OpenChess

A comparison between the R/F case vs the preemptive ban case of Chris

Bob, if I were a revengeful person, which I am certainly not, but for a moment suppose in the hypothetical case I am, let's make a comparison with the R/F case because it has so many similarities.

A lot of evidence has been compiled you deliberately preemptively banned a known critical voice (well versed in the technical matter of the case) who could have made a difference during the Panel deliberations.

I could, like the ICGA (who breached the copyright of Vas publishing his emails on a major chess site and furthermore put the whole email conversation including email addresses and Vas' phone number on their own website) breach the copyright on the Chris - ICGA email exchange also, quote from it Levy, Harvey, Lefler who were in favor of Chris participation were waiting on your approval which did not came, your fingers blocked, unable to type that one single word.

In Levy terminology, we are convinced that the evidence against Robert Hyatt is both overwhelming in its volume and beyond reasonable question in its nature. Robert Hyatt is guilty manipulating the process that led to the conviction of an innocent programmer.

And I will offer it to ChessVibes and ChessBase for publication with the announcement that we are in the process of setting up a (ahem) tribunal and that the case against you (manipulation of justice) will be judged by your "peers".

What do you think?

Will it be BII or BIG?

Do whatever you want. Just be sure you are factual. I am old enough and have more than enough money to react pretty strongly myself if you want to go out on a legal limb. So long as you are factual, all is well. As to why I didn't respond to that email, IF I didn't, I can't answer. During that period of time we were probably averaging a hundred emails per day or so trying to authenticate folks, discussing potential panel members we might want to invite and then doing so. So I can not begin to remember one specific email exchange 4 years ago. I did not "block" Chris whatsoever. I think Mark was doing the first-level screening, but you can ask him to be certain. He would send an email such as "I know this person and communicate with him regularly, I'll vouch for him and we should accept him if none of you have any questions." And these emails always included David if I recall. As has been pointed out, the CW thing started on a Friday. I left on a weekend trip early that afternoon. I didn't return until late Sunday night. Sorry that that did not fit in with CW's time expectation. If he had just remained calm, he would have been in like every "real person" was. But there was significant mischief afoot in that time frame, people posing as well-known computer chess people, asking for copies of non-open-source source code, etc. You can find some discussions about this on CCC, and it was not "us" doing the discussing, it was other people pissed off for being "tricked". We did not intend to be "tricked" and simply refused to admit anyone we could not verify. Some went so far as to produce a scanned copy of a driver's license, as an example. Something tells me Chris would not have complied with that either.

I find it funny that you think we excluded him to keep naysayers out, yet we even admitted yourself who became a big naysayer, not to mention accepting Albert Silver whom most of us (a) knew pretty well and (b) KNEW he would be pro-rybka since he worked for ChessBase, not to mention he had already posted his view that Rybka was not based on fruit several times. There was no intent to exclude anyone based on their perspective. I'm not responding to this nonsense further. It has been said and repeated hundreds of times by now. If I see something NEW, I'll comment, but I am not going to plow the same row over and over and over...

hyatt wrote:During that period of time we were probably averaging a hundred emails per day or so trying to authenticate folks...

During that period, there were also a bunch of emails between Zach, Bob, and myself regarding pre-Beta Rybkas (these started Feb 25). I think Bob had been on the "Open Letter" CC list that was then operative, but was taken off as he thought it might be seen as a "conflict of interest" with the Panel Secretariat.

Ed Schroeder (as an 'intermediator' not yet a representative) to Levy wrote:An alternative to the time consuming nature of an appeal is to follow the same procedure as the ICGA did in the LIST (Fritz Reul) case and ask an independent expert both sides agree on and his decision will be final. My suggestion would be Dr. Donninger again. As an intermediator I can lobby for the precedent you set in the LIST case with Vasik. (link)

Note that at the time of the Open Letter in late Feb 2011, Dr. Donninger had said he didn't want to have anything at all to do with the ICGA. I'm not sure that qualifies him as "independent" or not. Of the 2006 LION++ inspectors, Björnsson was on the 2011 Board, but that still leaves Schaeffer. I await any attempt to have him study the matter and deliver a "final" decision, complete with "private" motivated reasoning...

BB+ wrote:

hyatt wrote:During that period of time we were probably averaging a hundred emails per day or so trying to authenticate folks...

During that period, there were also a bunch of emails between Zach, Bob, and myself regarding pre-Beta Rybkas (these started Feb 25). I think Bob had been on the "Open Letter" CC list that was then operative, but was taken off as he thought it might be seen as a "conflict of interest" with the Panel Secretariat.

Ed Schroeder (as an 'intermediator' not yet a representative) to Levy wrote:An alternative to the time consuming nature of an appeal is to follow the same procedure as the ICGA did in the LIST (Fritz Reul) case and ask an independent expert both sides agree on and his decision will be final. My suggestion would be Dr. Donninger again. As an intermediator I can lobby for the precedent you set in the LIST case with Vasik. (link)

Note that at the time of the Open Letter in late Feb 2011, Dr. Donninger had said he didn't want to have anything at all to do with the ICGA. I'm not sure that qualifies him as "independent" or not. Of the 2006 LION++ inspectors, Björnsson was on the 2011 Board, but that still leaves Schaeffer. I await any attempt to have him study the matter and deliver a "final" decision, complete with "private" motivated reasoning...

Every allowance for Hyatt, whilst simultaneously snarking at Ed is getting to be a bit of a pattern, and there are other parallel examples. Every indication of bias degrades the integrity of your COMP EVaL document which, I assume you are aware, depends heavity on non-bias of the writer. The weird choice of comparator programs. The weird, often unsound and incorrect categories the program sub-parts were broken down into and the funny little numbers "quantifying" the alleged similarities were all chosen by you and were subject to highly subjective choice patterns. Bias, intentional or not destroys the integrity of the document.

BB+ wrote:

hyatt wrote:During that period of time we were probably averaging a hundred emails per day or so trying to authenticate folks...

During that period, there were also a bunch of emails between Zach, Bob, and myself regarding pre-Beta Rybkas (these started Feb 25). I think Bob had been on the "Open Letter" CC list that was then operative, but was taken off as he thought it might be seen as a "conflict of interest" with the Panel Secretariat.

I am not sure if you understand the implications giving the impression you are defending the indefensible regarding the preemptive ban of a crtical voice of your work.

I mean, I am your opponent in the technical evidence debate, I am not necessarily your opponent in the debate about the practiced ethical procedures of the ICGA. That's a big difference. If you are choosing sides to defend the indefensible (or even not speak against it) then I am inclined to think most people will express discontent and start to wonder about your impartiality because Bob's behaviour backfires on you and is a threat to your work. So I understand the nasty situation you are in and to constantly condone the ethical breaches (it's what's you are doing in this whole thread) might be a natural thing to do at first glance it has also a dark side. The impartiality of your person and work is at risk.

Young Zach understood and wasn't afraid to speak out. And it didn't hurt him. In fact I respect him for that.

Ed Schroeder (as an 'intermediator' not yet a representative) to Levy wrote:An alternative to the time consuming nature of an appeal is to follow the same procedure as the ICGA did in the LIST (Fritz Reul) case and ask an independent expert both sides agree on and his decision will be final. My suggestion would be Dr. Donninger again. As an intermediator I can lobby for the precedent you set in the LIST case with Vasik. (link)

Note that at the time of the Open Letter in late Feb 2011, Dr. Donninger had said he didn't want to have anything at all to do with the ICGA. I'm not sure that qualifies him as "independent" or not.

Gee, I wonder what happened. Missed it. But back then I only occasionally read CC fora.

hyatt wrote:Do whatever you want. Just be sure you are factual. I am old enough and have more than enough money to react pretty strongly myself if you want to go out on a legal limb.

Well, I am glad that's all you have to say.

Rebel wrote:

hyatt wrote:Do whatever you want. Just be sure you are factual. I am old enough and have more than enough money to react pretty strongly myself if you want to go out on a legal limb.

Well, I am glad that's all you have to say.

Hyatt had bias. Bias breaks through into decision making, unconsciously or otherwise. This application vetting was but one example.

I understand that they used "Rule 2" as the basis for the prosecution of Vas. I understand also that Rule 2 is really meant for use by the TD during a tournament, and in the heat of a tournament, the TD has to rely on what advice he can get, and can even listen to impartial advices. TD job is to try and be fair, but he is time-pressed, and can make mistakes.

But, what I don't understand, is why it is, many years after a tournament, and using "Rule 2" as basis for an investigation tribunal, just why the investigation tribunal cannot be set up to be fair and impartial? Why the massive bias in the secretariat and panel? Seems a terrible mistake by icga. Hyatt is lead role? Williamson with material bias (Hiarcs titles etc) in next role? Makes no sense, and so unnecessary.

How can the verdict be allowed to stand when the process was so broken?

Chris Whittington wrote:Every allowance for Hyatt, ...

I think I am just trying to put forth the totality of the facts of a situation that occurred more than 4 years ago, rather than just the facts that happen to aid CW's cause. Perhaps understandably, a thing unmentioned by Mr. Whittington and Mr. Schröder would typically tend to make allowances for Hyatt/Harvey/Levy/ICGA... Now that I am reminded, I guess I should also point out that the "chriswhittington" WikiSpaces account was thought to be phony, as indicated by Christopher Conkie (on TalkChess) back when IPPOLIT came out in 2009 and said account joined their wiki.

Chris Whittington wrote:whilst simultaneously snarking at Ed

I think my grievances with Mr. Schröder are well-known. I don't consider him to be a decent person (and have not for some time), particularly due to his underdeveloped ability to understand concepts like privacy.

Chris Whittington wrote:blah blah... Watkins is biased (or at least might be) ... blah blah

Ed Schroeder wrote: The impartiality of your person and work is at risk.

I guess anyone who concludes that Rajlich broke Rule #2 can be termed biased/partial, or at least there is "getting to be a bit of a pattern" regarding that. As indicated by the EC decision, any "bias", in my writings or otherwise in the investigation, was not ultimately relevant. Indeed, as has been mentioned many times, the Investigation Panel played a more adversarial role once Rajlich decided not to join it, so it would (in any case) be unsurprising that the evidence ran against him. If Rajlich wished to dispute EVAL_COMP as being biased (or simply incompetent or irrelevant) he could have done so. I guess you are next going to argue that Dailey, Hair, and I have some "bias" in our subsequent paper on move similarity?

Rebel wrote:I am not sure if you understand the implications giving the impression you are defending the indefensible regarding the preemptive ban of a crtical voice of your work.

I think it is well-known that Mr. Whittington contacted me (in particular) regarding his temporary Panel ban, and I was the go-between to Secretariat/Levy until he decided that it was not worth the effort. Moreover, I find (both then and now) the temporary ban [one week, in which the Panel was still getting up to speed] for his comments/attitude (regarding identity verification) to be defensible. I don't necessarily think that MarkL handled the situation in the best manner, but it is generally agreed that ultimately ChrisW was the one who chose not to re-apply, independent of whether he thinks Hyatt/Levy would have found an(other) excuse against him.

Rebel wrote:So I understand the nasty situation you are in and to constantly condone the ethical breaches (it's what's you are doing in this whole thread) might be a natural thing to do at first glance it has also a dark side. ... Young Zach understood and wasn't afraid to speak out. And it didn't hurt him. In fact I respect him for that.

Pfft, you try to present this "nasty situation" when it exists mostly in your mind. I've said many times that the Panel process was not perfectly run, the Secretariat made some decisions with which I did not agree, and that the ICGA verdict did not completely match my view. However, I'd say that the Panel ran more properly than some administrative committees I've seen in academia, and would venture that most of the "problems" that people have with the Panel are simply ones of perception, for instance, expecting it to be like a "jury", or to be "transparent" (rather than private), or for it argue Rajlich's side of the case when he could do that himself, etc.

hyatt wrote:And had I ACTUALLY blocked [ChrisW's] admission purposefully, all I could be convicted of was "keeping a lying whiner/distorter out of the process so that it actually ran smoothly.

Rebel wrote:[Mark,] What do you say?

In the case at hand, I think the phrase "lying whiner/distorter" is more directly applicable to Mr. Schröder than Mr. Whittington. In my view, the most significant error of the Secretariat was their granting of Panel access to Mr. Schröder after the investigation ended, as he seems to understand the word "private" in a very peculiar way. For instance, he joins Rajlich in complaining (4.2) to the EC about a "privacy breach" with respect to Rajlich's emails, and yet simultaneously posts and web-hosts a significant number of similarly "private" emails from Jaap, myself, Fabien, Zach, hyatt, Levy, MarkL, ... In an analogous manner, Mr .Whittington appears to conflate "public interest" with his own interest. "Any psychologist" would tell you the above type of confusions are typically a sign of a leisurely moral development.

Rebel wrote:Bob, if I were a revengeful person, ...

Ed Schröder (to Levy) wrote:I know Vasik isn't the revengeful type ...

"Any psychologist" would tell you that the person saying these things is indeed revengeful, but simultaneously realises that the facts of the matter run gravely against them, and so they turn to this pompous "If I/Vas were revengeful", hoping to spook the other person...

Chris Whittington wrote:But, what I don't understand, is why it is, many years after a tournament, and using "Rule 2" as basis for an investigation tribunal, just why the investigation tribunal cannot be set up to be fair and impartial?

I feel like I'm a broken record and repeating this for the umpteen bazillionth time, but: it seems Levy originally had the idea that the Panel would be some sort of meeting-of-the-minds of both sides, they would agree on the facts, the Secretariat would sum this up, and then the Board would rule. Any disputed facts would have each side (comprised of Panel members as they individually chose) put forth their views, and the Board would try the facts if necessary.

However, despite Levy's attempts to get Rajlich to join the Panel (either alone or with his advisors), this did not happen [I prefer to plead my case with the final arbiter rather than with the accusers], and moreover a couple of notable Rajlich defenders either left the Panel or chose not to re-apply. At that point, the Panel realised that the situation was more adversarial (indeed, Rajlich himself termed the Panel members "the accusers"), and by-and-large produced something to which Rajlich should respond. I would say that the "investigation tribunal" was "fair and impartial" to the extent that most investigations would be, though if one imagines the Panel process (as opposed to the Board decision) as a "trial" then indeed it would not be, most obviously as Rajlich was not heard by the Panel (by his own choice).

BB+ wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:Every allowance for Hyatt, ...

I think I am just trying to put forth the totality of the facts of a situation that occurred more than 4 years ago, rather than just the facts that happen to aid CW's cause. Perhaps understandably, a thing unmentioned by Mr. Whittington and Mr. Schröder would typically tend to make allowances for Hyatt/Harvey/Levy/ICGA... Now that I am reminded, I guess I should also point out that the "chriswhittington" WikiSpaces account was thought to be phony, as indicated by Christopher Conkie (on TalkChess) back when IPPOLIT came out in 2009 and said account joined their wiki.

Chris Whittington wrote:whilst simultaneously snarking at Ed

I think my grievances with Mr. Schröder are well-known. I don't consider him to be a decent person (and have not for some time), particularly due to his underdeveloped ability to understand concepts like privacy.

Chris Whittington wrote:blah blah... Watkins is biased (or at least might be) ... blah blah

Ed Schroeder wrote: The impartiality of your person and work is at risk.

I guess anyone who concludes that Rajlich broke Rule #2 can be termed biased/partial, or at least there is "getting to be a bit of a pattern" regarding that. As indicated by the EC decision, any "bias", in my writings or otherwise in the investigation, was not ultimately relevant. Indeed, as has been mentioned many times, the Investigation Panel played a more adversarial role once Rajlich decided not to join it, so it would (in any case) be unsurprising that the evidence ran against him. If Rajlich wished to dispute EVAL_COMP as being biased (or simply incompetent or irrelevant) he could have done so. I guess you are next going to argue that Dailey, Hair, and I have some "bias" in our subsequent paper on move similarity?

Rebel wrote:I am not sure if you understand the implications giving the impression you are defending the indefensible regarding the preemptive ban of a crtical voice of your work.

I think it is well-known that Mr. Whittington contacted me (in particular) regarding his temporary Panel ban, and I was the go-between to Secretariat/Levy until he decided that it was not worth the effort. Moreover, I find (both then and now) the temporary ban [one week, in which the Panel was still getting up to speed] for his comments/attitude (regarding identity verification) to be defensible. I don't necessarily think that MarkL handled the situation in the best manner, but it is generally agreed that ultimately ChrisW was the one who chose not to re-apply, independent of whether he thinks Hyatt/Levy would have found an(other) excuse against him.

Rebel wrote:So I understand the nasty situation you are in and to constantly condone the ethical breaches (it's what's you are doing in this whole thread) might be a natural thing to do at first glance it has also a dark side. ... Young Zach understood and wasn't afraid to speak out. And it didn't hurt him. In fact I respect him for that.

Pfft, you try to present this "nasty situation" when it exists mostly in your mind. I've said many times that the Panel process was not perfectly run, the Secretariat made some decisions with which I did not agree, and that the ICGA verdict did not completely match my view. However, I'd say that the Panel ran more properly than some administrative committees I've seen in academia, and would venture that most of the "problems" that people have with the Panel are simply ones of perception, for instance, expecting it to be like a "jury", or to be "transparent" (rather than private), or for it argue Rajlich's side of the case when he could do that himself, etc.

hyatt wrote:And had I ACTUALLY blocked [ChrisW's] admission purposefully, all I could be convicted of was "keeping a lying whiner/distorter out of the process so that it actually ran smoothly.

Rebel wrote:[Mark,] What do you say?

In the case at hand, I think the phrase "lying whiner/distorter" is more directly applicable to Mr. Schröder than Mr. Whittington. In my view, the most significant error of the Secretariat was their granting of Panel access to Mr. Schröder after the investigation ended, as he seems to understand the word "private" in a very peculiar way. For instance, he joins Rajlich in complaining (4.2) to the EC about a "privacy breach" with respect to Rajlich's emails, and yet simultaneously posts and web-hosts a significant number of similarly "private" emails from Jaap, myself, Fabien, Zach, hyatt, Levy, MarkL, ... In an analogous manner, Mr .Whittington appears to conflate "public interest" with his own interest. "Any psychologist" would tell you the above type of confusions are typically a sign of a leisurely moral development.

Rebel wrote:Bob, if I were a revengeful person, ...

Ed Schröder (to Levy) wrote:I know Vasik isn't the revengeful type ...

"Any psychologist" would tell you that the person saying these things is indeed revengeful, but simultaneously realises that the facts of the matter run gravely against them, and so they turn to this pompous "If I/Vas were revengeful", hoping to spook the other person...

It's late, but you struck my interest over various philosophical points, so I address a few of those, but will return to substance tomorrow as well.

not philosophical but: I did indeed join the IPPOLIT wiki almost as soon as it came on stream, because I found the Russian Decembrist and Revolutionary language, plus references to a mass of Russian literature really funny and also interesting. Clearly some less developed minds in comp chess will presume either the account can't be true, else I am writing code for IPPOLIT. haha! Anyway, since then, support for Rybka Innocent has earnt me the "Capitalist" label, so I am presumably non grata there. Which is also quite funny imo.

What exactly is my "cause" in your opinion? In mine it is to reverse the verdict which I see as unjust, untrue and a result of an appaling biased process. If this also results in the fall of the hierarchy of the icga and the rise of the horizontal network of equals (already in full swing as ratign lists, Stoxkfish, TCEC etc prove) then so much the better. Probably I presinally have psychological issues over crushigngof lone individuals by large masses and react strongly against. Do you have a problem with such a "cause", other than disagreement with VII, on any sort of philosophical level, or do you just think that's all bullshit? it's usual after all to imagine your enemies are on some sort of ego trip without values blah blah
Just trying to discover if there's some respect here or not.

Are you using, or interpreting the term "public interets" in the same way as I use it? That you conflate it with my perosnal interest suggests not. wiki "public interest", I concur with the article. Essentially, if I believe there's a biased or corrupt or malicious process which is "secret" in some way, and, that process is also capable of being used against anyone (any one in the public part of public interest) then it for the greater good than this public know as much as possible about the process that could turn out to be bad for them too. Hence public interest trumps secrecy. For someone to be the whistleblowing agent, they just have to genuinely believe the badness of the process. Do you have a philosophical problem with that, or is secrecy of such high order than nothing can trump it? or is it the breakign of an agreement concernign the secrecy? My opinion there is that a genuine belief of the extreme badness of the process trumps the agreement also. Snowden, Assange, Manning eg. Does Manning have an arrested moral development, or is he rightly appalled at the murder of civilains by helicopter gunship? Does observing murder and bringing its knowledge to the public overrule his military oath, word etc etc. I woudl say yes it does, and I'ld be very concerned by a morlaity thta says he shoudl have shut up. I son't think I'ld call Manning bashers peopel of "arrested development" but I woudl be pretty concerned about their general thought, decision making processes and sense of priorities. I don't find Ed as you describe him. Is that just my European culture against your Bible region american?