FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

[syzygy]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

[A Distel]

The most salient post in the whole thread.

Sure thing...Terry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-JQ1q-13Ek

[hgm]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

A warning... doesn't that mean: "Don't do it again, and we will remain good friends"?

[A Distel]

No matter what the FIDE has said about it: every sensible human being will immediately dismiss the disgraceful ICGA process right out of hand. When you let direct competitors vote, you simply lose all credibility. A shameful period in the history of computer chess.

Dismiss the ICGA?? Why? Because they caught a strange fish?

[Terry McCracken]

No matter what the FIDE has said about it: every sensible human being will immediately dismiss the disgraceful ICGA process right out of hand. When you let direct competitors vote, you simply lose all credibility. A shameful period in the history of computer chess.

Dismiss the ICGA?? Why? Because they caught a strange fish?

[Terry McCracken]

The most salient post in the whole thread.

Sure thing...Terry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-JQ1q-13Ek

Right On!

[bob]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

NOT from the ethics complaint. "This complaint has to be dismissed."

They simply pointed out our rules didn't specify penalties, which means we need to fix that..

[syzygy]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

NOT from the ethics complaint. "This complaint has to be dismissed."

They simply pointed out our rules didn't specify penalties, which means we need to fix that..

Sanctioning Mr Rajlich with a lifetime ban, ICGA violated par. 2.2 and par. 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

On the other point the EC essentially said it has no power to interfere with the application of "tournament rules", even if they are applied out of the blue many years after the tournament took place. Easy way out. Doesn't mean good or bad, only means they won't look into it.

This means that the ICGA could in theory strip your 1983 title on some alleged Rule 2 violation and the EC would condone it.

[Terry McCracken]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

NOT from the ethics complaint. "This complaint has to be dismissed."

They simply pointed out our rules didn't specify penalties, which means we need to fix that..

Sanctioning Mr Rajlich with a lifetime ban, ICGA violated par. 2.2 and par. 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

On the other point the EC essentially said it has no power to interfere with the application of "tournament rules", even if they are applied out of the blue many years after the tournament took place. Easy way out. Doesn't mean good or bad, only means they won't look into it.

This means that the ICGA could in theory strip your 1983 title on some alleged Rule 2 violation and the EC would condone it.

You realize how specious your analogy is? Any lawyers here?

[hgm]

Doesn't mean good or bad, only means they won't look into it.

That is what "dismissed" usually means, right?