As they are being selective in that thread and you are not able to read the full report I will post this snip from the report
"There are no violations of any FIDE rules."
"There is no evidence that the members of the ICGA Executive Committee - the only ICGA organ responsible for the decision - did not act in an impartial way."
" For these reasons, under this profile, the complaint has to be dismissed."
I think everyone should wait till FIDE allow us to publish it in full and then discuss it.
I specifically asked David to ask FIDE about this. Their response was that discussing the report was fine, but we should leave out their "reasoning" as to how they addressed each point until the report is officially published by FIDE. So it would seem that discussing their findings is perfectly acceptable, just not their detailed reasoning behind each finding...
While we are here, the ONLY quibble FIDE had with the ICGA was that we did not give any sort of potential penalties in the charter or rules. I consider that a reasonable issue that can easily be addressed. Right now it only says "at the discretion of ..." but it should be amended to add something like "disqualification from the event in question, and possibly a ban from future participation for a period of time from one year to a lifetime ban."
I personally can't imagine someone getting caught cheating and then returning to play in another event. But I suppose someone might.
Assuming they don't believe they cheated then why not? If I'm found to cheat and I didn't believe I did and I'm giving another chance to participate then I'm going to participate if it's to my benefit (especially financial benefit).
IMO, many are not sure what Vas did constitutes as cheating. It isn't like blatant cheating. Surely if Vas did break any rules then there is beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't think he was. The punishment should fit the crime. To blatantly do something that is known to be wrong then the punishment should be full. But to not believe one is doing wrong (but does wrong) then the punishment should be partial. Intentions are everything.
However, how would you define his "intentions" when (a) he blatantly copied Crafty version 19.7, made a few changes here and there, and then entered it in events that both violated the Crafty EULA, AND violated the tournament rules for the events he entered (chesswars and CCT); (b) he copied significant parts of fruit, rewrote them to use bit boards, and then claimed that was his code; (c) when asked he specifically said that ALL of his prior versions were 100% original, even the ones pre-dating Fruit (which means that ones containing MAJOR pieces of Crafty code.
I have a hard time convincing myself that this was all "without any intent to do wrong". That's four DIFFERENT sets of rules he thumbed his nose at. EULA, ICGA, CCT and chesswars. was the punishment excessive... A point to debate. But lifetime bans have happened in many sports for egregious behavior.
syzygy wrote:The whole purpose of the FIDE Ethics Commission is to rule on complaints, so there is absolutely nothing unseamy about filing one.
The fact that the ruling was against the ICGA in addition shows that the complaint was far from frivolous.
There was no "ruling against the ICGA". They asked us to consider changing the wording of the rule or charter to specify potential sanctions, and requested that the ICGA re-consider imposing the life-time ban since it was not specified as an outcome (in writing).
The primary complaint was dismissed outright. All they suggested was a rule clarification as it is perfectly acceptable to have more stringent rules and punishments than FIDE rules allow, but they need to be in writing. Which I happen to agree with completely.
Jeroen wrote: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.
No sarcasm or jokes. Why Jereon? Didn't your employer also side with the enemy camp, then later feel the penalty was too harsh and had a change of heart? There were no other people but the programmers and competitors able to deal with the situation. It is the job of the ICGA to make sure the competitions are held to certain standards and they fulfilled their obligations after careful deliberation. There was no conspiracy. The competitors are also threatened by dishonest people so it works both ways taking that stance. To me the opposite is true, Vasik blemished computer chess and did so knowingly and refused to defend himself while manipulating his gullible minions to run a smear campaign against his competitor's and he managed to do a pretty good job of it too!
As they are being selective in that thread and you are not able to read the full report I will post this snip from the report
"There are no violations of any FIDE rules."
"There is no evidence that the members of the ICGA Executive Committee - the only ICGA organ responsible for the decision - did not act in an impartial way."
" For these reasons, under this profile, the complaint has to be dismissed."
I think everyone should wait till FIDE allow us to publish it in full and then discuss it.
I specifically asked David to ask FIDE about this. Their response was that discussing the report was fine, but we should leave out their "reasoning" as to how they addressed each point until the report is officially published by FIDE. So it would seem that discussing their findings is perfectly acceptable, just not their detailed reasoning behind each finding...
While we are here, the ONLY quibble FIDE had with the ICGA was that we did not give any sort of potential penalties in the charter or rules. I consider that a reasonable issue that can easily be addressed. Right now it only says "at the discretion of ..." but it should be amended to add something like "disqualification from the event in question, and possibly a ban from future participation for a period of time from one year to a lifetime ban."
I personally can't imagine someone getting caught cheating and then returning to play in another event. But I suppose someone might.
Assuming they don't believe they cheated then why not? If I'm found to cheat and I didn't believe I did and I'm giving another chance to participate then I'm going to participate if it's to my benefit (especially financial benefit).
IMO, many are not sure what Vas did constitutes as cheating. It isn't like blatant cheating. Surely if Vas did break any rules then there is beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't think he was. The punishment should fit the crime. To blatantly do something that is known to be wrong then the punishment should be full. But to not believe one is doing wrong (but does wrong) then the punishment should be partial. Intentions are everything.
However, how would you define his "intentions" when (a) he blatantly copied Crafty version 19.7, made a few changes here and there, and then entered it in events that both violated the Crafty EULA, AND violated the tournament rules for the events he entered (chesswars and CCT); (b) he copied significant parts of fruit, rewrote them to use bit boards, and then claimed that was his code; (c) when asked he specifically said that ALL of his prior versions were 100% original, even the ones pre-dating Fruit (which means that ones containing MAJOR pieces of Crafty code.
I have a hard time convincing myself that this was all "without any intent to do wrong". That's four DIFFERENT sets of rules he thumbed his nose at. EULA, ICGA, CCT and chesswars. was the punishment excessive... A point to debate. But lifetime bans have happened in many sports for egregious behavior.
the crafty incident wasn't part of him being found to break rules.
Assuming he wrote some of fruits code to bitboards then it is still reasonable that he thought it is still his own code. Others would agree with him too. He even stated that he used a lot of fruit. This obviously means he didn't believe that he did anything wrong. It is a matter of opinion really.
Copying code is meant to copy verbatim (exactly) by many.
In professional cycling it is quite usual that people who are caught using stimulants are suspended for some finite time, and then can resume business as usual.
As they are being selective in that thread and you are not able to read the full report I will post this snip from the report
"There are no violations of any FIDE rules."
"There is no evidence that the members of the ICGA Executive Committee - the only ICGA organ responsible for the decision - did not act in an impartial way."
" For these reasons, under this profile, the complaint has to be dismissed."
I think everyone should wait till FIDE allow us to publish it in full and then discuss it.
I specifically asked David to ask FIDE about this. Their response was that discussing the report was fine, but we should leave out their "reasoning" as to how they addressed each point until the report is officially published by FIDE. So it would seem that discussing their findings is perfectly acceptable, just not their detailed reasoning behind each finding...
While we are here, the ONLY quibble FIDE had with the ICGA was that we did not give any sort of potential penalties in the charter or rules. I consider that a reasonable issue that can easily be addressed. Right now it only says "at the discretion of ..." but it should be amended to add something like "disqualification from the event in question, and possibly a ban from future participation for a period of time from one year to a lifetime ban."
I personally can't imagine someone getting caught cheating and then returning to play in another event. But I suppose someone might.
Assuming they don't believe they cheated then why not? If I'm found to cheat and I didn't believe I did and I'm giving another chance to participate then I'm going to participate if it's to my benefit (especially financial benefit).
IMO, many are not sure what Vas did constitutes as cheating. It isn't like blatant cheating. Surely if Vas did break any rules then there is beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't think he was. The punishment should fit the crime. To blatantly do something that is known to be wrong then the punishment should be full. But to not believe one is doing wrong (but does wrong) then the punishment should be partial. Intentions are everything.
However, how would you define his "intentions" when (a) he blatantly copied Crafty version 19.7, made a few changes here and there, and then entered it in events that both violated the Crafty EULA, AND violated the tournament rules for the events he entered (chesswars and CCT); (b) he copied significant parts of fruit, rewrote them to use bit boards, and then claimed that was his code; (c) when asked he specifically said that ALL of his prior versions were 100% original, even the ones pre-dating Fruit (which means that ones containing MAJOR pieces of Crafty code.
I have a hard time convincing myself that this was all "without any intent to do wrong". That's four DIFFERENT sets of rules he thumbed his nose at. EULA, ICGA, CCT and chesswars. was the punishment excessive... A point to debate. But lifetime bans have happened in many sports for egregious behavior.
The road to chaos is filled with political correctness.
― Tadros
As they are being selective in that thread and you are not able to read the full report I will post this snip from the report
"There are no violations of any FIDE rules."
"There is no evidence that the members of the ICGA Executive Committee - the only ICGA organ responsible for the decision - did not act in an impartial way."
" For these reasons, under this profile, the complaint has to be dismissed."
I think everyone should wait till FIDE allow us to publish it in full and then discuss it.
I specifically asked David to ask FIDE about this. Their response was that discussing the report was fine, but we should leave out their "reasoning" as to how they addressed each point until the report is officially published by FIDE. So it would seem that discussing their findings is perfectly acceptable, just not their detailed reasoning behind each finding...
While we are here, the ONLY quibble FIDE had with the ICGA was that we did not give any sort of potential penalties in the charter or rules. I consider that a reasonable issue that can easily be addressed. Right now it only says "at the discretion of ..." but it should be amended to add something like "disqualification from the event in question, and possibly a ban from future participation for a period of time from one year to a lifetime ban."
I personally can't imagine someone getting caught cheating and then returning to play in another event. But I suppose someone might.
Assuming they don't believe they cheated then why not? If I'm found to cheat and I didn't believe I did and I'm giving another chance to participate then I'm going to participate if it's to my benefit (especially financial benefit).
IMO, many are not sure what Vas did constitutes as cheating. It isn't like blatant cheating. Surely if Vas did break any rules then there is beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't think he was. The punishment should fit the crime. To blatantly do something that is known to be wrong then the punishment should be full. But to not believe one is doing wrong (but does wrong) then the punishment should be partial. Intentions are everything.
However, how would you define his "intentions" when (a) he blatantly copied Crafty version 19.7, made a few changes here and there, and then entered it in events that both violated the Crafty EULA, AND violated the tournament rules for the events he entered (chesswars and CCT); (b) he copied significant parts of fruit, rewrote them to use bit boards, and then claimed that was his code; (c) when asked he specifically said that ALL of his prior versions were 100% original, even the ones pre-dating Fruit (which means that ones containing MAJOR pieces of Crafty code.
I have a hard time convincing myself that this was all "without any intent to do wrong". That's four DIFFERENT sets of rules he thumbed his nose at. EULA, ICGA, CCT and chesswars. was the punishment excessive... A point to debate. But lifetime bans have happened in many sports for egregious behavior.
