

But of course you will jump sky high when I would suggest to put the whole correspondence in the open and the dirty game that followed. Not to mention your personal bias against Chris (in RF) that he only would be an obstacle (or similar wordings) for the Panel when approved.
User avatar
Rebel

Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:45 pm

Sorry. The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC. As far as the confirmation stuff goes, YOU could not give us a confirmation. This was something we had to do ourselves. As far as MY emails go, you can post whatever you want. I'm not a coward that hides behind a claim of privacy like, for example, Trotsky. There was no "dirty game" anywhere in the process. It is always amusing that someone "outside" the process presumes themselves to know _exactly_ what went on inside the process. Which means it is ALL based on pure assumptions, no facts at all. I'll see if I still have the "little hitlers" email, or if Harvey/Mike/David do. I don't mind posting such when it directly refutes false statements being made.

I notice _he_ has not chimed in here as he knows what he wrote.

Hyatt: The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC.

Wrong. Misremembering again perchance? The relevant email paragraph to Lefler:

And no, please do not track my ISP, the talkchess capability of giving immediate IP access/knowledge to mods is one reason I never log in there. Read Jeremy Bernstein's account of behaviour between the "mods" Conkie, Banks and various malicious endusers relating to IP addresses and telephone numbers, for just one example - all done with full knowledge of talkchess and the tcadmin. The danger is not from us humble readers but from site owners/administrators and the occasional little hitler tendency of "mods".
C W

This was quite clearly talking about talkchess "mods", named.


I take advantage of this post to show the proof that Hyatt was the blocking agent in the application. Everybody else, Lefler, Williamson and Levy had passed it and were "waiting on Hyatt":

28th Feb, Mark Lefler emailed: "David Levy and Harvey felt we should approve you. I have been waiting on Bob Hyatt's decision."

Seems pretty clear to me. Hyatt wanted to keep out known dissenters who argued, in order to be able to drive through the desired guilty verdict without realistic opposition. And he did. By delaying and declining to give an answer to his colleagues.

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source." I was specifically asked "Do you have any of CW's old emails to confirm this address?" I responded "I had several email exchanges with him years ago. I can look. I did look. It took time. after going through all the old emails, I reported "I can not find THIS email address in any of our old communications." This was a 4-way conversation with myself, Mark, Harvey and David. I believe David eventually said "let's accept it". But that didn't happen soon enough for you.

One day maybe you will learn the difference between "personal opinion" and "fact". YOUR personal opinion has nothing to do with facts about what was going on, because you were not "in the loop." Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. Yet you don't mind morphing your opinion into a pure fact. But it doesn't work that way. Sorry I didn't work as fast as you wanted. But then again, you don't pay me either.

[Chris Whittington]

Nonsense.

I just read the correspondence again.

Even the "little hitlers" excuse is false (which more or less became the excuse for the preemptive ban) because it wasn't directed at you but to the CCC mods hunting people by their IP address. So Chris wasn't willing to give his IP address for protection of his privacy, something you have your mouth full. And from the correspondence it's crystal clear you (Bob) knew who was talking to you. On top of that you ignored my confirmation.

But of course you will jump sky high when I would suggest to put the whole correspondence in the open and the dirty game that followed. Not to mention your personal bias against Chris (in RF) that he only would be an obstacle (or similar wordings) for the Panel when approved.
User avatar
Rebel

Posts: 401
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:45 pm

Sorry. The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC. As far as the confirmation stuff goes, YOU could not give us a confirmation. This was something we had to do ourselves. As far as MY emails go, you can post whatever you want. I'm not a coward that hides behind a claim of privacy like, for example, Trotsky. There was no "dirty game" anywhere in the process. It is always amusing that someone "outside" the process presumes themselves to know _exactly_ what went on inside the process. Which means it is ALL based on pure assumptions, no facts at all. I'll see if I still have the "little hitlers" email, or if Harvey/Mike/David do. I don't mind posting such when it directly refutes false statements being made.

I notice _he_ has not chimed in here as he knows what he wrote.

Hyatt: The "little hitlers comment" in THIS case was not directed to the moderators of CCC. He was NOT posting on CCC.

Wrong. Misremembering again perchance? The relevant email paragraph to Lefler:

And no, please do not track my ISP, the talkchess capability of giving immediate IP access/knowledge to mods is one reason I never log in there. Read Jeremy Bernstein's account of behaviour between the "mods" Conkie, Banks and various malicious endusers relating to IP addresses and telephone numbers, for just one example - all done with full knowledge of talkchess and the tcadmin. The danger is not from us humble readers but from site owners/administrators and the occasional little hitler tendency of "mods".
C W

This was quite clearly talking about talkchess "mods", named.


I take advantage of this post to show the proof that Hyatt was the blocking agent in the application. Everybody else, Lefler, Williamson and Levy had passed it and were "waiting on Hyatt":

28th Feb, Mark Lefler emailed: "David Levy and Harvey felt we should approve you. I have been waiting on Bob Hyatt's decision."

Seems pretty clear to me. Hyatt wanted to keep out known dissenters who argued, in order to be able to drive through the desired guilty verdict without realistic opposition. And he did. By delaying and declining to give an answer to his colleagues.

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source." I was specifically asked "Do you have any of CW's old emails to confirm this address?" I responded "I had several email exchanges with him years ago. I can look. I did look. It took time. after going through all the old emails, I reported "I can not find THIS email address in any of our old communications." This was a 4-way conversation with myself, Mark, Harvey and David. I believe David eventually said "let's accept it". But that didn't happen soon enough for you.

One day maybe you will learn the difference between "personal opinion" and "fact". YOUR personal opinion has nothing to do with facts about what was going on, because you were not "in the loop." Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. Yet you don't mind morphing your opinion into a pure fact. But it doesn't work that way. Sorry I didn't work as fast as you wanted. But then again, you don't pay me either.

I missed out this quote from the same Lefler email: "I was going to approve you as well".

So, we have all three, Levy, Lefler and Williamson approving, and all waiting on Hyatt. Who was still delaying for various fatuous reasons.

Hyatt is the delaying blocker of the application. It's a behaviour pattern of Hyatt's btw. Ed will recount the number of times Hyatt used the non reply and delay technique when he didn't like something everybody else did want, back from the days he likes so much to refer to (Founder's Group CCC 1997).

[Rebel]

Sorry I was NOT the "blocking source."

Neither was Ed or anyone else except for the four of us I named above. .

To: "Robert M. Hyatt" <hyatt@.....>
From: Ed Schroder <........>
Subject: Tribunal
Date: 20:16 25-2-2011
CC: Chris Whittington <chris@.....>

Hi Bob,

Is Chris W. not allowed to enter on http://icga.wikispaces.com ?

He can't get in, perhaps you can instruct him?

Ed

-----------

The email address on the registration form is the exact as listed in CC.

Explain.