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 Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-01 09:27
Hi BFL,

On Hyatt's inplication of "vague" about our first contact to FIDE! hahaha - he is trying it on as ever.

First contact: Vas, me, Soren, Ed and others were in group email mode discussing "what to do" re the appalling ICGA process and cruel verdict. There had been posts on social media suggesting Vas make a complaint to the FIDE EC. We discussed this, and I (I think) pointed out it was by no means certain FIDE would even entertain a complaint about an affiliate. So, we decided to write and ask FIDE, giving absolute bare bones of the case, if they would entertain a complaint if one was made. From our point of view, this was not a complaint, it was an enquiry asking FIDE if they had "jurisdiction". We heard nothing back until FIDE EC listed our enquiry as a complaint, gave it a complain number, and ruled that it was permissible but we had to send more information within 21 or 30 days. The initial inquiry was written by me with CC to Vas, and sent to FIDE EC emails. Hyatt's "vague" comment is just plain inappropriate.

Second contact was the complaint in full. Basically we had 30(?) days to go from nothing written to a proper formal complaint document. One of my jobs was being liaison point with FIDE, I emailed asking for a time extension, but there was no reply on this, we thus worked on the basis that the full complaint had to be in within the 30 days, but maybe we'ld hear if we got an extension or not (we didn't). The complaint document was put together in group mode, everybody copied during the process, eight people were in this group, Vas included obviously.

Involvement of Vas. I scrolled up through the email messages from Vas stored on my system. I counted 440 emails from him, most were group emails so others would have received them too.

re: signatures on the complaint. Vas wrote in answer to email query "who was going to sign the complaint", a day or two before it was sent ..... "you can sign for me, or make me the "primary complainer", that's no problem. Whatever you think is best, Chris. Thanks for all the effort that went into this. Best regards, Vas."

re: who should actually transmit the complaint. I offered on the basis that FIDE were using my email from the original query. Vas replied: "that sounds fine. Please tell me if I should do something or stay offline. Best regards, Vas"
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 10:00
You did a fantastic job on this. Consider the following:

1) The FIDE EC rejects most of the complaints that it receives.
2) Even in the matters where the FIDE EC did not have competence, they were very sympathetic, and gave the ICGA a hard time for having no understanding of legal matters, and for having neither written policies, procedures nor sanctions. As David Levy was forced to admit, [the] "ICGA has no rules on these issues." :lol:
3) David had to prepare, put a presentation together, and travel up to Tromsø, where it's likely he was disparaged by the FIDE EC (or at least it would appear so from the Judgement).

The only regret is that you weren't able to be there as well. Think of the fun that might have ensued! :lol:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 15:43
:)  All I can ask is "can you spell hyperbole"?  Of COURSE you can.

FIDE was NOT "critical of the ICGA throughout the EC report."  That is pure and utter nonsense.  EXACTLY what I would expect of you.

There is no point in going on with this.  It is, just like the ICGA investigation, "OVER".
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 17:23
Idiot Bob wrote:
FIDE was NOT "critical of the ICGA throughout the EC report."  That is pure and utter nonsense.  EXACTLY what I would expect of you.

It's not too surprising that your third grade reading abilities didn't pick this up, but actually it's fairly obvious. It's really not a good thing when the FIDE EC mentions a many times that the ICGA has no written procedures, policies, or sanctions, and force the president of the organization to admit that the organization "has no rules". It's also not good when you get sanctioned for actions that could cast FIDE in an unfavorable light.

But don't worry. David Levy is much smarter than dimwitted Bob, and if has any interest in the future of the ICGA, he will make sure that policies and sanctions are put into place and reviewed by people who know what they are doing (i.e not you).
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:21
Wait until the report is published, then feel free to go through it and point out all these criticisms.  Most seemed to be directed at the complaint itself.  People with no interests.  non-specificity.  ...  dismissed...

Sound familiar.

I believe the rule will be modified to include the "up to a life-time ban" option which is all FIDE asked.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 19:42
Wait until the report is published, then feel free to go through it and point out all these criticisms.

You are a complete idiot. I have the report of course. It is very critical of the ICGA and the complete absence of policies and sanctions, and this was emphasized by the admission by David Levy that there were no written rules nor sanctions in place...

Idiot Bob wrote:
Wait until the report is published, then feel free to go through it and point out all these criticisms. 

Wrong. All of the criticism, and it is harsh, is focused on an organization that hasn't bothered to put in place written procedures or sanctions. Only a complete moron like you wouldn't grasp the significance of David Levy having to admit there were no rules in place.

Idiot Bob wrote:
I believe the rule will be modified to include the "up to a life-time ban" option which is all FIDE asked.

You're so stupid, you still don't get it. FIDE requires written policies and sanctions. The ICGA has not agreed to the FIDE EC Appeals Process. Of course they would be foolish to do so since they would lose every appeal. This allows the ICGA to be completely arbitrary and capricious in their Judgements, as long as they follow clearly defined, written Policies, Procedures, and Sanctions.

David Levy, not being a moron like you, certainly understands this, and I suspect he will remedy the situation, at least if he believes the ICGA will provide benefits for David Levy in the future.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:54
The ONLY thing it criticizes the ICGA for is the lack of a written policy about potential penalties for violating rule two.  There is NOTHING else that is criticized within the EC report.  Nada.

That is one paragraph of the 17 page report.  Where's all the OTHER criticism?

Of course I am not surprised you have a copy.  Seems like the RF side of things does not honor FIDE policies either.  No big surprise.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-01 20:07 Edited 2015-05-01 20:36
The complaint was written by a large committee. The complaint writers are interested parties. How hard is that to understand?

ICGA was criticised with an ETHICS VIOLATION SANCTION, bringing FIDE into disrepute, by overstepping what it was LEGALLY ALLOWED to do under rule 2. FIDE EC called it "ignorance of the law is no defence". How hard is that for you to accept that you need to keep lying about it?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 20:55
Idiot Bob wrote:
The ONLY thing it criticizes the ICGA for is the lack of a written policy about potential penalties for violating rule two.  There is NOTHING else that is criticized within the EC report.  Nada.

You are just plain stupid. The FIDE EC Judgement criticizes the ICGA from start to finish. The only thing they sanction the ICGA for is the Lifetime Ban, which was done without supporting Policies, Procedures or Sanctions, and was thus deemed to be potentially illegal, with the potential to cast FIDE in an unfavorable light. On other matters, the FIDE EC didn't sanction the ICGA, because they either did not have competence over the matter, or because it was within the ICGA's right as a private organization to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Idiot Bob wrote:
Where's all the OTHER criticism?

I forgot that you are illiterate. Here is a list of criticisms in the FIDE EC Judgement, large and small:

From the FIDE EC Judgement:
1) 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.
2) In occasion of the oral hearing in front of the EC, Mr Levy confirmed that ICGA has no rules on these issues.
3) However, in the documents submitted by the parties, quite strong and specific words were used, such as “tribunal”, “innocence”, “guilty” and “verdict”.
4) 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.
5) ICGA Constitution and by laws is not a basis for the imposed lifetime ban sanction and there are no other statutory basis.
6) ICGA maintains that “Rajlich was not accused of violating any ethics code. He was accused of cheating”, but cheating is exactly a typical example of violation of disciplinary-ethics codes.
7) These principles are mandatory for FIDE and for FIDE affiliated organisations. On the contrary, the above-mentioned ICGA decision and the linked proceedings violated these principles.
8) In addition, Mr Rajlich was not informed about the existence of real disciplinary proceedings against him nor about the risk to be sanctioned this way.
9) In the opinion of the EC, ICGA’s proceedings and decisions against Mr Rajlich had a double nature: from one side they concerned the evaluation of an assumed violation of ICGA’s tournament rules, from another side they were extended to punish a behaviour that was considered also as a violation of ICGA’s not written disciplinary-ethical rules
10) Members of the ICGA’s Executive Committee ignored they had to respect specific rules if they intended to carry out disciplinary proceedings against Mr Rajlich.
11) Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for persons charged of main responsibilities in a given organisation: they had and will have the duty to apply FIDE and national mandatory rules.
12) Sanctioning Mr Rajlich with a lifetime ban, ICGA violated par. 2.2 and par. 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics. Par. 2.2 concerns an “organization who directly or indirectly … acts contrary to FIDE Code of Ethics”; par. 2.2.10 “occurrences which cause … FIDE … to appear in an unjustifiable unfavourable light and in this way damage its reputation”. In this case it was accomplished a violation of rules that are mandatory for FIDE and FIDE organisations and from this occurrence FIDE can appear in an unjustifiable unfavourable light.
13) 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.
14) by imposing a lifetime ban as a sanction against Mr Rajlich, in absence of a clear statutory basis and without sufficient procedural guarantees for Mr Rajlich, the ICGA did not act in accordance with FIDE rules, this way violating par. 2.2 and 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.
15) ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning and has to be invited to modify their statutes in accordance with FIDE principles and rules.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 22:47
You realize where things like "tribunal" came from?  NOT from the ICGA.

So where is there ANY mention about anything OTHER than the lack of a policy about lifetime ban?  Answer:  There isn't one.

As I said, just hyperbole and distortion.

The actual complaint was dismissed outright, by the way...

They simply took issue with the lack of written statement about potential penalties.  They said

Members of the ICGA’s Executive Committee ignored they had to respect specific rules if they intended to carry out disciplinary proceedings against Mr Rajlich. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for persons charged of main responsibilities in a given organisation: they had and will have the duty to apply FIDE and national mandatory rules. However, they were not jurists and they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation. This has to be taken into account and it is possible to qualify the committed violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics as a minor one.
A warning is a sufficient sanction.


"really critical of the ICGA"...
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 23:23
You are really a moron...

FIDE is a large organization that sanctions very few groups or individuals, and only for serious matters. The ICGA has joined this group because of dishonest people like you. If you weren't such an idiot, you would be embarrassed...
Parent - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2015-05-02 07:57

> Members of the ICGA’s Executive Committee ignored they had to respect specific rules if they intended to carry out disciplinary proceedings against Mr Rajlich. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for persons charged of main responsibilities in a given organisation: they had and will have the duty to apply FIDE and national mandatory rules. However, they were not jurists and they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation. This has to be taken into account and it is possible to qualify the committed violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics as a minor one. A warning is a sufficient sanction.


Yes, Bob, FIDE EC, is excusing you here for being a bunch of blundering idiots!
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2015-05-02 09:17 Upvotes 1
Bob - You realize where things like "tribunal" came from?  NOT from the ICGA.

To refresh your memory - from David.

Term was introduced at the "Attack of the clones" article on Chessvibes.

Look it up.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-02 10:33
after the "Attack of the Clones" article, it is difficult to see how Levy could consider himself an "impartial" judge. Shouldn't he have recused himself form the ICGA board when it considered the Rybka case?
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2015-05-02 19:17
What if you are a hang judge?

Remember - Name and shame them on the Internet © David Levy
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-02 21:39
does he like it? there has to be some reason for the punishment frenzy, the naming, shaming and then the attack on the marriage; in fact, if you think about it, why go any further than declaring the program invalid for the relevant tournament? why life ban? why any ban?  isn't the "invalid" declaration enough for practical purposes?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-02 23:26
Good questions.

I understand the motivations of Bob (jealousy) and Harvey (commercial), but what was David Levy's motivation here? In one fell swoop, he reduced the WCCC from the undisputed top computer chess tournament, to an irrelevant tournament between third rate engines. Makes no sense to me...
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-02 23:42
I don't think I would describe my motives as commercial. I make 0 money from Hiarcs.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-02 23:57
You support a commercial enterprise, Team Hiarcs. If Hiarcs was making billions, you would probably be on the payroll. Since chess companies aren't big business, you are involved in an unpaid role.

As an analogy, I have friends who are on the Board of Directors for quite a few large companies. The payment for this work is more of an honorarium than anything else, and it never makes sense from that standpoint, but it is prestigious, and they play an important role in formulating company policy.
Parent - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 01:27
Bloody hell I have got to wait till it's making billions........:roll:
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-02 07:42
Wow, that is A LOT MORE damaging to the ICGA than the short summary I have read.... Thanks!
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:49
I have the report and have read it completely.  I can confirm everything that Alan has said, i.e. the stuff that you are pretending isn't true.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-01 21:05
Hyatt lies about the report contents, and then when we are forced to provide report quotes to refute the lies, he complains that we selectively leak. hahahaha. Better than selectively lying and mispresenting the report contents.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 18:41 Edited 2015-05-01 18:46 Upvotes 1

> FIDE was NOT "critical of the ICGA throughout the EC report."  That is pure and utter nonsense.  EXACTLY what I would expect of you.
> There is no point in going on with this.  It is, just like the ICGA investigation, "OVER".


Re: The Inquisition-

These principles are mandatory for FIDE and for FIDE affiliated organisations.
On the contrary, the above-mentioned ICGA decision and the linked proceedings violated these principles.

In addition, Mr Rajlich was not informed about the existence of real disciplinary proceedings
against him nor about the risk to be sanctioned this way.

In the opinion of the EC, ICGA’s proceedings and decisions against Mr Rajlich had a double nature: from one side they concerned the evaluation of an assumed violation of ICGA’s tournament rules,

from another side they were extended to punish a behaviour that was considered also as a violation of ICGA’s not written disciplinary-ethical rules

( ICGA maintains that “Rajlich was not accused of violating any ethics code.   ( let's really high-light that ditty! Bob! )

He was accused of cheating”,

but cheating is exactly a typical example of violation of disciplinary-ethics codes).



Hey, Bob, "All I can ask is "can you spell hyperbole"?  Of COURSE you can."
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:23
He was accused of violating ICGA rule 2.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  No complaint filed with the FIDE EC about ethical violations, etc.  

Cheating violates ALL ethical codes.  NOT just FIDE.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 19:50
Idiot Bob wrote:
He was accused of violating ICGA rule 2.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

The FIDE EC Judgement states:
ICGA maintains that “Rajlich was not accused of violating any ethics code. He was accused of cheating”

This is exactly the kind of idiocy that got the ICGA sanctioned in this Judgement. All the ICGA needs to do to get sanctioned again is to continue following the prescriptions of the Mississippi Moron...
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2015-05-02 07:34 Edited 2015-05-02 08:35
He was accused of violating ICGA rule 2.

Exactly. "Accused of". Not proven. Because rule 2 is not only unclear, but you have repeatedly stated that 'we are going discuss afterwards what it means and what is allowed or not'. You are simply a jerk hiding behind non-written rules and then apply them as he wants. Speaking about ethical behaviour.

Cheating violates ALL ethical codes.

I am glad we agree that you are violating ALL ethical codes: you are cheating with your Crafty test results; cheating with your copied Fruit bishop PST; cheating with the meaning of rules; cheating by lying; cheating by putting words in people's mouth they have never said; cheating by not being objective; and so forth. The list is endless.
Parent - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 18:51
Truth be known -you idiots just galloped up fools hill with only one intention in mind hang Rajlich and hang him high. Without a thought to what you were doing and how you were doing it.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2015-04-30 22:15 Edited 2015-04-30 22:19
I agree with BfL but I want to ask you something else. I saw that even Harvey or Mark wrote that possibly appeal could at least change the life ban. The question is, have you not the lightest interest in the presentation of the ICGA? Perhaps such a repair wont stop further appeals but at least the ICGA and also you in personal could prove that you dont aim at the maximal kill.  In the other thread here in RF I reported an opinion of an expert in a German forum. He is certain that Vas didnt copy/paste at all. But that he learned from Fruit's code. His code was created by machine compiler if my memory is correct. For some few bytes that looked like original code from Fruit, this expert says that from a humane and sane perspective it cannot destroy the acceptance of a much bigger program. Personally you might be no direct (business) opponent for Vas but you should admit that the panel members were direct profiters when they could throw out Vas. And finally. Nobody knows that Vas really would intend to come back for possibly two reasons:

1) Personal life conditions. Here you could show some empathy because Vas has never insulted or attacked you. Again the quest why do you want to be a killer? (all this is ment metaphorically pf course)

2) Since Vas is in business interests it's improbable that he would be willing to give away his source code to a tournament director of ICGA or others. He was the best and now nobody could assume that he cant write his own winner code. Why you at your age want to prevent that Vas could comeback in some distant future when you're already dead? What is this all about? Still a personal axe to grind?

Please give me some comments on the message with the standpoint of this expert. Excuse my bad English in the translation. THe expert talked about the importance of chessic not only aögorithmic cleverness. Perhaps here Vas really had some benefits from his IM title.But please give your comments. Thank you.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 00:36
I don't have a vote.  The ICGA board decided on the penalty.  Only they can change it.  Whether or not they will, I have absolutely no idea...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-01 19:12
To make the penalty, the ICGA overstepped the law, or ignored the law as FIDE EC put it. The ICGA have thus been informed that the penalty is unlawful. it will say much about the ICGA, Levy, Hyatt and their supporters, if the penalty is simply left standing. However, since the penalty in unlawful, right now, regardless of what ICGA say; Vas can simply announce he is turning up with Rybka N at any ICGA tournamen and it would be unlawful to refuse him based on the "life ban" penalty. There is no "life ban", it's invalid.

Additionally, the rule 2 statute only allows a TD to disqualify a program at a tournament. No further penalty or action may be made by a TD. Vas was sanctioned under the rule 2 process, so this limitation applies. A TD has no power to alter a tournament result, once it is over. The ICGA acted outside the law by stripping Vas of titles by altering tournament results (several results). It had no power to do this either. Vas is therefore still world champion at the dates concerned, and claims made by competitors  to be WC instead are outside the law.

All the sanctions are invalid. No amount of tinkering with statutes post event will change anything. ICGA could and can only operate according to the statutes of the time, they have no other legal rules in place.

Vas remains world champion. ICGA simply went on a feeding frenzy and announced a bunch of sanctions they had no lawful ability to make. It was this out of control action that earnt ICGA a "bringing FIDE into disrepute" Ethics Code breach.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:18
The ban is NOT invalid.  FIDE makes no "laws".  They ASKED us to revisit it.  That is all.

There is nothing "legal" in the proceedings with the panel, the board or with the EC.  The EC made that crystal clear.  That is for a court to determine.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-01 19:42
Of course FIDE makes no laws. Thsi was not what I said. Now pay attention: Vas was sanctioned under rule 2, the ONLY and MAXIMUM sanction a TD can carry out under rule 2 is disqualification. No bans, no life time bans, no back dated altering tournament results. The law doesn't permit it - that's the LAW, not FIDE rules or ICGA rules , but law. Like its against the law to park on double yellow, or steal. That sort of law. Geddit now?

The proceedings have to be within the law. When ICGA overstepped, or "ignored the law" as FIDE EC put it, they were acting outside of the law and without lawful justification. Thus what they announced/did is not valid. Go look it up, or consult a lawyer or something, it gets tedious arguing with a wrong but all-knowing idiot.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 19:52
"disqualification" has no time period specified.

Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice.

I don't see any "invalid for this event only" or any other time frame.  Could easily be declared invalid permanently.

ICGA did not act "outside the law".  This was not about a "law" ever.  It was about (a) an ICCA tournament rule and (b) the FIDE ethics code of conduct.  Please remove the word "law" from the discussion, it does not belong there.

And it also gets tedious arguing with someone that tries to introduce facts that are not facts, distort the discussion into a debate about law when no law whatsoever applies to this process, etc...

Laws do NOT apply to private organizations making rules about their own events, unless you talk about something unconstitutional (in the US).  Please cite which specific international law ICGA rule two violates.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-01 20:04 Edited 2015-05-01 20:12
rule 2 doesn't violate laws, stupid people acting BEYOND their own rules violate laws. Doh!

I don't need to assert that ICGA overstepped/ignored the law. No less a person than International Professor of Law, jurist, judge, and according to BB, chief judge of european human rights court or something (I forget exactly, go ask him) Ravello stated ICGA ignored the law making the sanction action against Vas. amd gave ICGA an Ethics Violation status for bringing into disrepute FIDE. What is so hard for you to understand here?

TD is like a football referee, his job is to keep the tournament going and sometimes he makes mistakes, he has to act fast. Like a referee can make a mistake and award a penalty when there was none. He can send a player off. But that's his limit, he can't disqualify for a longer period, that goes to a higher authority which can fairly consult experts and impose higher level sanctions AFTER a fair process. Likewise ICGA rule 2 TD can declare invalid FOR THE TOURNAMENT, but not beyond. He is limited for the same reason a referee is limited (unfairness is accepted for speed of decision and keeping play going - the trade off is a limition of sanction).

You'll note also that rule 2 states PROGRAMS can be declared invalid, NOT programmers. Yet it was the PROGRAMMER who was banned for life. Ignoring the law. Hence the breahc of FIDE Ethics Code.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-01 22:54
what a silly attempt at twisting things.   If a program is declared invalid, obviously the programmer did something wrong.  I know of no way to punish an inanimate computer program, which is simply a silly concept.

A referee is NOT limited as to what he can do by any law.  Only by the charter or policy of the organization.  Ditto for the ICGA.  ZERO laws were broken.  Only complaint from the EC was no written policy listing lifetime ban as an option.

Something they termed "a minor ethics violation".
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-01 23:35
You are a stupid and illiterate hillbilly. The FIDE EC Judgement goes through this in a manner that anyone should be able to understand:

FIDE rules had to be applied by the ICGA, as a FIDE affiliated organisation.
FIDE, as many other international sports federations, including the International Olympic Committee –whose rules are mentioned by ICGA as a possible legal basis for their decision- is a Swiss association and must comply with Swiss law.

Swiss law grants to associations a wide discretion to regulate their own affairs (v. Art. 63 Swiss Civil Code). The freedom of associations to regulate their own affairs is limited only by mandatory law.

In Swiss law, it is generally accepted that an association may impose disciplinary sanctions upon its members if they violate the rules and regulations of the association. The jurisdiction to impose such sanctions is based upon the freedom of associations to regulate their own affairs. The association is granted a wide discretion to determine the violations that are subject to sanctions, the measure of the sanctions and all procedural rules.

However, in order to impose a sanction an association must satisfy the following conditions (cfr. Swiss Federal Supreme Court 90 II 347 E. 2):
- There must be a sufficiently clear statutory basis for a penalty in the statutes or bylaws of the association.
- The sanction procedure must guarantee the right to be heard.

By the way, also if not relevant for this case, it has to be added that no different conclusions will be reached applying any other national legal order: these conditions are really the minimum requirements requested everywhere to impose disciplinary sanctions.
These principles are mandatory for FIDE and for FIDE affiliated organisations.
FIDE Statutes and EC procedural rules fully satisfy these conditions.

On the contrary, the above-mentioned ICGA decision and the linked proceedings violated these principles.


As previously mentioned, FIDE is a very large organization, yet sanctions only a few organizations and people every year. Congratulations for being a big enough scumbag to help your organization make the list!
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-02 21:42
why do you want to PUNISH, over and above the declaration of invalid program? this is a serious question - what's the point, isn't "invalid program" enough? What's with the naming and shaming and life ban and wedding photos published plus humiliating headlines?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2015-05-03 00:13
When you get caught cheating at the drag strip, the "car" doesn't get punished.  Depending on the infraction, the driver, or the crew or both are suspended for a number of events (or weeks or months).  And I have seen them receive a "lifetime disqualification".

When you get caught cheating in a horse race, the horse doesn't get punished.  The rider, or the owner bear the brunt. 

When a college football cheats by playing ineligible players, the "team" (coaches and players) get punished.

It ALWAYS goes back to the person that broke the rule.  To construe this in any other way is completely ridiculous.

ICGA published ZERO photos, provided ZERO photos, provided ZERO headlines, etc., you should cease with that.  They might one day tire of it and let you have your day in court proving such a libelous statement.  And since you can't, it could be quite an expensive mistake.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-03 19:07
the rule 2 statute says "program declared invalid", you don't have a legal authority to punish the PROGRAMMER. All that sanctioning against Vas was outside your legal auhority and the FIDE EC rightly gave the ICGA a "disrepute" ethics breach conviction.

Is that clear, you (TD) has the right to declare a program invalid, but not to punish a programmer. So where does this PUNISHMENT FETISH come from? The NAME and SHAME punishment fetish? The lifetime killing (ban) fetish, where does that come from? You and your ICGA guys are weird in my opinion. Why isn't "program invalid" enough for you that you want to anhiliate the programmer in addition?

Let's consider this METRO article. The article that appals many people. Did the ICGA express any horror at it? Did the ICGA distance itself from the article? Did it apologise that it's PR releases ended up somehow prompting this disgusting article? Did it say: "sorry, Vas, that article went too far, it was never our intention that the press should react in that way to our "naming and shaming" policy"? Did it?

Do you, Hyatt, distance yourslef from the article and apolgise to Vas that the process you began, were a prime mover in, and carried through, should end in this kind of filthy article and the attack on his marriage? Do you, Hyatt?
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 19:15
Yawn... I am done with this subject on this forum. The verdict has not and will not change. In my opinion the ICGA should review the life ban and I will make that suggestion in Leiden. You can discuss it for another 5 years in this black hole if you like my guess is the verdict will not have changed but I guess it does keep you and Ed active in retirement which can't be a bad thing.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-03 19:36
If and when the good people of computer chess change the executive board of the ICGA, specifically Levy, everything will change, including the verdict. On Levy's watch the World Championship feature has progressively collapsed into low numbers and lack of interest. On his watch the competitors panel and biased secretariat were set up to create the worst schism amd disaster comp chess has ever seen. On his watch FIDE has awarded the ICGA an Ethics Violation, a first for comp chess. Any CEO with that track record would have been required to resign a long time ago. What's he still doing in place?  Do you have no mechanism to award him the carriage clock and the farewell party?
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 19:53

> On Levy's watch the World Championship feature has progressively collapsed into low numbers and lack of interest.


Hopefully Stockfish and/or Komodo will enter this year and then the views of the unwashed masses will soon change.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-03 20:07
Whatevs. Comp Chess organises itself perfectly well on a non-hierarchic networking level via several forums (something for everybody), several rating lists, various championships including the fine TCEC. Note that there are no leaders, it is all self-organising and anyone has the power and capability to make some new idea work. Stockfish development is a great example of the horizontal network. Meanwhile the vertically organised hierarchical, Levy as king, ICGA is completely redundant. Everybody can find and speak to anyone, as opposed to pre-internet when traveling to the WCC was a networking necessity for manufacturors to meet programmers and each other etc etc. Now it just takes a google search. Rating lists and internet tournaments render the championship side redundant. Horizontal networks have their own moral and disciplinary peer-group correcting attributes - no need for tribunals led by any out of touch hierarchy. ICGA days are over, technology made it redundant (also its own actions recently). If there's a need or a desire by some to meet up for a tournament, then that can be self organised; again no need for ICGA. Publishing an academic journal is fine, if there is demand for that, and will no doubt continue from the university in Holland, but apart from that, bye bye dinosaur.
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 20:12
That looks like a Rolf post all in 1 paragraph.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-03 20:18
if you seriosuly don't comprehend the post, then your social and political knowledge of the world has to about nil. No surprise there, for we know your discrimation capability for good food and wine focuses on one attribute only - the price. Sad.
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 20:18
I just saw who the author was and gave up.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2015-05-03 20:22
good decision when you stand no chance.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2015-05-03 20:08
Certainly not Stockfish! Let me quote from Lucas Braesch:

"SF will not participate in this fake world championship:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/fishcooking/8F2VYzHEsR4

Maybe things were different in the 80s, but today in 2015, ICGA is useless, irrelevant, and incredibly arrogant. We do not need the ICGA. It's the ICGA needs SF desperately to save their pathetic tournament from falling into oblivion."


Seems clear enough to me...
Parent - - By Harvey Williamson (*****) Date 2015-05-03 20:11
There are 3 that can enter the Fish!
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