Vasik Rajlich Speaks!

[Harvey Williamson]

While we are talking of errors we spotted one in The Riis doccuments after the article was submitted to Chessvibes.

Riis states:

It really goes without saying that the panel members voted based on the findings of the ICGA report...

But the ICGA Secretariat Report was written after the panel members voted!

[Graham Banks]

Do you need to be a programmer to know that if you type it all in yourself it can/can not be copying?

If it's a direct copy, then of course not.

I think any honest independent, non chess, programmer reading the information will come to only 1 conclusion. There were several on the panel. Have any studied the case and said Vas is innocent?

From memory, only 14 on the panel voted. Many others on the panel were unaware that it was anything more than a discussion group. This has all been covered before.
I have no programming skills whatsoever, so I don't understand many of the technical aspects discussed. That's why I haven't offered an opinion since the ruling.
However, long before the investigation, both Ryan Benitez and Christopher Conkie had told me that Rybka was okay, which is why I'd always defended it before that.

[Harvey Williamson]

Do you need to be a programmer to know that if you type it all in yourself it can/can not be copying?

If it's a direct copy, then of course not.

I think any honest independent, non chess, programmer reading the information will come to only 1 conclusion. There were several on the panel. Have any studied the case and said Vas is innocent?

From memory, only 14 on the panel voted. Many others on the panel were unaware that it was anything more than a discussion group. This has all been covered before.
I have no programming skills whatsoever, so I don't understand many of the technical aspects discussed. That's why I haven't offered an opinion since the ruling.
However, long before the investigation, both Ryan Benitez and Christopher Conkie had told me that Rybka was okay, which is why I'd always defended it before that.

Why do you have to bend the truth again. 2 people after the events were over cliamed they wanted to be observers only. They happen to be the 2 people who run the chessbase news site. Nobody voted against as you know so I really do not know why you are bringing this up again. Where were Chris and Ryan when the panel was set up? Are they non chess programmers? Did they go into anywhere the ammount of detail that the panel did?

When they said Rybka was alright what does that mean? They think R4 is fine?

Vas has not helped himself with the ridiculous answers he is giving but you still blindly defend him while claiming you are impartial.

[Graham Banks]

Vas has not helped himself with the ridiculous answers he is giving but you still blindly defend him while claiming you are impartial.

How can I be defending him if I can't say whether the ruling is right or wrong?
All I am interested in is that what people say is not twisted and then misrepresented in an impartial manner. That's all.

I'm really disappointed in the way that several people on both sides of the argument have turned this forum and the Rybka forum into cesspools though. Not sure why either forum bothers to have moderators when they can't be bothered moderating.

[Harvey Williamson]

Vas has not helped himself with the ridiculous answers he is giving but you still blindly defend him while claiming you are impartial.

How can I be defending him if I can't say whether the ruling is right or wrong?
All I am interested in is that what people say is not twisted and then misrepresented in an impartial manner. That's all.

I'm really disappointed in the way that several people on both sides of the argument have turned this forum and the Rybka forum into cesspools though. Not sure why either forum bothers to have moderators wen they can't be bothered moderating.

Graham you have just done exactly what you are criticising others for. You bend what happened with the panel to go with the 'Ed' agenda you then interprate what Vas said to Jeremy again in a way that suites the 'Ed' side of the story.

[Graham Banks]

Vas has not helped himself with the ridiculous answers he is giving but you still blindly defend him while claiming you are impartial.

How can I be defending him if I can't say whether the ruling is right or wrong?
All I am interested in is that what people say is not twisted and then misrepresented in an impartial manner. That's all.

I'm really disappointed in the way that several people on both sides of the argument have turned this forum and the Rybka forum into cesspools though. Not sure why either forum bothers to have moderators wen they can't be bothered moderating.

Graham you have just done exactly what you are criticising others for. You bend what happened with the panel to go with the 'Ed' agenda you then interprate what Vas said to Jeremy again in a way that suites the 'Ed' side of the story.

How else can you interpret "of course not"?

[Harvey Williamson]

Vas has not helped himself with the ridiculous answers he is giving but you still blindly defend him while claiming you are impartial.

How can I be defending him if I can't say whether the ruling is right or wrong?
All I am interested in is that what people say is not twisted and then misrepresented in an impartial manner. That's all.

I'm really disappointed in the way that several people on both sides of the argument have turned this forum and the Rybka forum into cesspools though. Not sure why either forum bothers to have moderators wen they can't be bothered moderating.

Graham you have just done exactly what you are criticising others for. You bend what happened with the panel to go with the 'Ed' agenda you then interprate what Vas said to Jeremy again in a way that suites the 'Ed' side of the story.

How else can you interpret "of course not"?

Now who is playing word games? He then says something about tinkering with his definition at the edges. If any other person changed their definition 3x you would jump on them but not Vas. How do you know he did not go away and think shit I just told the truth better go and muddy the waters again?

I still think the line to jeremy is extremely vague but you are infering a pro vas line from it.

[Graham Banks]

Vas has not helped himself with the ridiculous answers he is giving but you still blindly defend him while claiming you are impartial.

How can I be defending him if I can't say whether the ruling is right or wrong?
All I am interested in is that what people say is not twisted and then misrepresented in an impartial manner. That's all.

I'm really disappointed in the way that several people on both sides of the argument have turned this forum and the Rybka forum into cesspools though. Not sure why either forum bothers to have moderators wen they can't be bothered moderating.

Graham you have just done exactly what you are criticising others for. You bend what happened with the panel to go with the 'Ed' agenda you then interprate what Vas said to Jeremy again in a way that suites the 'Ed' side of the story.

How else can you interpret "of course not"?

Now who is playing word games? He then says something about tinkering with his definition at the edges. If any other person changed their definition 3x you would jump on them but not Vas. How do you know he did not go away and think shit I just told the truth better go and muddy the waters again?

I still think the line to jeremy is extremely vague but you are infering a pro vas line from it.

Best leave it Harvey as we're going round in circles.
I'm sure that we can both agree though that Vas needs to be a lot more forthcoming when answering questions and a lot clearer with what he says.

[Harvey Williamson]

Oh and here is Vas's latest try

I am not sure if Robbolito is an entirely re-typed Ippolit or just a massively cleaned-up one. If it's entirely re-typed, then I think this is a kind of edge case.

[mjlef]

Do you need to be a programmer to know that if you type it all in yourself it can/can not be copying?

If it's a direct copy, then of course not.

I think any honest independent, non chess, programmer reading the information will come to only 1 conclusion. There were several on the panel. Have any studied the case and said Vas is innocent?

From memory, only 14 on the panel voted. Many others on the panel were unaware that it was anything more than a discussion group. This has all been covered before.
I have no programming skills whatsoever, so I don't understand many of the technical aspects discussed. That's why I haven't offered an opinion since the ruling.
However, long before the investigation, both Ryan Benitez and Christopher Conkie had told me that Rybka was okay, which is why I'd always defended it before that.

Anyone on the panel was greeted with this web page (now open to the world):

http://icga.wikispaces.com/

Please take a look.

It is quite clear from the very first page what the web site was for and what the panel was for. The only way for any panel member to not know what the purpose of the panel was for would be if they totally ignored what the pages said. And what was discussed. And many messages sent to them asking for opinions. I find this just about impossible.