My two cents on Rybka's disqualification

[zamar]

I think that it's important to separate two things:

1) Person being guilty/not-guilty
2) Right for the fair trial

1) Going through the evidence, it looks very likely for me that Vasik Rajlich has copied fragments of code and load of contants from other programs and put them into Rybka. This violates GPL and rules of the ICGA.

2) However no matter how overwhelming the evidence looks like even mass-murderers deserve the right for fair trial (instead of direct hanging). Based on the documents I've seen, my opinion is that Vas didn't get an honest chance to defend himself. In Western trials there are three parties: prosecutor(s) (Party A), defendant(s) (Party B) and neutral judge(s) (Party C). For me it really looks like that in this cases same people have been prosecutors (A) and judges (C). I'm pretty sure that many people who have been writing/collecting so called "report" are far from neutral. In history the legal system where prosecutor = judge is known as inquisition. Who would one try to defend himself in front of such a system?

P.S. For example this sarcastic sentence from the report shows how far from the neutrality report really is: "Opinions on the criteria for what constitutes improper cloning or copying vary. We think using Rajlich’s own definition is good, which he wrote during the Strelka cloning postings:". Come on guys, let's hang the man with his own rope!!!

P.P.S. I don't have any kind of personal relationship to Vasik Rajlich and my attitude towards him is very close to neutral.

[rbarreira]

Three comments:

1- I'm not sure it's true that the prosecutors and the judges were the same people. The impression I got is that the panel (not the alleged 34 people but a subset of those, since some have confirmed they didn't contribute) investigated and wrote the report, and then David Levy and a few others decided the penalties based on the report.

2- I believe Vas got a chance to defend himself at various stages. Even at the beginning of the investigation, when this article came out, David Levy says he contacted Vas to get a response which was basically a denial. I would be surprised if he also didn't get a chance to respond before the final verdict came out, can someone confirm or deny that?

3- I agree that the report should have been written more neutrally, and that this wasn't handled perfectly. But on the other hand, this is not really a trial in the justice system, so the standards aren't as high...

[hgm]

That is all very nice in theory, but what if I refuse to defend myself (just repeating my not-guilty plea as a mantra). Should I then walk free with murder, because it makes it impossible to give me a 'fair trial'?

As I understand it Vas has gotten every opportunity to defend himself, by submitting source code and clarify the issues raised by the committee based on that. He passed the opportunity...

The ICGA rules specify participants have to submit source code on request. Not complying is in itself reason for a ban, even if the source code would be clean as a whistle, and I think the rules also make that clear.

[Red Hood]

No argument with you man but I'm so sick and tired of those Rybka fanboys who try to justify Rajlich's act. He cheated! Period! He stole somebody else's code and made money with it! It's not fair! He was only interested in money and nothing else. He knew that he stole the code that's why he denied testing. I don't understand why he is defended by the same people who he betrayed in first place. He made a good engine but to which expense. He didn't acknowledged that he used somebody's code and had the nerve to claim that he made the engine all by himself. More over, he accused Robbolito author for stealing Rybka's code. I mean "Hello". He did that because he felt threatened. Free and open source engines will take over and his monopoly with Rybka will be over. He wasn't interested in advancing computer chess. He is just a greedy bastard who saw an opportunity to make money! He made a name for himself in computer chess, won prizes and made a ton of money. But somebody else did the hard work. His attentions are not pure. He should 've acknowledged other peoples work and give that engine for free and not charge for it, because it's not his work. I mean Rajlich is just unscrupulous and greedy. And he should pay the price.

[mjlef]

I think that it's important to separate two things:

1) Person being guilty/not-guilty
2) Right for the fair trial

1) Going through the evidence, it looks very likely for me that Vasik Rajlich has copied fragments of code and load of contants from other programs and put them into Rybka. This violates GPL and rules of the ICGA.

2) However no matter how overwhelming the evidence looks like even mass-murderers deserve the right for fair trial (instead of direct hanging). Based on the documents I've seen, my opinion is that Vas didn't get an honest chance to defend himself. In Western trials there are three parties: prosecutor(s) (Party A), defendant(s) (Party B) and neutral judge(s) (Party C). For me it really looks like that in this cases same people have been prosecutors (A) and judges (C). I'm pretty sure that many people who have been writing/collecting so called "report" are far from neutral. In history the legal system where prosecutor = judge is known as inquisition. Who would one try to defend himself in front of such a system?

P.S. For example this sarcastic sentence from the report shows how far from the neutrality report really is: "Opinions on the criteria for what constitutes improper cloning or copying vary. We think using Rajlich’s own definition is good, which he wrote during the Strelka cloning postings:". Come on guys, let's hang the man with his own rope!!!

P.P.S. I don't have any kind of personal relationship to Vasik Rajlich and my attitude towards him is very close to neutral.

The panel was tasked to investigate and gather evidence on claims Rybka violated ICGA Rules. The panel supplied analysis, comments and opinions. These were summarized by the three member Secretariat, and the result sent to David Levy and the ICGA Board for judgement. When the investigation began, and at least three other times, David Levy reminded and encouraged Vasik Rajlich to join the panel and have full access to the wiki used to store and discuss the information. He refused to do so each time, and stated at one point he wished to defend himself with the ICGA Board directly himself. Once the investigation was complete, David Levy emailed Rajlich copies of the more pertinent information, and several time reminded Rajlich of deadlines for the ICGA Board decision. Rajlich never put up a real defense and basically ignore the pleas for a response.

[bob]

I think that it's important to separate two things:

1) Person being guilty/not-guilty
2) Right for the fair trial

1) Going through the evidence, it looks very likely for me that Vasik Rajlich has copied fragments of code and load of contants from other programs and put them into Rybka. This violates GPL and rules of the ICGA.

2) However no matter how overwhelming the evidence looks like even mass-murderers deserve the right for fair trial (instead of direct hanging). Based on the documents I've seen, my opinion is that Vas didn't get an honest chance to defend himself. In Western trials there are three parties: prosecutor(s) (Party A), defendant(s) (Party B) and neutral judge(s) (Party C). For me it really looks like that in this cases same people have been prosecutors (A) and judges (C). I'm pretty sure that many people who have been writing/collecting so called "report" are far from neutral. In history the legal system where prosecutor = judge is known as inquisition. Who would one try to defend himself in front of such a system?

P.S. For example this sarcastic sentence from the report shows how far from the neutrality report really is: "Opinions on the criteria for what constitutes improper cloning or copying vary. We think using Rajlich’s own definition is good, which he wrote during the Strelka cloning postings:". Come on guys, let's hang the man with his own rope!!!

P.P.S. I don't have any kind of personal relationship to Vasik Rajlich and my attitude towards him is very close to neutral.

You are simply wrong. First, the "panel" was an open forum that collected evidence and presented same to ICGA. Vas was invited to participate, so that he could respond to evidence as it was presented, we could respond to him, etc, until both sides had said all they wanted to say. We (the prosecution) were not supposed to be "impartial". We were supposed to be biased, as all prosecutions are, and we were supposed to collect any evidence we could discover that supported a verdict of guilty.

Second, Vas had every opportunity to participate. He could have joined the panel and offered any counter-evidence he chose, He could have asked others to participate on his behalf. He could have made public statements, even on his own forum, if he so chose. He refused to participate at all, saying "he would get around to that stuff later..."

Third, he was given a month to respond to our final report, which was sent to him by David Levy. And he received several reminders about the deadline for responses. He supplied zero.

Finally, the ICGA, with David sitting at the top, had a group of (I believe) 5 people that considered the evidence that was presented, and concluded that Vas was guilty of breaking ICGA tournament participation rules. And as a result, the tournaments where he broke the rules had their final standings altered to exclude the illegal entry of Rybka.

You can't have this both ways. And you certainly can't say that because he made no response, he was not treated fairly. Quite often defendants in court cases do not testify in their own defense, because they do not want to expose themselves to cross-examination where they might be asked questions that they can not answer without creating additional difficulties for themselves. On rare occasions, a defendant offers zero defense, claiming the trial is unfair, the charges are nonsense, etc. If he chooses to follow that course of action, he can then not turn around and claim the verdict is invalid because he did not defend himself. It was a choice.

David and his group of 5 people were not "prosecutors". Not one of us collecting evidence was involved in the verdict or punishment. David, on several occasions, as we produced the final report, asked for clarification, additional information, etc, as a judge will do during a trial. Something tells me that David was not exactly trying to "do Vas in". Both are/were strong, well-known IM chess players. Both are/were active in computer chess. I don't see how anyone could claim this was an unfair process. Many on the panel did not know him personally (myself included), many had never competed against him (Ken Thompson comes to mind) and many had not been following the fruit/rybka discussions for the years the rumblings have been around.

The only person to blame for the final outcome is Vas. He violated copyright law and the GPL (with regard to fruit). This was not about copyright law, however. It was about complying with ICGA tournament rules, specifically with the rule about "original work" and "naming all authors of chess-playing code". And then he refused to offer any defense, justification, or even mitigating circumstances. What else could the ICGA do? And exactly how was this "unfair"???

[AdminX]

I agree with both Ricardo Barreira and H.G. Muller. Vas has a chance to repond to the ICGA. He even had a chance to to present proof that the charges were lies, but he decided not to. If he (Vas) does not care, then why should I. I will believe the evidence that has been presented unless proof showing otherwise is presented. So far Vas has not provided any other than his words.

[bob]

Three comments:

1- I'm not sure it's true that the prosecutors and the judges were the same people. The impression I got is that the panel (not the alleged 34 people but a subset of those, since some have confirmed they didn't contribute) investigated and wrote the report, and then David Levy and a few others decided the penalties based on the report.

2- I believe Vas got a chance to defend himself at various stages. Even at the beginning of the investigation, when this article came out, David Levy says he contacted Vas to get a response which was basically a denial. I would be surprised if he also didn't get a chance to respond before the final verdict came out, can someone confirm or deny that?

He was repeatedly asked to join the Wiki discussion. And once our final report was sent to David, he was given a month to offer any kind of counter-evidence or whatever that he wanted. And he was reminded multiple times that he had that opportunity but that there was a deadline for him to respond. He offered zero...

3- I agree that the report should have been written more neutrally, and that this wasn't handled perfectly. But on the other hand, this is not really a trial in the justice system, so the standards aren't as high...

The prosecution is _never_ "neutral". Their job is to provide whatever evidence they discover that supports a verdict of guilty. The defense is _never_ neutral either. Their job is to provide whatever evidence they can discover that supports a verdict of guilty. During the course of the trial, each side gets to criticize the other side's evidence, witnesses, etc. And then, in the end, the jury is the ultimate "finder of fact" and renders a verdict after looking at everything that was presented (and looking ONLY at what was presented, the jury does not get to do their own investigation, they only consider what the two sides presented in court.).

[zamar]

That is all very nice in theory, but what if I refuse to defend myself (just repeating my not-guilty plea as a mantra). Should I then walk free with murder, because it makes it impossible to give me a 'fair trial'?

That's not what I said! If the panel is strongly biased against you, what are your chances for successful defense? My guess is that among the five most active panelist there were at least one, maybe even 2-3 persons who were willing to spend a lot of time and effort to prove Vasik guilty and none who were willing to spend a lot of time and effort to prove Vasik innocent.

As I understand it Vas has gotten every opportunity to defend himself, by submitting source code and clarify the issues raised by the committee based on that. He passed the opportunity...

If "the committee" had been considered some kind of prosecutor that had been alright. But to appoint a committee to gather neutral information for judgement, but the committee acting "de facto" prosecutor, that really really sucks.

[zamar]

He was repeatedly asked to join the Wiki discussion.

Now you are speaking like committee was a neutral party and Vas was friendly asked to just asked to join the committee.

If the committee was neutral why then in the final report there is nothing which speaks for him, but it's is easy to find sarcastic remarks.

If the committee was acting a prosecutor, what was the point to ask the defendant to help prosecutor.

The committee was playing both sides, and that was really unfair.