Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.
Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.
Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."
The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?
I expect no person on the planet wants to see this discussoin die more than Vas. Yet YOU keep it alive and well. with friends like you, he needs no enemies... This should have been over long ago. He is obviously not going to say anything to the ICGA, meaning he would like to see it end and move on. Why not let him do so???
Where did you get the idea this is about Vas?
As far as I am concerned this case is about computer chess and fair competition. His name could be Bob for that matter. Wouldn't make a difference.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.
Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.
Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."
The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?
I expect no person on the planet wants to see this discussoin die more than Vas. Yet YOU keep it alive and well. with friends like you, he needs no enemies... This should have been over long ago. He is obviously not going to say anything to the ICGA, meaning he would like to see it end and move on. Why not let him do so???
Where did you get the idea this is about Vas?
As far as I am concerned this case is about computer chess and fair competition. His name could be Bob for that matter. Wouldn't make a difference.
It is about Vas because YOU keep dragging this on and on. He obviously doesn't want to continue the discussion. He never started the discussion nor has he participated. The longer YOU keep bring these things up, the longer it stays "in the news." And NOTHING good is coming of this since Vas is the only one that can exert any influence on this now.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.
Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.
Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."
The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?
I expect no person on the planet wants to see this discussoin die more than Vas. Yet YOU keep it alive and well. with friends like you, he needs no enemies... This should have been over long ago. He is obviously not going to say anything to the ICGA, meaning he would like to see it end and move on. Why not let him do so???
Where did you get the idea this is about Vas?
As far as I am concerned this case is about computer chess and fair competition. His name could be Bob for that matter. Wouldn't make a difference.
It is about Vas because YOU keep dragging this on and on. He obviously doesn't want to continue the discussion. He never started the discussion nor has he participated. The longer YOU keep bring these things up, the longer it stays "in the news." And NOTHING good is coming of this since Vas is the only one that can exert any influence on this now.
You should have spoken the same words during the 2006-2011 anti-Rybka campaign.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.
Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.
Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."
The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?
I expect no person on the planet wants to see this discussoin die more than Vas. Yet YOU keep it alive and well. with friends like you, he needs no enemies... This should have been over long ago. He is obviously not going to say anything to the ICGA, meaning he would like to see it end and move on. Why not let him do so???
Where did you get the idea this is about Vas?
As far as I am concerned this case is about computer chess and fair competition. His name could be Bob for that matter. Wouldn't make a difference.
It is about Vas because YOU keep dragging this on and on. He obviously doesn't want to continue the discussion. He never started the discussion nor has he participated. The longer YOU keep bring these things up, the longer it stays "in the news." And NOTHING good is coming of this since Vas is the only one that can exert any influence on this now.
You should have spoken the same words during the 2006-2011 anti-Rybka campaign.
There was no "anti-Rybka campaign". There were long discussions as the evidence was uncovered. Nothing more.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I just reread the email and you did say you were wrapping things up.
Let's add something substantial regarding the topic at hand. I made a fair proposal to the active Panel members (those who participated in the hidden forum) to make the Panel deliberations public. When I got too many negative reactions I dropped the idea. And what was the main reason for the refusal Harvey? Someone said it quite honestly but conveniently forgot his own role.
Bottom line is to take accountability for your actions and many were not willing. The Panel deliberations should be public for transparency reasons. As I said to someone, "It is as you say XXX, there is nothing special in these documents, nothing that can't see the daylight. I wanted to have it public since people keep on asking about it, publicly and privately."
The true reason for the denial is that you want the Rybka-ICGA topic to die as it would cause new questions and an extension of the discussion. Be honest about it, yes ?
I expect no person on the planet wants to see this discussoin die more than Vas. Yet YOU keep it alive and well. with friends like you, he needs no enemies... This should have been over long ago. He is obviously not going to say anything to the ICGA, meaning he would like to see it end and move on. Why not let him do so???
Where did you get the idea this is about Vas?
As far as I am concerned this case is about computer chess and fair competition. His name could be Bob for that matter. Wouldn't make a difference.
It is about Vas because YOU keep dragging this on and on. He obviously doesn't want to continue the discussion. He never started the discussion nor has he participated. The longer YOU keep bring these things up, the longer it stays "in the news." And NOTHING good is coming of this since Vas is the only one that can exert any influence on this now.
You should have spoken the same words during the 2006-2011 anti-Rybka campaign.
There was no "anti-Rybka campaign". There were long discussions as the evidence was uncovered. Nothing more.
Your head must be a scary place to be
Seriously, you can't deny the VII camp what the VIG camp has done for several years.
All I know is that Levy has expended a lot of effort to try to contact Reul. He gave a deadline of March 31 as mentioned with his ChessBase interview (or follow-up).
