Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / ICGA denial of appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
- - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-14 07:44
Recently Rybka author Vasik Rajlich asked the ICGA for an appeal of his case. It was denied to him as you can read from the email correspondence. I like to steal a little bit of your time and ask you to give your opinion on this matter.

Long story short I have created 2 polls, one user poll and one strictly for chess programmers. The links are:

The programmer poll at http://www.top-5000.nl/appeal.htm

The user poll at http://www.top-5000.nl/appeal2.htm

Also posted in CCC engine origins.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 13:20
I don't see where Vas was denied an appeal.  I don't even see where Vas ASKED for an appeal.  I see where YOU asked for one.

I do not know David's thought processes, but even I would discount all of this since Vas didn't initiate ANYTHING...
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-14 14:06
I'm trying to see this as an objective, neutral outsider.

From that exchange Vas clearly nominated Ed as his representative and asked for an appeal.

It's also totally clear David wouldn't even entertain it.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 14:24
Did you look at the sequence of emails?  Look at the FIRST one.  Who originated it?  Not Vas...

That was my point.  Ed has ZERO standing to request an appeal in this case.  To me it looks like a "non-serious" approach where Vas decided to "go along" as opposed to being the one that initiated the request.  Ed sent David an email in August.  Until that point in time, no one has heard a word from Vas.  Even beyond that point in time, until October 5 (IIRC) vas said "yes, I want Ed to represent me...".  That simply does NOT sound like a serious interest in responding.
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) [gb] Date 2013-10-14 14:26
If Vas sent another email saying "I am serious about this and it is my initiative to seek an appeal" - would that suffice?
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 16:10
I have absolutely no idea.  It hasn't happened yet, so remains hypothetical for the moment.

Ed is making it harder, not easier, in any case.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2013-10-14 15:11

> I don't see where Vas was denied an appeal. I don't even see where Vas ASKED for an appeal. I see where YOU asked for one.


How is it that you -as a  representative of the ICGA can blatantly contradict what is written  below in an  email by  David Levy to Vas- which is clearly stated in plain English????

In view of your statement against David Levy's email to Vas,  I don't see why anyone should  even for a moment entertain looking to you as a credible representative remotely in a position to speak for -or make - or even suggestively make -policy changes within the ICGA.
Parent - By Mark (****) [us] Date 2013-10-14 15:39
Vas' October 5, 2013, email to David is definitely a request to appeal that shouldn't be ignored by the ICGA, even though it is a long time after the ruling.

I think Ed hit on the quickest solution to resolving this whole situation, though, in his introduction to the poll he set up. That is by supplying the actual source code (or just portions of the actual source code) to a neutral programmer, similar to what Reul did.

"The denial is odd because of a previous case. In the past (the WCCC in Graz 2003) the ICGA banned a suspect program (the LIST program of Fritz Reul) because Reul refused to cooperate in an investigation. Later Reul did cooperate and Reul was reinstated after he handed over his source code to (expert) Dr. Chrilly Donninger who inspected the LIST source code and found it original.  So if Reul was granted an appeal we think Rajlich deserves the same treatment especially now that a sea of contra evidence is available."
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 16:08
Look at ALL of the emails.  Who originated them?  David's email that you quoted came in early october after Vas wrote the email that said something like "yes, I want Ed to represent me...".  Vas didn't originate this stuff.  Ed did.  Vas apparently chose to "go along with it" however. 

So what did I "blatantly contradict"?  Vas wrote exactly one email to David during that period of time.

Since Ed loves to copy emails, here is the ONLY email I saw from Vas addressed to David:

    David,
    I confirm that I appoint Ed Schroeder as my representative in the request to appeal submitted to the ICGA. I assert I have the right to appeal and the right to be represented at that appeal.
    Best regards,
    Vas


Does that look like Vas initiated an appeal?  Of course not.

BTW the "right" he asserts he has is NOT in the ICGA charter.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2013-10-14 16:21
Oh, come on , Bob! Jesus Christ All Might! Stop you bloody crap!

The direct response from David Levy to Vas is what is at issue here and your denial of his  post in denying Vas a appeal. You contradicted his email.  

YOU DO NOT REPRESENT THE ICGA  - GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 19:03
I will repeat.  Look at the DATE when I responded to Ed's "Vas was denied an appeal".  Hint:  dated BEFORE october 5.  David's email was dated ON oct 5.  One of Ed's "implications" was dated October 2.  Able to read the future?

As to the validity of the appeal, were it me, I would have ALSO said no.  Ed has not been helpful.  He has distorted the truth.  Taken things out of context.  Argued points that have no relevance to the case.  Why on earth would David want to get involved with Ed again?  Simple answer:  He wouldn't.  Vas didn't appeal anything.  He did not say "I would like to appeal, I will answer all questions and provide whatever evidence I am asked for, if possible.  He said "I want Ed to handle this."  That is NOT an appeal.  I DO represent the ICGA, along with a group of others.  Sorry.  I've been a member since 1977.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-14 19:40
David Levy - The ICGA will therefore not entertain any appeal by you or anyone representing you.

What part do you not understand?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 19:46
The part that happened BEFORE october 5 when david sent that.  The part YOU claimed had happened on October 2, which is 3 days BEFORE David sent that email.

Which part of that is so hard to grasp?  You claimed David had rejected an appeal from vas, your claim was on october 2.   David responded to Vas stating he wanted you to represent him, dated on October 5.  Vas did NOT request any appeal.  You did.  If he is not interested enough to be involved, I would not think about supporting hearing such an appeal.  We've already been down that road once, I do not want to go down it yet again.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-14 23:59

>Which part of that is so hard to grasp?


Also let it be known that I have been given "carte blanche" by Vasik to speak on his behalf. And as such he wants to exercise his right to a full appeal of the Rybka-Fruit case.

So I want to ask you to set a date for the appeal.


---------

Which part don't you understand?

It was never questioned by David nor Jaap, only chicken you.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 00:22
You have no standing to request an appeal.  Nobody is going to deal with you instead of Vas.  Simply not going to happen.  There is no appeal process.  There is no appeal procedure in the charter.  The ICGA board is the final authority and they have ruled.  Since he doesn't seem to be interested in being bothered by providing any evidence, justification, or anything at all, nothing will happen.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-15 08:04 Edited 2013-10-15 08:07

>Since he doesn't seem to be interested


Here is another part of the email correspondence, now pay attention.

Vas wants his name cleared and he is reaching out to you now.

Are you implying Vas is lying?


>There is no appeal process.


From the same email, your attention again:

1. I don't understand your refusal to re-open the Rybka-Fruit case. In the past (the WCCC in Graz 2003) the ICGA banned a suspect program (the LIST program of Fritz Reul) because he refused to cooperate in an investigation. Later Reul did cooperate and Reul was reinstated after he handed over his source code to (expert) Dr. Chrilly Donninger who inspected the LIST source code and found it original. So if Reul was granted an appeal I don't understand your refusal for Rybka especially now that a sea of contra evidence is available.

An alternative to the time consuming nature of an appeal is to follow the same procedure as the ICGA did in the LIST (Fritz Reul) case and ask an independent expert both sides agree on and his decision will be final. My suggestion would be Dr. Donninger again. As an intermediator I can lobby for the precedent you set in the LIST case with Vasik.


As I have posted yesterday at Talkchess there is source code of Rybka 2.2n, a version very close to 2.32 that (contrary the version the ICGA researched) DID play in Vas first WCCC. The case can be solved in a trusted environment within days and as it should have been done from the very beginning according the rules Vas subscribed to. Torpedoed by David immediately by another denial.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 15:21
So vas writes in third person?  Rather than "I want my name cleared" it is "Vas wants his name cleared?"

BTW we DID examine the exact binary that participated in the WCCC.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-14 19:51
Hyatt has repeately offered Vas an appeal if he asks for one. Recently. Many times. Hyatt represents the ICGA. Lefler and Wiliamson, also Secretariat and also representatives, have also made the same offer. Mark Watkins also. When Vas takes the offer up, it is not honoured. This is the dishourable behaviour of gangsters, their word is worth nothing, not even the paper it is written on, they offer one thing and mean another. Civilised organisations and civilised people recognise the need to keep their word, their offers and their promises, it's the basis of proper behaviour, civilisation and rule of contract.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 20:26
Continual distortions from you and Ed seem to be the current standard.

Vas has NOT asked for an appeal.  Not one time.  Try again.

Ed wants to appeal, apparently Vas agreed to let Ed represent him.  Not going to happen.  If Vas is not interested in participating, neither will anyone within the ICGA be interested.  And it is not a certainty that an appeal would be heard if Vas showed up personally.  But since that has not happened, to date, it is a moot issue...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-14 20:39
The appeal, or reexamination of the case, will take place before an INDEPENDENT tribunal. It's not up to me, but I would imagine you would be able to participate by making a witness statement, if you wanted. The ICGA has already ruled itself out of this process by its failing to honour yours, others, effectively its, repeated offers and promises to accept an appeal. It remains for the community to determine an independent and unbiased reexamination process.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 20:46
Please hold your breath until that happens...
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-14 20:35
They were ready to grant an appeal as long as:
1.  There was no obvious evidence showing they were wrong
2.  There was no actual request

Once item 1 or 2 materialized, the grant of appeal vaporized. Since both items appeared, there is no way that they will grant it.  Since there appears to have been possible criminal activity in finding the verdict, they would be foolish to allow it because a careful re-examination could expose them to possible harm.

We will never see an appeal granted.
The only way for Vas to achieve justice would be a lawsuit.
Since Vas has lost his source code, I see no way possible that such a lawsuit could succeed. (His proof went "poof").
So Vas is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The ICGA organization has a very strong motive not to reopen the case.
The ICGA panel has a very strong motive to deny the appeal.
David Levy has a very strong motive to deny the appeal.
What could any of them possibly gain by allowing it?  {Let's look like the biggest fools of all time and open ourselves up to enormous lawsuits!  Either that or we can sweep everything under the rug and then stand on the rug.}
Clearly, it will never happen.

Let me put it this way,
If you were David Levy, would you allow an appeal?
If you were on the panel, would you want an appeal?
If you were the ICGA organization would you want an appeal?
Nobody wants an appeal except for those that do not count.

The ICGA members got what they wanted and it will stay that way.  In Vas' case, the loss of his source code for the tournament version is the reason he can never achieve justice.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-14 20:48
What you say is clear, but if so, the ICGA can't also claim to "represent the computer chess community".
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 20:49 Edited 2013-10-14 20:52
Sorry, but you sound just like Ed. And JUST as dishonest.

1.  We have not seen an actual appeal.

2.  We have NEVER seen anything to show our evidence was wrong.

Therefore, both of the legs you are trying to stand on are broken.  Badly.

To answer your question(s).  If there was an appeal made, with CREDIBLE evidence showing the ICGA evidence is wrong, I would be all for an appeal.  Just saying "I want to appeal" doesn't cut it here, NOR in any court in the world.  But so far, nothing has happened, Vas has requested no appeal, other than the indirect nonsense Ed has tried to finagle.  If he won't participate, nobody is interested.

It is that simple.

And as far as the "lost source code" goes, it is not even clear that is actually the case, since Lukas claimed to have discussed turning over the source to the ICGA, after obfuscating the variable and procedure names to make it harder to understand.  Hard to obfuscate what one doesn't actually have???
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-14 23:22
From here:
http://www.top-5000.nl/Zach/appeal.htm
We have this:

"Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vasik Rajlich
Subject: Rybka-ICGA appeal
To: David Levy
Cc: Ed Schroder, Soren Riis



David,

I confirm that I appoint Ed Schroeder as my representative in the request to appeal submitted to the ICGA. I assert I have the right to appeal and the right to be represented at that appeal.

Best regards,



Vas"

So if you have not seen it, you have not been paying attention.

Apparently, for point number two, you have not been following the discussions.  If you refuse to admit that many people see reasonable counter-arguments then I suggest that your comprehension suffers somewhat.  The ostrich sticking his head into the sand is a myth, by the way.  They are actually a lot smarter than that.

I understand why you won't grant his appeal, and I will be utterly shocked if it ever happens.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 23:45
1.  Do you realize that is not a request for an appeal, provided with any evidence, explanation, justification or anything.  It went like this:

1.  Ed bugged David.

2.  Ed bugged Vas.

3.  Ed bugged vas to tell david that he wanted Ed to represent him.

4.  On Oct 5, David responded to vas with the letter Ed posted.  Even though Ed had claimed on Oct 2 that David had denied the appeal (the appeal that has NEVER been submitted by Vas, BTW).

Vas didn't ask for an appeal.  He didn't seem very interested.   He claimed he has the right to appeal, which he does not have by ICGA charter, he wanted Ed to be his representative, which would NEVER be acceptable.   HE has to be involved.  To date, he has submitted exactly zero.

I have previously posted that I would be perfectly agreeable to seeing him appeal and would ask David and the board to consider it.  But he has NOT appealed as of yet.  He has to request it, he has to provide some sort of grounds for the appeal, which he has never done, etc.  Just saying "I want to appeal" will not fly either in civil or criminal courts.  There must be a reason for it, and the judge must be convinced that it has some chance of being successful before granting it.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-14 23:50
This quote proves you an absolute liar:
"I confirm that I appoint Ed Schroeder as my representative in the request to appeal submitted to the ICGA. I assert I have the right to appeal and the right to be represented at that appeal."
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 23:56
Only because YOU can't read.  That was the ONLY email from Vas.  You DO realize that?

Didn't think so.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-15 00:06
Are you claiming he has to show up in person?
Clearly, Vas has asked for an appeal.
Clearly, the panel will never grant it, for obvious reasons.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 00:18
You see the ONLY email from Vas.  The ONLY one.  He didn't ask for an appeal.  It was a reply to david, probably instigated by Ed, telling David that Vas wanted Ed to be his rep.

He doesn't have to show up in person.  He DOES have to submit an appeal.  I think after all the nonsense that has transpired with Ed, his meddling hurt Vas' chances more than they helped.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-15 00:27
This sentence uses submitted in the past tense:
"I confirm that I appoint Ed Schroeder as my representative in the request to appeal submitted to the ICGA"
That clearly indicates that an appeal has already been submitted.

I expect that the existence of the appeal will be denied.  I expect that when he proves that an appeal was submitted it will be denied.  I expect that when he resubmits an appeal it will be denied.  I expect that if Vas put out a full page ad in the New York times and submitted an appeal it would be denied.  I expect that if Vas showed up on David Levy's doorstep and personally handed him the appeal it would be denied.
I expect that the members of the ICGA and panel will act in their own self interest.
Big surprise there.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 04:01
The existence is denied.  Simple enough to ask Ed to produce the original appeal request from Vas, don't you think?  Be a bit better than just guessing what has happened...  That would be a big change here.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-15 08:50

>The existence is denied.


Not by David, nor by Jaap, only by you :razz:

Typical.

Nevertheless Bob Vas filed a supplement to FIDE about the denial signed by himself.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 15:19
And where is that going???
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 19:19
Probably my guess is as good as yours, but I think their Ethics Committee sat in closed session last week in Tallinn.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-15 09:13

>That would be a big change here.


Be honest, you don't want an appeal under any circumstance.

Am I far from the truth?
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 15:18
I told you my opinion on this subject.  I won't repeat it ad nauseum.
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2013-10-15 02:30

>You see the ONLY email from Vas. The ONLY one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCT9hDH_PUI&t=46s
Parent - - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-15 00:20
All jurors were disqualified for this reason:
Past Contact with a Trial Participant
Biases may be formed by a potential juror if he has had contact with a trial participant in the past. This may be the defendant, the defense attorney, the prosecutor, a witness or the victim. The potential juror is presumed to not be biased if he can assure the court that the prior contact won't affect his ability to be fair and impartial.

Robert Hyatt was similarly disqualified for this reason:
Victim of a Similar Crime
A potential juror may be biased against the defendant if he was the victim of a crime that's similar to the one the defendant is accused of committing. The individual will be asked whether he can be impartial despite the past crime. He won't be automatically disqualified just because he was a victim of a similar crime.

All jurors were disqualified for this reason:
Conflict of Interest
Jurors selected for trials are questioned by attorneys and approved or rejected. Potential jurors who have a conflict of interest in a case are not allowed to be on that cases jury. A conflict of interest is when a person has knowledge of the case, such as knowing one of the people involved, that may unfairly influence their fact-finding abilities.

Some of the Jurors would have been excluded for the following reason:
Challenges for Cause:
To conduct an effective and efficient voir dire, you must know why and how jurors can be challenged for cause. Article 35.16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the reasons that a juror can be challenged, but only a few scenarios occur with any frequency. Jurors may be excluded if they have a bias or prejudice for or against the defendant1 or if they have established in their minds a conclusion about his guilt or innocence.2 Additionally, a juror may be excluded if he has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely.3
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 04:02
Yawn.  This is not a court of law.  This is a private organization enforcing its existing set of rules.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-10-15 08:32
Hyatt: This is not a court of law.  This is a private organization enforcing its existing set of rules.

Levy/ICGA (to Vas March 2011): The nearest analogy I can think of to the process that has now started is a trial in a court of law. There
are some important similarities between the current process and a court case.


It's a court a law and it's not a court of law at the same time. A Schroedinger's Court of Law. Now you see it and now you don't.
Parent - - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2013-10-15 09:59
The spin on both sides of this debate is really breathtaking. There are also some important similarities between chickens and humans. Yet, I cannot lay eggs.
Parent - By user923005 (****) [us] Date 2013-10-15 11:15
You probably also have more lip tissue than the chicken.
I can say that with confidence, even though we have never met!
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-10-15 12:00
1.  Do you realize that is not a request for an appeal, provided with any evidence, explanation, justification or anything. It went like this:

You missed your real profession as Hollywood script writer :wink:


1.  Ed bugged David.

2. Ed bugged Vas.

3.  Ed bugged vas to tell david that he wanted Ed to represent him.


Poor Vas, even his appointed legal representative betrays him :lol:
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-15 15:18
Certainly.  He didn't originate anything himself...  The FIDE nonsense.  This nonsense.  Been your doing from the get-go.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2015-04-30 13:01
" Just saying "I want to appeal" will not fly either in civil or criminal courts.  There must be a reason for it, and the judge must be convinced that it has some chance of being successful before granting it. "

Isnt this exactly evidence for the complete mishandling of the ICGA panel secretariat plus Bob Hyatt - along the perception of the ECFIDE jusge from Italy? And there are many more examples. Levy had told the ECFIDE that the ICGA had no rules for such communication about a case where someone gets a verdict because of alleged wrong conduct. But the judge then concluded that without such rules the ICGA like Hyatt here in that quote did continually fake such a court trial of legal justice which in truth couldnt exist without appropriae rules.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-04-30 18:29
What is this about?  Vas did NOT write the appeal.  Chris/Ed did that.  All they asked Vas to do was sign it.  And the FIDE EC threw Ed and Chris out of the complaint immediately as having no real interests in the case.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 19:04
Idiot Bob wrote:
Vas did NOT write the appeal.  Chris/Ed did that.  All they asked Vas to do was sign it.

Wrong. Vas participated in writing the appeal. Once again, you are pulling things out of your ass.

Idiot Bob wrote:
And the FIDE EC threw Ed and Chris out of the complaint immediately as having no real interests in the case.

Wrong. Your third grade reading skill are on display again:

From the FIDE EC Judgement
In the case here examined, the original complaint was submitted by Mr Rajlich and Mr Whittington, indicating for the communications the addresses of Mr Whittington. Further documents were signed by Mr. Ed Schroeder and Mr Soren Riis.
Based on the facts described in the complaint, only Mr Rajlich has a relevant legitimate individual interest in the case, being the only persons who can be considered as damaged by ICGA’s decisions. Therefore, only his complaint can be considered as admissible.

However, Mr Rajlich intention to be assisted by Mr Whittington is evident and Mr Whittington’s assistance is admissible.


What part of that didn't you understand?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-04-30 19:15
Believe what you want.  There is no doubt who wrote it.

What part of "Therefore, only his complaint can be considered as admissible." didn't YOU understand?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 19:26
Idiot Bob wrote:
Believe what you want.  There is no doubt who wrote it.

Vas was part of the team that wrote the appeal. Chris did most of the writing because he was the best writer. This is normal for this type of thing, as you would know if you weren't such a moron.

Idiot Bob wrote:
What part of "Therefore, only his complaint can be considered as admissible." didn't YOU understand?

You are seriously stupid. Even a moron like you should have realized that Vas was the complainant and that Chris was assisting him with the complaint. It's obvious that you are even more dimwitted than I had thought...

From the FIDE EC Judgement:
However, Mr Rajlich intention to be assisted by Mr Whittington is evident and Mr Whittington’s assistance is admissible.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / ICGA denial of appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill