I Am Not Afraid Of The Truth- Are You?!

[geots]

Earlier I had brought this topic up on the Rybka Forum. Would not have brought it up again if a change in the people had not come about. Originally I had, I believe, 4 people. Now I must add a 5th person.

Many believe the ICGA panel that handled Vas' case started bad with the "we already know he is guilty"- coming from a panel member BEFORE the evidence had been handed to them. I could mention other problems, but it is pointless. Some side with me and some don't.

I propose to decide this to the full satisfaction of everyone. Then IT WILL BE OVER. FOR GOOD. I can assure you I will know for sure and abide by any decision they reach. And so will all the people who question the decision. No one who believes Vas is guilty will ever again have to listen to dissenting views. You cannot do better than that.

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own. For some one who thinks Whittington would be biased, he will not. That you can count on. All he wants is the truth. But it would not matter anyway, because a majority vote of 3 - 2 will be accepted. Unless they feel a unanimous vote should be required. These five can decide that issue.

From now on they will be viewed as "The Five". They can review any previous evidence, and add any of their own as I said. Any of the 5 who do not want to serve on the panel means the remaining 4 will choose their 5th member- must be unanimous selection.

Then when they are done and render their verdict- we will all agree and live by it. ICGA not recognizing this panel or their verdict will not matter. We are after the truth, and if ICGA's feelings are hurt- they will have to deal with it. The truth is more important than anything and everything else.

They can also, if Vas is willing- study Rybka 3 and 4. I think to these 5 people he would agree. If not- he has to live or die with what evidence they have thru 2.3.2.

There it is. I agree to abide by their decision because I 100% think they are more than capable. And we won't have any pre-existing biases.

To anyone who thinks this is a bad idea because they say he has already been found guilty- I can and will only assume they would do anything to keep the verdict from changing. They don't want the real truth from these 5 men- remembering it may very well be guilty.

If the evidence is ironclad- to those who worry- the evidence won't change. And it is of utmost importance THAT THESE 5 MEN AND NO ONE ELSE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE DISCUSSION. Bob Hyatt does not need to be there. He wasn't when ICGA ruled and voted.

If it still means ICGA wants to be stubborn and stick by their decision, it won't matter. It is not life or death to be recognized by them. But they will have to agree if they don't like the verdict- sooner or later. And if the verdict is guilty, that will be academic anyway.

Remember the best and brightest in ICGA did not really study the evidence as these 5 men will. They just handed it down the chain to others and abided by their decision. For the most part.

There it is. That is my proposal. I am not afraid of their verdict either way. Are you?



gts

[bob]

Earlier I had brought this topic up on the Rybka Forum. Would not have brought it up again if a change in the people had not come about. Originally I had, I believe, 4 people. Now I must add a 5th person.

Many believe the ICGA panel that handled Vas' case started bad with the "we already know he is guilty"- coming from a panel member BEFORE the evidence had been handed to them. I could mention other problems, but it is pointless. Some side with me and some don't.

I propose to decide this to the full satisfaction of everyone. Then IT WILL BE OVER. FOR GOOD. I can assure you I will know for sure and abide by any decision they reach. And so will all the people who question the decision. No one who believes Vas is guilty will ever again have to listen to dissenting views. You cannot do better than that.

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own. For some one who thinks Whittington would be biased, he will not. That you can count on. All he wants is the truth. But it would not matter anyway, because a majority vote of 3 - 2 will be accepted. Unless they feel a unanimous vote should be required. These five can decide that issue.

From now on they will be viewed as "The Five". They can review any previous evidence, and add any of their own as I said. Any of the 5 who do not want to serve on the panel means the remaining 4 will choose their 5th member- must be unanimous selection.

Then when they are done and render their verdict- we will all agree and live by it. ICGA not recognizing this panel or their verdict will not matter. We are after the truth, and if ICGA's feelings are hurt- they will have to deal with it. The truth is more important than anything and everything else.

They can also, if Vas is willing- study Rybka 3 and 4. I think to these 5 people he would agree. If not- he has to live or die with what evidence they have thru 2.3.2.

There it is. I agree to abide by their decision because I 100% think they are more than capable. And we won't have any pre-existing biases.

To anyone who thinks this is a bad idea because they say he has already been found guilty- I can and will only assume they would do anything to keep the verdict from changing. They don't want the real truth from these 5 men- remembering it may very well be guilty.

If the evidence is ironclad- to those who worry- the evidence won't change. And it is of utmost importance THAT THESE 5 MEN AND NO ONE ELSE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE DISCUSSION. Bob Hyatt does not need to be there. He wasn't when ICGA ruled and voted.

If it still means ICGA wants to be stubborn and stick by their decision, it won't matter. It is not life or death to be recognized by them. But they will have to agree if they don't like the verdict- sooner or later. And if the verdict is guilty, that will be academic anyway.

Remember the best and brightest in ICGA did not really study the evidence as these 5 men will. They just handed it down the chain to others and abided by their decision. For the most part.

There it is. That is my proposal. I am not afraid of their verdict either way. Are you?



gts

One comment: Be consistent. You don't want me because I have said for several years that Vas broke rules by copying Fruit. Yet you explicitly want Chris who for several years has spouted nothing but useless drivel about "he could have done it this way, he could have done it that way, space aliens could have helped him, etc."

So what you are doing is nothing more than trying to stack the jury.

Zach is a known "yes he copied fruit" vote.

The other 4 have clearly been arguing against that from early on. So a 4:1 stacked jury seems to be your concept of "fair" and you will accept whatever the "majority" says. I imagine you would.

yeah, that'd be fair and impartial...

[geots]

Earlier I had brought this topic up on the Rybka Forum. Would not have brought it up again if a change in the people had not come about. Originally I had, I believe, 4 people. Now I must add a 5th person.

Many believe the ICGA panel that handled Vas' case started bad with the "we already know he is guilty"- coming from a panel member BEFORE the evidence had been handed to them. I could mention other problems, but it is pointless. Some side with me and some don't.

I propose to decide this to the full satisfaction of everyone. Then IT WILL BE OVER. FOR GOOD. I can assure you I will know for sure and abide by any decision they reach. And so will all the people who question the decision. No one who believes Vas is guilty will ever again have to listen to dissenting views. You cannot do better than that.

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own. For some one who thinks Whittington would be biased, he will not. That you can count on. All he wants is the truth. But it would not matter anyway, because a majority vote of 3 - 2 will be accepted. Unless they feel a unanimous vote should be required. These five can decide that issue.

From now on they will be viewed as "The Five". They can review any previous evidence, and add any of their own as I said. Any of the 5 who do not want to serve on the panel means the remaining 4 will choose their 5th member- must be unanimous selection.

Then when they are done and render their verdict- we will all agree and live by it. ICGA not recognizing this panel or their verdict will not matter. We are after the truth, and if ICGA's feelings are hurt- they will have to deal with it. The truth is more important than anything and everything else.

They can also, if Vas is willing- study Rybka 3 and 4. I think to these 5 people he would agree. If not- he has to live or die with what evidence they have thru 2.3.2.

There it is. I agree to abide by their decision because I 100% think they are more than capable. And we won't have any pre-existing biases.

To anyone who thinks this is a bad idea because they say he has already been found guilty- I can and will only assume they would do anything to keep the verdict from changing. They don't want the real truth from these 5 men- remembering it may very well be guilty.

If the evidence is ironclad- to those who worry- the evidence won't change. And it is of utmost importance THAT THESE 5 MEN AND NO ONE ELSE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE DISCUSSION. Bob Hyatt does not need to be there. He wasn't when ICGA ruled and voted.

If it still means ICGA wants to be stubborn and stick by their decision, it won't matter. It is not life or death to be recognized by them. But they will have to agree if they don't like the verdict- sooner or later. And if the verdict is guilty, that will be academic anyway.

Remember the best and brightest in ICGA did not really study the evidence as these 5 men will. They just handed it down the chain to others and abided by their decision. For the most part.

There it is. That is my proposal. I am not afraid of their verdict either way. Are you?



gts

One comment: Be consistent. You don't want me because I have said for several years that Vas broke rules by copying Fruit. Yet you explicitly want Chris who for several years has spouted nothing but useless drivel about "he could have done it this way, he could have done it that way, space aliens could have helped him, etc."

So what you are doing is nothing more than trying to stack the jury.

Zach is a known "yes he copied fruit" vote.

The other 4 have clearly been arguing against that from early on. So a 4:1 stacked jury seems to be your concept of "fair" and you will accept whatever the "majority" says. I imagine you would.

yeah, that'd be fair and impartial...

\



We will remove Whittington and add more that we BOTH agree on. All they have to do is have the expertise, and the character. So you think Sven, Miguel and Uri don't have the character to be trusted. You pm them and tell them you feel that way about them. It will be impossible to find 5 people who haven't commented on small parts here and there. You know Uri is fair. You aren't happy with Miguel and Sven. I might not be happy with Zach, but I want him there. I trust him. You add one and y7ou will have your addition and Zach to be happy. I will have Sven and Miguel. Uri balances it with his character. Kn ow FOR SURE I DONT LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. I think if you add one, they will all be honest.

I am about to find out REAL QUICK what is going on if you try to hijack this idea at any and all costs. I will know then that if it is possible we did not get the truth with the panel- you don't want it changed even if it means "innocent". But I am going to prove it is not the panel make up you are afraid of, but rather the truth- if you try to stop this. Call it an appeal. Vas asked me to represent him. You add one for me and CW will be removed.

[geots]

Earlier I had brought this topic up on the Rybka Forum. Would not have brought it up again if a change in the people had not come about. Originally I had, I believe, 4 people. Now I must add a 5th person.

Many believe the ICGA panel that handled Vas' case started bad with the "we already know he is guilty"- coming from a panel member BEFORE the evidence had been handed to them. I could mention other problems, but it is pointless. Some side with me and some don't.

I propose to decide this to the full satisfaction of everyone. Then IT WILL BE OVER. FOR GOOD. I can assure you I will know for sure and abide by any decision they reach. And so will all the people who question the decision. No one who believes Vas is guilty will ever again have to listen to dissenting views. You cannot do better than that.

I propose a panel made up of Zach Wegner, Miguel Ballicora, Chris Whittington, Uri Blass, and Sven Schule to review all evidence and add any of their own. For some one who thinks Whittington would be biased, he will not. That you can count on. All he wants is the truth. But it would not matter anyway, because a majority vote of 3 - 2 will be accepted. Unless they feel a unanimous vote should be required. These five can decide that issue.

From now on they will be viewed as "The Five". They can review any previous evidence, and add any of their own as I said. Any of the 5 who do not want to serve on the panel means the remaining 4 will choose their 5th member- must be unanimous selection.

Then when they are done and render their verdict- we will all agree and live by it. ICGA not recognizing this panel or their verdict will not matter. We are after the truth, and if ICGA's feelings are hurt- they will have to deal with it. The truth is more important than anything and everything else.

They can also, if Vas is willing- study Rybka 3 and 4. I think to these 5 people he would agree. If not- he has to live or die with what evidence they have thru 2.3.2.

There it is. I agree to abide by their decision because I 100% think they are more than capable. And we won't have any pre-existing biases.

To anyone who thinks this is a bad idea because they say he has already been found guilty- I can and will only assume they would do anything to keep the verdict from changing. They don't want the real truth from these 5 men- remembering it may very well be guilty.

If the evidence is ironclad- to those who worry- the evidence won't change. And it is of utmost importance THAT THESE 5 MEN AND NO ONE ELSE GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE DISCUSSION. Bob Hyatt does not need to be there. He wasn't when ICGA ruled and voted.

If it still means ICGA wants to be stubborn and stick by their decision, it won't matter. It is not life or death to be recognized by them. But they will have to agree if they don't like the verdict- sooner or later. And if the verdict is guilty, that will be academic anyway.

Remember the best and brightest in ICGA did not really study the evidence as these 5 men will. They just handed it down the chain to others and abided by their decision. For the most part.

There it is. That is my proposal. I am not afraid of their verdict either way. Are you?



gts

One comment: Be consistent. You don't want me because I have said for several years that Vas broke rules by copying Fruit. Yet you explicitly want Chris who for several years has spouted nothing but useless drivel about "he could have done it this way, he could have done it that way, space aliens could have helped him, etc."

So what you are doing is nothing more than trying to stack the jury.

Zach is a known "yes he copied fruit" vote.

The other 4 have clearly been arguing against that from early on. So a 4:1 stacked jury seems to be your concept of "fair" and you will accept whatever the "majority" says. I imagine you would.

yeah, that'd be fair and impartial...

\



We will remove Whittington and add more that we BOTH agree on. All they have to do is have the expertise, and the character. So you think Sven, Miguel and Uri don't have the character to be trusted. You pm them and tell them you feel that way about them. It will be impossible to find 5 people who haven't commented on small parts here and there. You know Uri is fair. You aren't happy with Miguel and Sven. I might not be happy with Zach, but I want him there. I trust him. You add one and y7ou will have your addition and Zach to be happy. I will have Sven and Miguel. Uri balances it with his character. Kn ow FOR SURE I DONT LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. I think if you add one, they will all be honest.

I am about to find out REAL QUICK what is going on if you try to hijack this idea at any and all costs. I will know then that if it is possible we did not get the truth with the panel- you don't want it changed even if it means "innocent". But I am going to prove it is not the panel make up you are afraid of, but rather the truth- if you try to stop this. Call it an appeal. Vas asked me to represent him. You add one for me and CW will be removed.

At any rate, if Zach says he trusts Miguel, Sven and Uri- why would you possibly care. You telling me now you don't trust Zach's judgment, and that he would not be able to halt anything unfair? HOW ABOUT THIS- we throw out any and all assumptions of the evidence, or any other gathered evidence, IF ZACH DOESN'T AGREE OR LIKE IT. What are you worried about now? I'm bending over backwards here to help you. ZACH WILL FLOOR THE PANEL. All must go thru him. What's your NEXT complaint- let's work on it. Because NOTHING will satisfy you about this- you will throw up roadblocks till doomsday. I shall appease you as long as it is possible, and at that point any unbiased person will say you are scared for evidence to be reviewed. And THEY will start wondering exactly what YOU are scared of. Because if the truth is solid, Zach is there. You would have nothing to doubt it about. Except...............?

[geots]

All I need is a couple people to help me get this off the ground. Any truthseekers who want to end this once and for all want to help me.

gts

[tomgdrums]

All I need is a couple people to help me get this off the ground. Any truthseekers who want to end this once and for all want to help me.

gts

Unfortunately it won't end. No matter how the new panel finds, one side is going to say that it was fixed.

This has devolved into an issue where people just want their "side" vindicated.

I see no heroes in this whole thing.

ICGA was over the top in their punishment and they did not handle it in a quiet an above board manner (too much pre-panel publicity) And I don't like the vacated titles being given to runners-up. They should just be vacated.

And Vas' steadfast refusal to defend himself and lack of respect for the very organization whose tournaments helped him create his reputation, (World Computer Champ IS a big part of Rybka's marketing!) speak fairly loudly.

Whose right? Whose wrong?

At this point, who cares.

It isn't even a legal ruling. It is just a ruling of an independent organization with regards to one of it's members.

It would be like the Elks Lodge ruling that one of their members violated some by-laws and then they kicked that guy out.

I don't use Rybka anymore. I am waiting to see if anything happens with the GPL thing.

[geots]

All I need is a couple people to help me get this off the ground. Any truthseekers who want to end this once and for all want to help me.

gts

Unfortunately it won't end. No matter how the new panel finds, one side is going to say that it was fixed.

This has devolved into an issue where people just want their "side" vindicated.

I see no heroes in this whole thing.

ICGA was over the top in their punishment and they did not handle it in a quiet an above board manner (too much pre-panel publicity) And I don't like the vacated titles being given to runners-up. They should just be vacated.

And Vas' steadfast refusal to defend himself and lack of respect for the very organization whose tournaments helped him create his reputation, (World Computer Champ IS a big part of Rybka's marketing!) speak fairly loudly.

Whose right? Whose wrong?

At this point, who cares.

It isn't even a legal ruling. It is just a ruling of an independent organization with regards to one of it's members.

It would be like the Elks Lodge ruling that one of their members violated some by-laws and then they kicked that guy out.

I don't use Rybka anymore. I am waiting to see if anything happens with the GPL thing.

I have thought about what you say. And have already discussed it with a few people. One key will be Zach. He came up with tons of the evidence they had. If this verdict is "guilty", so be it. If not, then Zach telling them to shut up and quit whining- that he was just wrong the first time, what can they really say when the dust settles. *Unlike now, when they will not tell me the names of the 14 who voted. What is fair about that?

Know that it doesn't affect this if Vas doesn't defend himself here either. I am not doing this for him- I am doing it for ME AND ALL THE GOOD PEOPLE who want this to be reviewed and ended. If the evidence was there- it will still be.

Understand also that there is much more involved here than another look at the evidence. I can find out lots about the evidence right here myself, and I don't read code. I do read Lee Child, Vince Flynn, John Sandford, Tim Dorsey and Robert Crais. What can I say- I like to see the bad guys get the shit kicked out of them.




gts


PS: I wouldn't worry too much anyway. Getting it put together is a bit much for 1 person to handle alone and no one is going to publicly stand
with me. Hence my fav. line about who will walk thru a door with me.
So I would imagine at best it's all academic.

You seem like a nice person, Tom. They came for Vas and we said nothing. Then they came for the next guy that threatens their chess world. Again, we said nothing. Finally they came for me and you, and there was no one else left to say anything.

[Steve B]

Call it an appeal. Vas asked me to represent him.

Well if Rajlich did indeed ask you to represent him in forming an appeals committe then that means he will finally take part in his own defense
for any appeal to be effective Rajlich will need to participate front and center in the process which he should have done from the getgo
one sentence replies to the ICGA and releasing goofy videos where he is giggling and acting like my 5 year old nephew dont really help his cause
you can make yourself very useful indeed if all you do is get him to finally participate directly in a formal appeal

i imagine if you form your committee and then appeal directly to the ICGA offering into evidence your grounds for a mistrial to be declared with a signed statement including Rajlich's signature then they would consider it

if you are thinking of preceding without Rajlich's direct participation then i imagine you will get no where and your proposing nothing more then a monkey trial
so i will save you some time here George
just go ahead and publish an open letter on the Rybka forum that you think Rybka did not violate the ICGA rules ,Rybka is still the resigining ICGA champion and have whomever you wish sign the letter
make it a sticky and there you go

this all reminds me of Fischer who till the day he died contended he was the reigning FIDE World Champion from 1972 to present.. having defended his title in 1992

Even in that delusion Fischer himself took part front and center

Get Rajlich to show himself Regards
Steve

[mjlef]

Vas had his chance. We do not have multiple trials, and we should not go over this again and again. The panel was very open to anyone who was polite and wanted to join and who had some minimal skills in doing the analysis. Just because some people are not happy with the result is not a reason to launch a new investigation.

I am frankly tired of the very bad information being presented by Vas defenders. They ignore facts, and do not even comment on the bulk of evidence the panel gathered. If you want grounds for appeal, review the data and find flaws in it, then appeal to the ICGA board. But so far, the arguments people have presented are faulty.

[Sven]

All I need is a couple people to help me get this off the ground. Any truthseekers who want to end this once and for all want to help me.

Hi George,

as everyone can see when reading my recent posts, I am surely interested and willing to help in that matter.

However, I have not given up the idea of reaching some kind of consensus about certain topics that are of high importance for an adequate interpretation of the facts presented in the ICGA report. One topic on which I have started a discussion (unfortunately within the "Crafty accused of ..." thread where it does not belong to) is "reuse of evaluation concepts" which I see as a key topic in the whole Fruit/Rybka affair. The discussion has just started, and I would not want to start any activity in the sense you have proposed until there is at least some measurable advancement, in any direction.

As another point I have to add that, even though I very recently increased my posting activities in CCC, I will not be able to do a lot of CC work in general in the next months. I am going to start a new project in September, and this will put a significant limit to my spare time, so currently I can't promise any amount of contribution larger than a couple of postings per week.

Let's see what is possible.

Regarding the constitution of such a panel as you propose, I can agree to almost all what you have written. But I think we'd better have seven than five members, have each "camp" nominate two of them, let also Fabien and Vasik participate (for the "Crafty vs. Rybka" part we could replace Fabien by Bob but be restrictive about that) and have one additional person that both camps accept as fairly neutral. As further rules we could define that competitors of Rybka should not have the majority of votes, that all members must be active or former engine authors, and that all (currently four) members of the ICGA Board are excluded for obvious reasons (sorry to Rémi!).

Sven