TalkChess.com

Terry McCracken wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:I see it being discussed here - http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=30118

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.

How the devil did the FIDE get involved? This is absurd in the extreme.

Chris Whittington and Ed Schroeder filed a complaint with the FIDE Ethics Commission along with Vas. FIDE dismissed them as complainants immediately since they have "no dog in that hunt."

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:I see it being discussed here - http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=30118

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.

bob wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:I see it being discussed here - http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=30118

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.

h1a8 wrote: 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.

Hello Leon,

I appreciate the delicacy of your reasoning.

Intent though, is inferred from what you actually do.

As yet, mind reading skills or technology are still beyond the legal system.

I might have intended to only rob the candy store, but the owner challenged me and I killed him.

It is a homicide, despite my intentions to only commit robbery.

Not the cleanest or clearest example.

I am sure that someone will jump on it right away.

Later.

Sean Evans wrote:Hello Graham,

To the best of my knowledge Rybka is no longer being worked on. In other words, the company is now defunct never to be resurrected.

Do you disagree?

Sean

I have no idea whatsoever. Sorry.

bob wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:I see it being discussed here - http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=30118

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.

How the devil did the FIDE get involved? This is absurd in the extreme.

Chris Whittington and Ed Schroeder filed a complaint with the FIDE Ethics Commission along with Vas. FIDE dismissed them as complainants immediately since they have "no dog in that hunt."

Thanks, I had forgotten about that rather seamy maneuver by the Dynamic Duo and the Joker.

Graham Banks wrote:

Sean Evans wrote:Hello Graham,

To the best of my knowledge Rybka is no longer being worked on. In other words, the company is now defunct never to be resurrected.

Do you disagree?

Sean

I have no idea whatsoever. Sorry.

Well, do you see any further versions of Rybka coming out? NO

Did Vas get new job? YES

Does Vas post anything on the Rybka forum anymore? NO

Based on these facts, the Rybka copyright fiasco is over, the company is now defunct.

Cordially,

Sean

What I find strange is that posting an informative thread can meet with so much hostility.

The FIDE Ethics Commission had no jurisdiction to rule on the actual Rybka verdict.

From what I can gather, the complaint regarded the process used to reach that decision, plus the life ban imposed.

As Harvey said, probably best to read the full report before reaching your own conclusions as to the outcome.
In the meantime, you're likely to see those on both sides of the fence trying to portray the outcome as favourable to them.

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.

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.

Did I say it was frivolous? No, filing a complaint isn't unseemly, but that's not what I'm talking about. Is it?