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  
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-04-30 20:33
Guarantee you Chris did ALL of the writing.  However FIDE took it as +I+ took it and specifically dismissed the part of the complaint that was coined by Chris/Ed.  And they were pretty clear about the entire complaint, using the terms "vague, lacking specifics, etc."  Which I had pointed out when their complaint originally reached us via FIDE.

It never had a chance, because it was nothing more than whining and name-calling.  That generally doesn't bode very well for a complaint.  Specifics are needed.  But were sorely lacking.  The ONLY thing FIDE latched on to was the lack of a specific life-time ban penalty clause in the rules.  In light of that they ASKED (not directed) us to re-consider the ban.  That's up to the board.

The only dimwitted one here is yourself.  I actually have the entire complaint.  I don't know if Ed/Chris have posted it or not.  If they have, read it.  It is pretty clear WHO wrote it.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 20:47 Edited 2015-04-30 21:00

> However FIDE took it as +I+ took it and specifically dismissed the part of the complaint that was coined by Chris/Ed.


How can FIDE take it as you took it- when they weren't even thinking along your line of reasoning, since  it was   Dr. Levy who  dismissed the attempt at  appeal? How many times do I need to reproduce Levy's response to put this across?!

Who put you in charge, and since when do you make  policy over and above what  Dr Levy's makes  as public policy? If you look at Levy's statement Dr. Hyatt , he says , even if Vas requests an appeal it will not be heard.

You did it here as well- which is pretty lame isn't it??? You made that statement Oct 14th 2013  Levy sent out his email to Vas Oct 6th 2013!


By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-10-14 14:03
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 bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 01:05
He had a chance to participate.  He chose to eschew that chance.  THAT was his chance to be heard.  That is all FIDE rules require.  He could have participated during the panel investigation.  He could have participated after the final report and before the ICGA board acted.  Two chances.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 01:22
Oh! Please, who are you trying to kid! :lol: 

When Dr Levy not 4 days prior made the statement that there would never be an appeal available to Rajlich.

You conjure up a statement that says "well, Rajlich never asked for an appeal"!

Are you crazy Bob? Or just fuking with everyone's head?!
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 02:19
Who would he appeal to?  The ICGA board is the top of the food chain.  Even the EC recognized this.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 01:34 Edited 2015-05-01 01:37
Bob, can you read your own thoughts on the matter? In lieu of Levy's statement of never giving Rajlich an appeal- this has nothing to do with the current text you put down. You are arguing rather against Levy dealing with ED OR CHRIS  and Vas didn't appeal anything - He did not say "I would like to appeal, I will answer all questions ..."

The text is right here in front of you Bob. This is your bullshit Bob. That's all it is! Nothing to do with policy! Just your BULLSHIT FLYING! You are a really sick man! :grin:

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 bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 02:18
I have no idea what you are screaming about.  We asked Vas to participate when we first formed the panel.  We asked him to participate multiple times after that.  David asked him.  "I'd rather wait and appeal to the board or final decision-makers" (or whatever it was he said).  He had plenty of opportunities to respond.  Once things finished, he then couldn't be bothered to respond in a timely manner, even though you guys here were screaming that this ought to be finished quickly, etc.  Vas knew what the accusations were, they had been around for several years.  he had friends on the panel (Albert Silver comes to mind).  He had PLENTY of time to prepare whatever defense or mitigating arguments he might want to make.  He had another month+ beyond the completion of the final report.  There is no one above the ICGA board to "appeal" to.  Similar to once you lose in the US Supreme court, it is over.

I would not have voted to extend the process any longer myself.  It had gone on long enough.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-04-30 20:51
Not even wrong.

You also don't seem to understand why FIDE EC found ICGA had breached the Ethics Code and brought FIDE into disrepute. I suggest you go read on open-chess e conversations between syzygy and BB which set out the procedures. Go do your homework.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 01:06
The ONLY PROBLEM they cited was a lack of specifying the life-time ban as a possible penalty for violating the rule.  That was the ONLY issue.  I did read and re-read it.  You might do the same.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-02 07:50
Have you read the 15 points given by BFL below? Which of the 15 you do not understand? Which of the 15 you decided to skip reading?
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 21:01 Edited 2015-04-30 21:09
You cannot be that stupid! Bob, are you? You really have to be in la la land to not see that one. I even started a thread on it! :yell: ( this is hilarious!:lol:)
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 21:16 Edited 2015-04-30 21:20
Bob, I've never seen more contradictions coming out of two sources. You and Levy!  Which one of you is really in charge??? Or at the least thinks he is in charge!  My God what a mess. :yell:

Does Levy know that you're off saying these things? Oh, man! :grin:
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-04-30 21:23

> Does Levy know that you're off saying these things?


I doubt he has ever looked at this forum and is, probably, unaware the debate still rages here.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 21:32
You are in a position to know how Dr. Levy sees these things, but if it weren't for Bob, he could have spared himself the time and expense associated with a trip up to Tromsø and any legal preparation for same, and the resulting sanction. Bob is what is known here as a loose cannon, and most of his misguided fire has been going in your direction. A monkey with a dartboard would be making much better decisions...
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-04-30 21:42
I plan to go to a very famous restaurant with him in leiden during the World Championship. The scene of the infamous Cockgate. I will ask him the last time he read this forum, if he ever has, and report back. I will once again post a copy of the bill which i will ask David to sign,as approved, so Chris can spend around a year trying to prove that the ICGA paid. While of course I will maintain that all paid their share of the bill out of their own pockets. The Restaurant has a Michelin star and is really expensive. Alan if you are in Holland at the time you would be very welcome :)
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 22:05
I won't be able to be there in the beginning of July (although it would be a hoot to show up at the WCCC :lol:), but my daughter is spending the fall semester in Lisbon, so I'll probably take the occasion to visit her and travel with her around the continent. If you're on the continent later in the year, or we end up with a long layover at Heathrow (I can't remember how far away you are), it would be interesting to hit a restaurant or pub.
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-04-30 22:07
You could always aim for The london Chess Classic in December. I look after the commentary team in the VIP room. The deal includes free wine and food. If you can fly via Manchester i am always available.....
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 21:33
I cannot imagine him being that much in the dark?
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-04-30 21:37
Why should he care what a handful of people discuss here?
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 22:38
Because it impacts on how the ICGA is viewed?! People have a tendency to root for the under dog -especially if they feel he hasn't  gotten a fair shake.

To harshly treat a vanquish enemy by not even granting him the motion of appeal: and, this after his trail has been challenged as legally and  morally bankrupt. Rendering a verdict that was as morally reprehensible as was the proceedings itself.

The contradictions! This stuff adds up and people remember it and in the back of their minds- they  don't forget it.  It comes out later  in the form of when a programmer makes a decision of whether or not to enter or have any affiliation with the ICGA.
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-04-30 22:45 Edited 2015-04-30 22:49
The ICGA is doing fine. There are around 25 other Computer World Championships taking place in leiden, in June, besides the Chess. Why should David care what is written here between a handful of people 5 years after a verdict was dished out. I think The ICGA should respond to the "Minor" offence they committed and make punishments clear as well as perhaps reviewing the lifetime ban. If they decide to do that they will no doubt publish this in the ICGA journal.
Parent - - By Graham Banks (*****) [nz] Date 2015-04-30 22:50

> The ICGA is doing fine. There are 25 other Computer World Championships taking place in leiden, in June, besides the Chess. Why should David care what is written here between a handful of people 5 years after a verdict was dished out. I think The ICGA should respond to the "Minor" offence they committed and make punishments clear as well as perhaps reviewing the lifetime ban. If they decide to do that they will no doubt publish this in the ICGA journal.


I think he should care because the ICGA is no longer held in the same reverence as it used to be by many (including some top programmers) in the computer chess community.
I'd love to see the top engines once again competing in their tournaments. Perhaps if Komodo participates, it will be a start.
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-04-30 22:57 Edited 2015-04-30 23:14
I hope komodo turns up as it would be great to see Mark L again. But if David came here and read the types of posts that are made I doubt he would ever come back. Perhaps the members of the FIDE EC should also come and read the abuse posted here. particularly the abuse posted by Chris who they accepted as a helper to Vas. I wonder what they would think of him calling himself Trotsky?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 01:02
Mark told me he was considering going.  Asked if I was going.  My response was "not this year as I am teaching two courses this Summer."  But I did tell him I would like to try to organize an "old timer's" gathering at next year's WCCC, for fun.  I'm pretty sure I could talk Ken T and David S into attending.  Probably Monty Newborn, maybe Tony Marsland.  And there are a host of others I'd like to see there such as Kittinger, maybe Kathe Spracklen, Tom Truscott (I have heard from Bruce Wright within the last year in fact), Hsu and/or Murray Campbell, Jonathan Schaeffer, there is a really long list and it would be a "blast from the past".  Not to participate of course, but to just get together as we used to at the annual ACM events...
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-01 06:22
Sounds like a great idea!
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 01:52
If David Levy read even half the nonsense that Bob is putting out here  - he  would have visions of Abraham killing Isaac
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 00:56
What exactly has David said?

And where?
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 01:07
what's the matter you can't read now  or is it that you suffer from Amblyopia or more probably  just plain lazy!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 02:20
I simply have no idea what you are talking about.

Nothing more, nothing less.  I don't know what you have read, what you have seen, what you have imagined, or what you might have heard.  Either enlighten me or I'll consider it dropped.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 04:38
I suppose that is the only defense you have left -
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 05:14 Edited 2015-05-01 05:23

> simply have no idea what you are talking about.


The purport of David Levy's statement on Oct 6th

As you well know , you were invited before the investigation began...to defend your self..by not responding.
The ICGA's invitatons even included offering you the right to be part of the investigation panel.
The ICGA will therefore NOT entertain ANY appeal by YOU or ANYONE representing you .


And now here is blowhard Bob, offering his two cents - suggesting all Vas had to say is " Oh, Please, I want an appeal! Great sirs and I will promise to be at your beck and call answering questions with out any intermediaries-just promise me you'll appeal my case."

That is the purport of what you are saying here - da! After Levy just got finished saying NO appeal!

What's the matter Bob still suffering from lack of -I cannot read my own text in context?

"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. "



When you quoted " He said , " I want Ed to handle this" you framed the context of this  request for an appeal  apropos of  Davil Levy's email to Vas dated Oct 6th
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 15:40
why are we back on a comment that was posted FOUR years ago?

That was what, 3 months AFTER he had been asked to submit something to the board, AFTER the final report was written?
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 18:04 Edited 2015-05-01 18:12
I suppose you have to play dumb. But this isn't the first time that you thought you could make your own policy.

I wonder what would have happened if Ed and Chris had turned around and said, "Okay! Vas is willing to  agree to your terms.!

" What then, you  going to go   back to Levy and say,What exactly? "

" Oh! I told Ed and Chris that Vas never asked for an appeal,  but, uh,  Vas is willing to do so now! I didn't realize you said , NO appeal, Never! , no matter what even After the inquisition was over! Dah !"

Bob, how stupid are you? Can you rate that on a score sheet?

Is this what you call "learning to tango"  bob?! Or, am I just dealing with the same guy who couldn't get Crafty up to speed?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:19
I suppose one could argue you are dealing with a guy that has gotten Crafty up to a speed FAR beyond what you have done?
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-02 05:00
I suppose one could argue you are dealing with a guy that has gotten Crafty up to a speed FAR beyond what you have done?

You have speed up Crafty, but have kept it so dumb (like its creator), that Arriere is able to beat it from time to time. That means that Arriere's 1 node per 2 seconds is enough to make a fool out of your giant 15,000 kN/s calculator.

You also have speed up Crafty while forgetting to 'speed up' your eval to modern 2015 standards, so that Crafty forgets to develop its pieces, goes out with its queen to hunt pawns and loses to Stockfish as nu human of >1800 would ever lose to Stockfish.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-02 17:16
Here is another example of Crafty's horrible opening play. Play through the moves slowly and watch how Crafty uses 45 minutes (of total available 60 minutes) for the first 20 moves and manages to misplace its pieces, lose a pawn and put its knight on a2 in prison. Let's face the cruel facts: this is not even 2,000 elo strength.

I have now shown you at least 35-40 examples of such abominable opening play by your brainchild. So: when are you finally going to tackle this problem?

[Event "WithoutBook"]
[Date "2015.05.02"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Crafty-24.1"]
[Black "Stockfish_15040319_x64"]
[Result "0-1"]
[BlackElo "3200"]
[ECO "D05"]
[Opening "Colle"]

1. d4 Nf6 {(Ng8-f6 c2-c4 e7-e6 Nb1-c3 d7-d5 Bc1-g5 Bf8-e7 e2-e3 O-O c4xd5
e6xd5 Bf1-d3 Nb8-c6 Bg5xf6 Be7xf6 Ng1-f3 a7-a6 a2-a3 Rf8-e8 O-O Bc8-e6
Ra1-c1 h7-h6 h2-h3 Qd8-d7 Nc3-e2 Ra8-d8 Qd1-c2 Bf6-e7) -0.11/26 81} 2. Nc3
{(2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5 e6 4. e3 Bb4 5. Nf3 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. Bb5+ Bd7 8. Bxd7+
Nxd7 9. O-O Bxc3 10. bxc3 O-O 11. Rb1 Rab8 12. Qd3 Qg6 13. c4 Nf6 14. Qxg6
fxg6 15. cxd5 exd5) +0.06/24 189} d5 {(d7-d5 Bc1-f4 e7-e6 a2-a3 Bf8-d6
Bf4xd6 c7xd6 e2-e3 O-O Ng1-e2 e6-e5 g2-g3 Bc8-e6 Bf1-g2 Nb8-c6 O-O Ra8-c8
h2-h3 Nc6-e7 g3-g4 Qd8-b6 Ra1-b1 Qb6-c6 f2-f4 Nf6-e4 Nc3xe4 d5xe4 c2-c3
e5xf4 Ne2xf4) +0.01/26 57} 3. Nf3 {(3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bd3 c5 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nb5 Be7 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. c3 Nc6 10. Nbd4 Bd6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Qa4
Qb6 13. Bd2 Bd7 14. Rab1 Qc5 15. Nd4) +0.11/25 159} e6 {(e7-e6 e2-e3 c7-c5
Bf1-d3 Nb8-c6 O-O a7-a6 b2-b3 c5xd4 e3xd4 Bf8-d6 Nc3-e2 O-O Bc1-f4 Bd6xf4
Ne2xf4 h7-h6 c2-c3 Qd8-c7 Nf4-e2 Bc8-d7 c3-c4 Ra8-c8 Ne2-c3 Kg8-h8 Qd1-c2)
+0.10/26 51} 4. e3 {(4. e3 Bd6 5. Bd3 c5 6. O-O O-O 7. b3 cxd4 8. exd4 Nc6
9. Re1 Bd7 10. Ne5 Nb4 11. Bg5 Rc8 12. Qd2 Nxd3 13. Qxd3 Be7 14. Nxd7 Qxd7
15. Re5 Kh8) +0.05/24 75} c5 {(c7-c5 Bf1-e2 a7-a6 O-O Nb8-d7 Nc3-b1 Bf8-e7
Nb1-d2 O-O a2-a4 c5xd4 e3xd4 b7-b6 b2-b3 Bc8-b7 Bc1-b2 Ra8-c8 c2-c4 Be7-b4
h2-h3 Kg8-h8 Qd1-c1 h7-h6 Bb2-c3 Bb4xc3 Qc1xc3) +0.18/25 57} 5. Bd3 {(5.
Bd3 Bd6 6. O-O O-O 7. Nb5 Be7 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. a3 Nc6 10. b4 Be7 11. Nbd4
Nxd4 12. exd4 a5 13. bxa5 Ne4 14. Qe2 f5 15. Ne5 Rxa5 16. Qh5 Bh4) +0.07/24
118} c4 {(c5-c4 Bd3-e2 a7-a6 a2-a4 Bf8-b4 O-O Nb8-c6 Bc1-d2 O-O Nf3-e5
Nc6xe5 d4xe5 Nf6-d7 e3-e4 d5-d4 Nc3-b1 Bb4-c5 Bd2-f4 f7-f5 Be2xc4 Nd7-b6
Bc4-b3 f5xe4 Qd1-g4 e4-e3 Bf4-g5 Qd8-c7 f2xe3 Rf8xf1+ Kg1xf1 d4xe3 Bb3xe6+
Bc8xe6 Qg4xe6+ Kg8-h8) +0.18/27 67} 6. Be2 {(6. Be2 Bb4 7. Bd2 Bxc3 8. Bxc3
Ne4 9. Bd2 Nc6 10. O-O O-O 11. c3 Nxd2 12. Qxd2 Bd7 13. e4 dxe4 14. Ng5 f5
15. Bxc4 Qe7 16. d5 Ne5 17. d6 Nxc4 18. dxe7 Nxd2 19. exf8=Q+ Rxf8)
+0.06/27 70} a6 {(a7-a6 O-O b7-b5 b2-b3 Bc8-b7 b3xc4 d5xc4 Nf3-e5 Nb8-c6
Ne5xc6 Bb7xc6 Be2-f3 Qd8-c7 Bf3xc6+ Qc7xc6 f2-f3 Qc6-c7 e3-e4 Bf8-d6 h2-h3
O-O Bc1-g5 Rf8-d8 Nc3-e2 b5-b4 Qd1-e1 h7-h6 Bg5xf6 g7xf6 Ra1-b1 a6-a5)
+0.19/27 62} 7. O-O {(7. O-O Bd6 8. e4 dxe4 9. Ng5 Qc7 10. Ngxe4 Nxe4 11.
Nxe4 Bxh2+ 12. Kh1 Bf4 13. Bxc4 O-O 14. Qd3 Nc6 15. c3 b5 16. Bb3 Bd7 17.
Nc5 Rfd8 18. Re1 Kh8 19. Bxf4 Qxf4) +0.10/24 133} b5 {(b7-b5 b2-b3 Bc8-b7
Nf3-e5 Qd8-c7 b3xc4 d5xc4 Be2-f3 Nb8-d7 Ne5xd7 Qc7xd7 Bf3xb7 Qd7xb7 f2-f3
Bf8-e7 e3-e4 O-O Nc3-e2 Nf6-d7 c2-c3 a6-a5 Bc1-f4 Ra8-c8 Ra1-b1 Rf8-d8
h2-h3 h7-h6 Qd1-c2) +0.20/24 6} 8. b3 {(8. b3 Bd6 9. bxc4 bxc4 10. Ne5 Qc7
11. f4 Nc6 12. Rb1 Bb7 13. Bd2 O-O 14. Qe1 Rab8 15. Qg3 Qe7 16. Qg5 Bb4 17.
a4 h6 18. Qg3 Nxe5 19. fxe5) +0.11/23 106} Bb7 {(Bc8-b7 Nf3-e5 Qd8-c7 b3xc4
d5xc4 f2-f4 Bf8-e7 Be2-f3 Nb8-c6 a2-a3 O-O Bc1-d2 Ra8-d8 Qd1-e2 Nf6-d7
Ne5xd7 Rd8xd7 Nc3-e4 f7-f5 Ne4-g5 Be7xg5 f4xg5 e6-e5 Bf3xc6 Qc7xc6 d4xe5
c4-c3 Bd2-e1) +0.17/28 69} 9. bxc4 {(9. bxc4 bxc4 10. Rb1 Qc7 11. Qe1 Bd6
12. Ne5 Nc6 13. f4 O-O 14. Bd2 Rab8 15. Qh4 Be7 16. Qh3 Bd6 17. Kh1 Rfe8
18. Qg3 Nb4 19. Bd1 Nc6 20. Bf3 Kf8 21. Qg5 h6 22. Qg3 Nxe5 23. fxe5)
+0.07/24 218} dxc4 {(d5xc4 Nf3-e5 Nb8-c6 Be2-f3 Qd8-c7 Ne5xc6 Bb7xc6
Bf3xc6+ Qc7xc6 f2-f3 b5-b4 Nc3-e2 Bf8-d6 a2-a3 a6-a5 e3-e4 Nf6-d7 a3xb4
a5xb4 Ra1xa8+ Qc6xa8 Bc1-f4 Bd6xf4 Ne2xf4 Qa8-b8 Nf4-e2 O-O d4-d5 Rf8-d8
d5xe6 Nd7-e5 e6xf7+ Ne5xf7 Qd1-e1 b4-b3) +0.23/28 60} 10. a4 {(10. a4 Qa5
11. Ne5 Bb4 12. Na2 Qxa4 13. Bb2 Bd6 14. Bc3 Ba3 15. Nc1 b4 16. Bb2 c3 17.
Bxa3 bxa3 18. Na2 Qa5 19. Bf3 Bxf3 20. Qxf3 Ra7 21. Nc4 Qd5 22. Qxd5 Nxd5
23. Nxa3) +0.27/25 126} b4 {(b5-b4 Nc3-a2 Qd8-d5 a4-a5 Nb8-c6 Bc1-d2 Ra8-b8
Ra1-b1 c4-c3 Na2xc3 b4xc3 Bd2xc3 Bf8-d6 Bc3-e1 O-O c2-c4 Qd5-f5 Nf3-h4
Qf5-e4 Nh4-f3 Qe4-g6 Be2-d3 Qg6-h5 h2-h3 Nc6-e7 c4-c5 Bd6-c7 Be1-d2 Bb7-e4
Qd1-e2 Be4xd3 Qe2xd3 Qh5-g6 Qd3xg6 h7xg6 Rb1xb8 Rf8xb8 Rf1-a1) +1.15/29 78}
11. Na2 {(11. Na2 Qd5 12. Ne1 Nc6 13. Bf3 Ne4 14. Rb1 Rb8 15. Qe2 f5 16.
Bxe4 fxe4 17. f3 c3 18. Rb3 Bd6 19. fxe4 Qxe4 20. Qh5+ Qg6 21. Qxg6+ hxg6
22. h3 Rf8 23. Nf3) -0.76/24 114} Qd5 {(Qd8-d5 a4-a5 Nb8-c6 Bc1-d2 Ra8-b8
Ra1-b1 c4-c3 Na2xc3 b4xc3 Bd2xc3 Bf8-d6 Bc3-e1 O-O c2-c4 Qd5-h5 h2-h3
Nc6-e7 c4-c5 Bd6-c7 Rb1-b6 Bc7xb6 a5xb6 Rf8-d8 Qd1-a4 Qh5-g6 Nf3-h4 Qg6-h6
Nh4-f3 Nf6-e4 Be2xa6) +1.04/25 6} 12. Ne1 {(12. Ne1 Be7 13. Bf3 Ne4 14. Nd3
cxd3 15. cxd3 f5 16. dxe4 fxe4 17. Bh5+ g6 18. Bg4 O-O 19. f3 Nc6 20. fxe4
Rxf1+ 21. Qxf1 Qxe4 22. Bf3 Qc2 23. Bd1 Qf5 24. Bb3) -0.87/24 149} a5
{(a6-a5 Bc1-b2 Nb8-d7 Be2-f3 Nf6-e4 Ne1-d3 Qd5-c6 Nd3-f4 Nd7-f6 d4-d5 e6xd5
Bb2-e5 Bf8-e7 Na2-c1 Ne4-g5 h2-h4 Ng5xf3+ Qd1xf3 O-O Nc1-e2 Qc6-d7 Be5-d4
Nf6-e4 Qf3-h5 Be7-f6 Bd4xf6 Ne4xf6 Qh5-e5 Rf8-e8 Qe5-d4 Qd7-c6 f2-f3
Nf6-d7) +1.55/27 51} 13. Rb1 {(13. Rb1 Na6 14. Bf3 Ne4 15. Be2 Rc8 16. f3
Nf6 17. Ra1 Qd7 18. Bd2 Be7 19. f4 Ne4 20. Nf3 O-O 21. Ne5 Qd5 22. Bf3 f6
23. Bxe4 Qxe4 24. Nf3 c3) -1.21/24 214} Nbd7 {(Nb8-d7 f2-f3 Qd5-c6 e3-e4
Bf8-e7 g2-g3 O-O Ne1-g2 Nd7-b6 Bc1-e3 Rf8-d8 Qd1-c1 Nf6-d7 Rb1-a1 Qc6xa4
Ng2-f4 Qa4-b5 Ra1-b1 Qb5-c6 Rf1-d1 Qc6-a4 Qc1-b2 c4-c3 Qb2-b3 Qa4xb3 Rb1xb3
Bb7-a6 Be2xa6) +2.19/26 52} 14. Qd2 {(14. Qd2 Nb6 15. f3 Qd7 16. Qd1 Qxa4
17. Nc3 Qc6 18. Na2 Be7 19. e4 O-O 20. Be3 Rad8 21. g4 Qa4 22. Qc1 Nfd7 23.
Ra1 Qc6 24. Ng2 a4 25. Bg5 Bxg5 26. Qxg5) -2.07/24 352} Qc6 {(Qd5-c6 Qd2-d1
Bf8-e7 Be2-f3 Nf6-e4 Bf3xe4 Qc6xe4 Bc1-d2 h7-h6 Qd1-c1 Bb7-c6 Na2xb4 a5xb4
f2-f3 Qe4-h4 Bd2xb4 Bc6xa4 e3-e4 Be7xb4 Rb1xb4 O-O c2-c3 Qh4-e7 Ne1-c2
Ba4-b3 Rf1-f2 Rf8-b8 Rb4xb8+ Ra8xb8 Nc2-e3 Rb8-a8) +2.55/28 140} 15. f3
{(15. f3 Rc8 16. Qd1 Qxa4 17. Nc3 Qc6 18. Na2 Be7 19. e4 O-O 20. Be3 c3 21.
Nd3 Ba6 22. Ra1 Bc4 23. Qb1 Rfd8 24. Nf4 Bxe2 25. Nxe2 Bd6 26. Nf4 Qc4)
-2.03/24 181} Be7 {(Bf8-e7 e3-e4 O-O Qd2-d1 Nd7-b6 Bc1-e3 Qc6xa4 Qd1-c1
Nf6-d7 g2-g4 Rf8-c8 g4-g5 c4-c3 Rb1-a1 Qa4-c6 Ne1-d3 Nb6-c4 Rf1-d1 Qc6-b6
Be3-f2 Nc4-d2 d4-d5 Qb6-c7 d5xe6 f7xe6 g5-g6 h7xg6 Bf2-d4 e6-e5 Bd4-e3)
+2.86/26 72} 16. e4 {(16. e4 Ba6 17. Qd1 Qxa4 18. Ra1 O-O 19. Be3 Qb5 20.
g4 a4 21. g5 Ne8 22. Ng2 Qa5 23. Qe1 c3 24. Bxa6 Rxa6 25. e5 Nc7 26. Qg3
a3) -2.03/22 112} O-O {(O-O Qd2-d1 Nd7-b6 Bc1-e3 Qc6xa4 Qd1-c1 Nf6-d7 g2-g3
f7-f5 e4-e5 Ra8-c8 Rb1-a1 f5-f4 Be3-d2 Qa4-c6 Ne1-g2 f4xg3 h2xg3 Nb6-d5
Ng2-f4 Qc6-b6 Nf4xd5 Qb6xd4+ Nd5-e3 Nd7xe5 f3-f4 c4-c3) +2.73/23 8} 17. Qd1
{(17. Qd1 Ba6 18. Be3 Qxa4 19. Ra1 Qb5 20. g4 a4 21. g5 Ne8 22. Ng2 Qa5 23.
Qe1 c3 24. Bxa6 Rxa6 25. Qe2 Nc7 26. Qc4 Rb8 27. Rab1 a3 28. f4) -2.13/23
58} Nb6 {(Nd7-b6 Bc1-e3 Qc6xa4 Qd1-c1 Nf6-d7 g2-g4 Rf8-c8 Rf1-f2 c4-c3
Qc1-d1 Qa4-c6 Ne1-g2 Nb6-c4 Be2xc4 Qc6xc4 Na2-c1 a5-a4 Be3-f4 Qc4-b5 Ng2-e3
Nd7-b6 Nc1-e2 a4-a3 Rb1-a1 Nb6-c4 Ne3xc4 Qb5xc4 Bf4-g3 Rc8-d8 h2-h4 Bb7-a6
g4-g5) +2.82/26 101} 18. Be3 {(18. Be3 Qxa4 19. Qc1 Rac8 20. Kh1 c3 21. Ra1
Qc6 22. Nd3 Nc4 23. Bf2 Rfd8 24. Qf4 Qb5 25. Rfe1 Bd6 26. e5 Nd5 27. Qg3
Be7 28. Nc5) -2.16/21 42} Qxa4 {(Qc6xa4 Qd1-c1 Nf6-d7 g2-g4 Rf8-c8 Rf1-f2
f7-f5 d4-d5 e6xd5 e4xf5 Be7-h4 Ne1-g2 Bh4xf2+ Be3xf2 Nd7-c5 Ng2-f4 Nb6-d7
Bf2-d4 Rc8-e8 g4-g5 Re8-f8 Nf4-e6 Nc5xe6 f5xe6 Ra8-e8 Na2-c3 b4xc3 Rb1xb7
Re8xe6 Bd4-e3 Rf8-e8) +2.95/26 55} 19. Qc1 {(19. Qc1 Rfc8 20. Rf2 Nfd7 21.
Bf1 Qc6 22. Kh1 Rd8 23. Be2 Nf6 24. g4 c3 25. g5 Ne8 26. Nd3 Nc4 27. Nc5
Bxc5 28. dxc5 Nxe3 29. Qxe3 Nc7) -2.26/22 56} Nfd7 {(Nf6-d7 g2-g4 Rf8-c8
g4-g5 c4-c3 Rb1-a1 Qa4-c6 Ne1-d3 Nb6-c4 Rf1-d1 Qc6-c7 Kg1-h1 Be7-d6 h2-h4
Nc4xe3 Qc1xe3 Nd7-b6 Qe3-g1 Nb6-c4 Nd3-c5 Bd6xc5 d4xc5 Nc4-d2 Kh1-g2 Qc7xc5
Qg1xc5 Rc8xc5 Rd1-g1) +3.04/21 6} 20. g4 {(20. g4 Rfc8 21. Kh1 c3 22. Ra1
Qc6 23. Ng2 Nc4 24. Rd1 Nxe3 25. Nxe3 Qb6 26. Qb1 Nf6 27. Bc4 Qa7 28. Qb3
Rd8 29. g5 Nxe4 30. fxe4 Bxe4+ 31. Kg1 Bxg5) -2.51/21 124} Rfc8 {(Rf8-c8
Ne1-g2 c4-c3 Rb1-a1 Qa4-c6 Be3-g5 Be7-d6 Bg5-f4 Nb6-c4 Be2xc4 Qc6xc4 Rf1-d1
e6-e5 Bf4-g3 a5-a4 d4xe5 Nd7xe5 Rd1xd6 Ne5xf3+ Kg1-h1 Qc4xe4 Qc1-f1 Nf3-d2
Qf1-f2 b4-b3 Rd6-d7 Qe4xg2+ Qf2xg2 Bb7xg2+ Kh1xg2 b3-b2) +3.06/27 125} 21.
Kh1 {(21. Kh1 c3 22. Ra1 Qc6 23. Ng2 Nc4 24. Rd1 Nxe3 25. Qxe3 Nb6 26. Nf4
Qd6 27. Nd3 Nc4 28. Qg1 Nb2 29. Nc5 Nxd1 30. Nxb7 Qd7 31. Nxa5 Rxa5 32.
Qxd1 Bd6) -2.78/24 80} Ba6 {(Bb7-a6 Kh1-g1 c4-c3 Be2xa6 Ra8xa6 Rb1-a1
Qa4-b5 Qc1-d1 a5-a4 Ra1-b1 Nb6-c4 Be3-c1 Qb5-a5 Ne1-d3 Ra6-b6 h2-h3 b4-b3
c2xb3 a4xb3 Rb1xb3 Qa5xa2 Rb3xc3 Rb6-c6 Rf1-f2 Qa2-a7 d4-d5 Rc6-c7 d5xe6
f7xe6 Qd1-c2 e6-e5 f3-f4 e5xf4 Bc1xf4) +3.36/27 102} 22. Ng2 {(22. Ng2 c3
23. Bxa6 Rxa6 24. Ra1 Qb5 25. Qe1 a4 26. Nf4 Qc4 27. Ne2 Rca8 28. Bc1 Ra5
29. Qd1 Rd8 30. Be3 Qc8 31. Rb1 Nc4 32. Bf2 Nb2 33. Qe1 a3 34. Nf4)
-2.81/25 92} c3 {(c4-c3 Be2xa6 Ra8xa6 Rb1-a1 Qa4-b5 Qc1-e1 a5-a4 Ra1-b1
Ra6-a8 Ng2-f4 Qb5-a5 Nf4-e2 Nb6-c4 Be3-c1 Ra8-b8 Rb1-a1 h7-h6 Bc1-f4 Rb8-b7
Ra1-b1 b4-b3 Qe1xc3 b3-b2 Kh1-g1 a4-a3 Bf4-g3 Qa5xc3 Na2xc3 Rc8-a8)
+3.43/27 52} 23. Bxa6 {(23. Bxa6 Rxa6 24. Ra1 Qb5 25. Bf4 a4 26. Ne3 Nc4
27. Qe1 Nxe3 28. Bxe3 Nb6 29. d5 Nc4 30. dxe6 Rxe6 31. Qe2 Bc5 32. Bxc5
Qxc5 33. Nc1 Nb2 34. Nd3 Nxd3 35. Qxd3) -3.05/25 61} Rxa6 {(Ra8xa6 Rb1-a1
Qa4-b5 Qc1-d1 a5-a4 Na2-c1 b4-b3 c2xb3 a4xb3 Nc1xb3 c3-c2 Qd1-e1 Ra6xa1
Nb3xa1 Be7-a3 Na1xc2 Rc8xc2 Rf1-f2 Qb5-b3 Rf2xc2 Qb3xc2 Qe1-f1 Nb6-c4
Be3-f4 Qc2-c3 d4-d5 Nd7-e5 Bf4xe5 Nc4xe5) +3.30/24 25} 24. Ra1 {(24. Ra1
Qb5 25. Bf4 a4 26. Ne3 Nc4 27. Qe1 Nxe3 28. Bxe3 Nb6 29. d5 Nc4 30. dxe6
Rxe6 31. Qe2 Bc5 32. Bxc5 Qxc5 33. Nc1 Nb2 34. Nd3 Nxd3 35. Qxd3) -3.05/23
17} Qb5 {(Qa4-b5 Kh1-g1 a5-a4 Qc1-e1 Ra6-a8 Ra1-b1 Nb6-c4 Qe1-e2 Qb5-b8
Rb1-c1 Qb8-c7 Rf1-e1 h7-h6 Kg1-h1 Nc4-a3 d4-d5 Qc7-c4 Qe2xc4 Na3xc4 d5xe6
f7xe6 Ng2-f4 Be7-g5 Na2xb4 Nc4xe3 Nf4xe6) +3.36/24 62} 25. Qe1 {(25. Qe1 a4
26. Bf2 Nc4 27. Qe2 Na3 28. Qxb5 Nxb5 29. Nc1 a3 30. Na2 Nb6 31. Rfb1 Ra4
32. Nf4 Nc4 33. Nd3 Nd2 34. Ndxb4 Nxb1 35. Rxb1 Bxb4 36. Nxb4) -3.04/21 20}
Nc4 {(Nb6-c4 Be3-f4 a5-a4 Ra1-c1 g7-g5 Bf4-e3 Nc4-a3 Qe1-f2 Rc8-f8 f3-f4
Qb5-c4 Na2xb4 Be7xb4 f4xg5 Na3-b5 Rc1-d1 a4-a3 Be3-f4 a3-a2 Ng2-e3 Qc4-c8
d4-d5 Bb4-d6 h2-h4 Bd6xf4 Qf2xf4) +3.49/24 56} 26. Rf2 {(26. Rf2 a4 27. Qe2
Na3 28. Qxb5 Nxb5 29. Nc1 Nb6 30. d5 Nc4 31. Nd3 a3 32. Ra2 Nxe3 33. Nxe3
Rd8 34. dxe6 fxe6 35. Kg2 Nd4 36. Ne5 Ra5) -3.27/22 166} a4 {(a5-a4 Rf2-e2
Ra6-a8 h2-h4 Nc4xe3 Re2xe3 Nd7-b6 Ra1-b1 Qb5-a5 Re3-d3 Nb6-c4 g4-g5 Rc8-d8
d4-d5 Be7-c5 Ng2-f4 Nc4-b2 d5xe6 Nb2xd3 e6xf7+ Kg8xf7 Nf4xd3 Rd8xd3 c2xd3)
+4.02/23 60} 27. Re2 {(27. Re2 Na3 28. Bg1 Bd6 29. h4 b3 30. cxb3 axb3 31.
Nxc3 Qc4 32. Qd1 Qxc3 33. Re3 Qc6 34. Rxb3 Nc4 35. Rxa6 Qxa6 36. Bh2 Nf6
37. Bxd6 Qxd6) -3.64/21 42} Raa8 {(Ra6-a8 h2-h3 Nc4xe3 Re2xe3 Nd7-b6 Ra1-b1
Qb5-c4 Na2-c1 Qc4xd4 Re3-d3 Qd4-c5 Nc1-a2 Qc5-a5 Ng2-e3 Rc8-d8 Rb1-d1
Rd8xd3 Rd1xd3 Be7-g5 Qe1-f2 Bg5xe3 Qf2xe3 Nb6-c4 Qe3-c1 Nc4-e5 Rd3-d4
Qa5-c7 f3-f4 b4-b3 f4xe5 b3xa2) +4.23/24 47} 28. Bf4 {(28. Bf4 e5 29. dxe5
Ndxe5 30. Qf1 Qc5 31. Rb1 Nc6 32. Bc1 Bd6 33. f4 Rd8 34. e5 Bc7 35. Be3
Nxe3 36. Nxe3 Bb6 37. Rd1 a3 38. g5 Rxd1 39. Qxd1) -3.38/21 30} e5 {(e6-e5
d4xe5 Nd7xe5 Ng2-e3 Ne5xf3 Qe1-f2 Nc4xe3 Qf2xf3 Ne3-c4 e4-e5 Qb5-d7 e5-e6
f7xe6 Ra1-e1 Ra8-a6 Qf3-e4 Ra6-c6 h2-h3 Rc8-f8 Re1-a1 Nc4-a3 Bf4-e5 Rc6-c4
Qe4-g2 Na3-b5 Re2-e4) +4.61/26 52} 29. dxe5 {(29. dxe5 Ndxe5 30. Qf2 Bc5
31. Qf1 Rd8 32. Nh4 a3 33. Rg2 Qb6 34. Bxe5 Nxe5 35. f4 Nc6 36. Nf3 Be3 37.
f5 Rd7 38. e5 Kh8 39. Rd1 Rxd1 40. Qxd1) -3.59/21 15} Ndxe5 {(Nd7xe5 Re2-f2
Nc4-d2 Ng2-e3 Ne5xf3 Qe1-d1 Nf3-g5 Bf4xg5 Qb5xg5 Ne3-d5 Qg5-e5 Rf2-g2
Qe5xe4 Nd5-b6 Be7-d6 Nb6xa8 Rc8xa8 Na2-c1 a4-a3 Nc1-a2 Ra8-c8 Na2-c1 Rc8-e8
Qd1-e2 Qe4-c6 Qe2-d1 Qc6-d5 Nc1-d3) +4.73/24 13} 30. Rf2 {(30. Rf2 Rd8 31.
Qe2 Qa5 32. Nc1 Qa6 33. Na2 Qe6 34. Rb1 Bc5 35. Rff1 Nd2 36. Nxb4 Nxb1 37.
Rxb1 a3 38. Bxe5 Qxe5 39. Na2 Rab8 40. Rxb8 Rxb8) -3.82/20 33} Nd2 {(Nc4-d2
Bf4xd2 c3xd2 Qe1xd2 b4-b3 Ng2-e3 b3xa2 Rf2-f1 Qb5-b2 Qd2-d5 Qb2-c3 f3-f4
Ne5-c6 Ne3-f5 Be7-f8 Qd5xa2 Nc6-b4 Qa2-a3 Qc3xa3 Ra1xa3 Nb4xc2 Ra3-a2 g7-g6
Nf5-g3 Nc2-e3 Rf1-g1 Ne3xg4 Kh1-g2) +5.37/26 55  User Adjudication} 0-1
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-03 00:00

> I suppose one could argue you are dealing with a guy that has gotten Crafty up to a speed FAR beyond what you have done?


" Far beyond what I have done?":eek:

I don't recollect ever trying to get Crafty up to speed?!

Whatever gave you  that  crazy notion,  that I've been trying to out do you in getting, what was it,  "Far" beyond what you have done"?

Bob, first and foremost- if you think even for a minute that you've succeeded in getting Crafty "up to speed" you are more delusional than I thought.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-03 00:07 Edited 2015-05-03 00:20

> why are we back on a comment that was posted FOUR years ago?


Now you have trouble counting?:yell: How did you ever make it through grad school.:lol:

Oct 2013. two years ago- 2!
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 05:26
I think you have a great disdain for David Levy- so much so that you walk all over his authority.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:27
On the contrary, David and I have been friends since 1976...  just shows how little you know.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 22:44
Are you still here? Why don't you take a powder!
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-04 16:16

> I simply have no idea what you are talking about.


Taking a moment to revisit your statement here! It would seem one of your buddies s is very familiar with this tactic!

"That would be a lot more convincing than weasling your way out of the discussion every time by pretending to be thick."

I wonder if anyone on the forum can guess who that buddy of yours is who made this astute statement!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-04 18:39
So I am (a) expected to have read EVERYTHING David has written since the ICGA panel was formed;  (b) REMEMBER all of that;  (c) read your mind to know which of all those writings, posts, emails and such you are talking about;  and (d) respond to whatever question you have imagined but poorly explained?

Get serious.
Parent - - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-04 19:21 Edited 2015-05-04 19:30
I'm surprised that you would  think that quote came from David Levy! That is very telling. Actually, I would suggest it more a Freudian slip from one of your other supporters. Apparently, it indicates he was thinking along these lines and uses it more often than not himself- and you seem to use it often enough yourself-at times. He has a tendency to act more like your coach and fairy godmother.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-04 19:54
I simply (incorrectly I would assume) depend on your question to be factual:

The purport of David Levy's statement on Oct 6th

So we are talking about something David wrote or not???

I don't think David would claim to be my "coach" if you were to directly ask him rather than guess/assume....
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-04 21:10
I think you're missing the  fundamental point here being made! :wink:
Take the quote from an rhetorical perspective.
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 04:53 Edited 2015-05-01 04:55

> What exactly has David said?


What did you say? Do you need help reading your own text? I can do this all night!
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-04-30 21:18
Idiot Bob wrote:
Guarantee you Chris did ALL of the writing.

Wrong again. I was copied on the correspondence leading up to the appeal and Chris did not do all the writing. Chris had help from several other good writers. Why wouldn't he take advantage of this? And why do you need to make these things up?

Idiot Bob wrote:
However FIDE took it as +I+ took it and specifically dismissed the part of the complaint that was coined by Chris/Ed.

The FIDE EC did an excellent job with their report and there is no reason to insult them by claiming they were as dimwitted as you are. They dismissed two complaints. The first, regarding the facts of the case, because they did not have competence over those issues. And the second for bias, because they believed the board was solely responsible for the action, and they saw no bias on the board. They did sanction the ICGA for not having a clear statutory basis for a penalty in the statutes or bylaws of the association. They determined that this had the ability to "cause … FIDE … to appear in an unjustifiable unfavourable light and in this way damage its reputation”. Being that this was a first time offense, they got off with a warning. There is no reason to believe they will get off easily if they repeat this mistake in the future.

Idiot Bob wrote:
And they were pretty clear about the entire complaint, using the terms "vague, lacking specifics, etc."  Which I had pointed out when their complaint originally reached us via FIDE.

Are you stupid or what? The word 'vague' appears exactly three times in the FIDE EC Judgement. In each case, it was quoting Vas Rajlich talking about Rule 2. It was NEVER used by the FIDE EC. Don't you feel stupid?

Idiot Bob wrote:
It never had a chance, because it was nothing more than whining and name-calling.

The ICGA was sanctioned as a result of this effort, and their findings included the fact that the ICGA was deficient in "not having a clear statutory basis for a penalty in the statutes or bylaws of the association."

Idiot Bob wrote:
That generally doesn't bode very well for a complaint.  Specifics are needed.  But were sorely lacking.

You are an idiot. The specifics were dismissed because the FIDE EC didn't have competence.

Idiot Bob wrote:
The ONLY thing FIDE latched on to was the lack of a specific life-time ban penalty clause in the rules.

Wrong again. The FIDE EC ruled that the ICGA was deficient in "not having a clear statutory basis for a penalty in the statutes or bylaws of the association." The complaint about the Lifetime Ban allowed them to consider this deficiency, for which they sanctioned the ICGA.

Idiot Bob wrote:
In light of that they ASKED (not directed) us to re-consider the ban.  That's up to the board.

You are as stupid as they come. The ICGA was treated with leniency because this was a first time offense and because "they were not jurists" and obviously knew less than nothing about the law. The FIDE EC determined that this had the ability to "cause … FIDE … to appear in an unjustifiable unfavourable light and in this way damage its reputation”. Being that this was a first time offense, they got off with a warning. If there is a next time, the sanctions will be more severe.

Idiot Bob wrote:
I actually have the entire complaint.

I have had the entire complaint since before it was submitted and witnessed the process where it was developed. Chris rightly took the lead. There were other contributors and everything was done with full cognizance of Vas. As usual, you are talking out of your ass and making things up as you go along. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 00:54
I'm willing to dance with you on this one...

- The complainants had to better specify in a written document the facts that constitute, in their opinion, an assumed violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

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.

Consequently, EC has no competence about the merit of ICGA’s decision concerning Mr Rajlich’s behaviour and alleged violations of ICGA internal rules, nor about ICGA’s reconstruction of some alleged facts of “plagiarism” or “cheating” during the World Computer Chess Championships....  Therefore, all arguments focused on these aspects, raised by the opposing parties, have no relevance for the current proceedings and have to be dismissed.

For any decision concerning a violation of their tournament rules, ICGA has not to respect a given model of procedural rules...Against this decision, as already clarified, no FIDE organ has appeal competence.  There are no violations of any FIDE rules.

and finally

ICGA has to be invited to modify their statutes in accordance with the present judgement and to consider revising the lifetime ban sanction imposed against Mr Rajlich.

The first quote illustrates the lack of clarity in specifying what rules were violated.  "vague" is a pretty good synopsis of "lack of clarity" wouldn't you think?

And _I_ "look silly"?

The ONLY thing they found wrong was a lack of specification for penalties in the rules.  NOTHING ELSE.  All that is needed is a statement "Violation of rule 2 can result in a penalty ranging from disqualification for the current event through a lifetime disqualification."

The complaint was a hodgepodge of whining, nothing more.  You can look up actual US case law and see how a "normal complaint" looks.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 08:17 Edited 2015-05-01 09:38
Idiot Bob wrote:
The first quote illustrates the lack of clarity in specifying what rules were violated.  "vague" is a pretty good synopsis of "lack of clarity" wouldn't you think?

You obviously didn't understand the timeline. The FIDE EC wrote: "- The complainants had to better specify in a written document the facts that constitute, in their opinion, an assumed violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics." in their procedural decision in 2012 in response to the first submission by Vas and Chris. As noted by the FIDE EC "On 31st of August 2012 and, one year later, in September 2013, Mr Rajlich and Mr Whittington sent an integration to their original complaint, signed by Mr Rajlich and “co-signed” by Mr Whittington..." and this was the basis for the FIDE EC Judgement. You really need to learn to read.

You've included other random phrases from the FIDE EC Judgement. None of them back up your claims.

The FIDE EC wrote:
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.

This is a statement of the obvious. Vas was the damaged party. Chris assisted him with his claim.

As the FIDE EC wrote:
However, Mr Rajlich intention to be assisted by Mr Whittington is evident and Mr Whittington’s assistance is admissible.

The FIDE EC wrote:
Consequently, EC has no competence about the merit of ICGA’s decision concerning Mr Rajlich’s behaviour and alleged violations of ICGA internal rules, nor about ICGA’s reconstruction of some alleged facts of “plagiarism” or “cheating” during the World Computer Chess Championships....  Therefore, all arguments focused on these aspects, raised by the opposing parties, have no relevance for the current proceedings and have to be dismissed.

As was clearly stated in the FIDE EC report:

the EC has no appeal competence on ICGA’s decisions concerning the application of ICGA’s rules, for the following reasons:

- Before the reform of the FIDE Statutes, in 2012, the EC had no appeal competences at all, not even on member federations, and this case concerns facts committed in 2011.
- For an affiliated organisation, an EC appeal competence has to be accepted explicitly by this organisation, and this is not the case for the ICGA.


The ICGA has not and will not accept FIDE EC appeal competence, because they have neither proper policies and procedures, nor specified sanctions in place. Without these, they would lose every single time. You are obviously too stupid to understand this rather obvious point.

The FIDE EC gave many examples of ICGA lapses in policy, procedure, and application of sanctions:

The FIDE EC wrote:
ICGA’s “Constitution and By-laws” –a very concise document- does not contain any rule about disciplinary sanctions and proceedings and never mentions the same possibility to constitute an organ charged to evaluate violations of disciplinary rules.

The FIDE EC wrote:
In occasion of the oral hearing in front of the EC, Mr Levy confirmed that ICGA has no rules on these issues.
However, in the documents submitted by the parties, quite strong and specific words were used, such as “tribunal”, “innocence”, “guilty” and “verdict”.

In an article written by Mr Levy (together with Mr H.J. van den Herik, Mr A.Plaat and Mr D. Dimov) and submitted to the EC by the ICGA, the proceedings against Mr Rajlich are defined as follows: “The investigation, the report of the investigation, and the verdict that Rajlich was guilty of the plagiarism took place in the form of a version of Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR)”.

In another ICGA’s publication, the words “peer review” were used.

It seems clear that all these words and definitions do not correspond to their technical meaning. They have been used by analogy by persons who are not experts in law.


This is a rather damning statement which states rather clearly that the FIDE EC felt that the ICGA had no clue what they were doing in this matter.

Idiot Bob wrote:
And _I_ "look silly"?

No. You look stupid.

Idiot Bob wrote:
The ONLY thing they found wrong was a lack of specification for penalties in the rules.  NOTHING ELSE.

You are really an ignoramus. The FIDE EC Judgement is very critical of the ICGA throughout the judgement, even while declaring that they lack competence to review the facts of the matter, and declared that the ICGA had the right to set up arbitrary rules for their events. They even documented David Levy's admission that the ICGA had no rules! :lol:

The FIDE EC wrote:
This is also the only “legal basis” mentioned by the “ICGA's verdict”, where it is added, as a source for the identification of the sanction, that “the ICGA has borne in mind the approach of the International Olympic Committee for dealing with the most serious cases of the violations of its rules”. No other rules are mentioned.

In occasion of the oral hearing in front of the EC, Mr Levy confirmed that ICGA has no rules on these issues.
:lol:

Idiot Bob wrote:
The complaint was a hodgepodge of whining, nothing more.

The complaint was very effective in establishing the facts of the case, and the FIDE EC was sympathetic to the complaint, even in areas where they did not have competence. Most importantly, it served to put David Levy on record on many important matters, all of which placed him in a very bad light.
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