FIDE Ethics Commission ruling on ICGA/Rybka complaint

[syzygy]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

NOT from the ethics complaint. "This complaint has to be dismissed."

They simply pointed out our rules didn't specify penalties, which means we need to fix that..

Sanctioning Mr Rajlich with a lifetime ban, ICGA violated par. 2.2 and par. 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

On the other point the EC essentially said it has no power to interfere with the application of "tournament rules", even if they are applied out of the blue many years after the tournament took place. Easy way out. Doesn't mean good or bad, only means they won't look into it.

This means that the ICGA could in theory strip your 1983 title on some alleged Rule 2 violation and the EC would condone it.

You realize how specious your analogy is? Any lawyers here?

Here.

[syzygy]

Doesn't mean good or bad, only means they won't look into it.

That is what "dismissed" usually means, right?

No, "dismiss" usually means that the complaint was without merits.

In this case part of the complaint was not judged on the merits. The part that was judged on the merits resulted in a finding against the ICGA.

[syzygy]

Let's assume the ICGA had organised a football match between teams of chess programmers.

The TD, acting as referee, awarded a goal even though the ball did not cross the line. Definitely an incorrect decision. The losing side files a complaint with the EC. The EC will of course not interfere with the decision of the referee. That does not mean the decision was right or wrong (it _was_ wrong, just look at the replay), it only means that the EC will not overrule a split-second decision that the referee had to take while the game was being played. Referee errors are part of the game, just deal with it.

Now to get a closer analogy with what happened in the Rybka case, let's suppose the ball at some point was close to the goal line but did not cross it and the game simply continued. Six years later, the ICGA Executive Board watches the game on YouTube and somehow gets convinced that the ball crossed the line. They decide that they can now do what the TD/referee did not do then and they award the goal. The losing side files a complaint with the EC. The EC says: sorry, this is the application of a game rule and we won't interfere.

Personally I see a justification for not interfering with a split-second in-game decision by the referee or an in-tournament decision by the TD. I see less justification for not interfering with essentially the same decision, but now taken by the ICGA six years after the game/tournament ended.

[hgm]

No, "dismiss" usually means that the complaint was without merits.

I don't think that is correct. Of course when a court decides not to look into a case, it will have a reason for this. But the reasons can be many other than merit of the complaint. Like jurisdiction, technicalities (e.g. complaining after the term the law allowed you to do so expired), etc.

They dismiss a case when it is obvious at a glance that hearing it will serve no purpose.

[bob]

There was no "ruling against the ICGA".

ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning

NOT from the ethics complaint. "This complaint has to be dismissed."

They simply pointed out our rules didn't specify penalties, which means we need to fix that..

Sanctioning Mr Rajlich with a lifetime ban, ICGA violated par. 2.2 and par. 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

On the other point the EC essentially said it has no power to interfere with the application of "tournament rules", even if they are applied out of the blue many years after the tournament took place. Easy way out. Doesn't mean good or bad, only means they won't look into it.

This means that the ICGA could in theory strip your 1983 title on some alleged Rule 2 violation and the EC would condone it.

What would be wrong with that? It would NOT be a FIDE matter. Cray Blitz was never a member of FIDE, was a "computer member" of USCF.

The ICGA SHOULD have complete control over their events.

[bob]

Let's assume the ICGA had organised a football match between teams of chess programmers.

The TD, acting as referee, awarded a goal even though the ball did not cross the line. Definitely an incorrect decision. The losing side files a complaint with the EC. The EC will of course not interfere with the decision of the referee. That does not mean the decision was right or wrong (it _was_ wrong, just look at the replay), it only means that the EC will not overrule a split-second decision that the referee had to take while the game was being played. Referee errors are part of the game, just deal with it.

Now to get a closer analogy with what happened in the Rybka case, let's suppose the ball at some point was close to the goal line but did not cross it and the game simply continued. Six years later, the ICGA Executive Board watches the game on YouTube and somehow gets convinced that the ball crossed the line. They decide that they can now do what the TD/referee did not do then and they award the goal. The losing side files a complaint with the EC. The EC says: sorry, this is the application of a game rule and we won't interfere.

Personally I see a justification for not interfering with a split-second in-game decision by the referee or an in-tournament decision by the TD. I see less justification for not interfering with essentially the same decision, but now taken by the ICGA six years after the game/tournament ended.

They had no WAY "to interfere". They made it quite clear when they dismissed the complaint that they simply had no jurisdiction. They even pointed out that some of their ethics rules come from Swiss law, since that is where FIDE operates, and that Swiss law does not apply everywhere.

[syzygy]

No, "dismiss" usually means that the complaint was without merits.

I don't think that is correct.

We might both be right and wrong. I think it varies from court to court. I know of several courts that "dismiss" an appeal or a complaint if it fails on the merits.

If Bob meant that part of the complaint was dismissed without the merits being investigated in full, then I agree.

The EC did not use the term "dismiss". What they said is "Against this decision, as already clarified, no FIDE organ has appeal competence". In this sentence, "this decision" refers to the disqualification decision based on Rule 2. The ICGA was considered to have "exclusive competence" on the interpretation of Rule 2, because it was a "tournament rule". The EC did consider itself competent to investigate the decision to impose a life-ban. That investigation wasn't too difficult either, since there was no basis for imposing a life-ban at all (ignoring the Charter that was only drawn up in 2011).

[syzygy]

This means that the ICGA could in theory strip your 1983 title on some alleged Rule 2 violation and the EC would condone it.

What would be wrong with that? It would NOT be a FIDE matter. Cray Blitz was never a member of FIDE, was a "computer member" of USCF.

The ICGA SHOULD have complete control over their events.

Well, I am not sure that FIDE does not want to have anything to say about how the ICGA conducts its affairs. If the ICGA wants full control, it is of course free to break with FIDE.

Of course FIDE should let a TD have full control over a tournament. And I also agree that in principle there is nothing wrong with an EC not wanting to dig into all the details. (As the EC said, if you're not happy you can always sue the ICGA in court.)

What does strike me as somewhat inconsistent is that the EC considers itself competent to decide on one aspect of an ICGA decision taken long after a tournament, but not competent to decide on another aspect of that same decision. I understand the tournament rule / no tournament rule distinction, but since that tournament is long past and it is not a TD taking the decision anyway, I'm not so sure that distinction is so relevant. But OK, the EC decides, not me.

(Suppose one sues in court. I would expect a court to be rather unwilling to review an in-tournament decision of a TD, just like a court will be very unwilling to award a goal that a referee did not award. But I would not expect the same amount of hesitation if it was a similar decision, but not taken in the heat of the tournament by the TD but long after by the ICGA.)

[bob]

This means that the ICGA could in theory strip your 1983 title on some alleged Rule 2 violation and the EC would condone it.

What would be wrong with that? It would NOT be a FIDE matter. Cray Blitz was never a member of FIDE, was a "computer member" of USCF.

The ICGA SHOULD have complete control over their events.

Well, I am not sure that FIDE does not want to have anything to say about how the ICGA conducts its affairs. If the ICGA wants full control, it is of course free to break with FIDE.

Of course FIDE should let a TD have full control over a tournament. And I also agree that in principle there is nothing wrong with an EC not wanting to dig into all the details. (As the EC said, if you're not happy you can always sue the ICGA in court.)

What does strike me as somewhat inconsistent is that the EC considers itself competent to decide on one aspect of an ICGA decision taken long after a tournament, but not competent to decide on another aspect of that same decision. I understand the tournament rule / no tournament rule distinction, but since that tournament is long past and it is not a TD taking the decision anyway, I'm not so sure that distinction is so relevant. But OK, the EC decides, not me.

(Suppose one sues in court. I would expect a court to be rather unwilling to review an in-tournament decision of a TD, just like a court will be very unwilling to award a goal that a referee did not award. But I would not expect the same amount of hesitation if it was a similar decision, but not taken in the heat of the tournament by the TD but long after by the ICGA.)

All the EC said is that a penalty should not be more severe than that allowed by the FIDE rules, UNLESS the ICGA rules specifically lay out such penalties in writing. A reasonable request. But they did not even insist that the ICGA rules be modified, just a warning that they should be.

As far as the entire Rybka affair goes, they dismissed it outright as being outside of their purview. Which most of us expected. The entire basis of the complaint was "The ICGA was a bunch of bad boys and ought to be slapped down." No specifics, as usual. As far as the shortcoming in the rules, that will be addressed. As far as potentially reconsidering the lifetime ban, no idea. I suspect that won't happen.

[Graham Banks]

All the EC said is that a penalty should not be more severe than that allowed by the FIDE rules, UNLESS the ICGA rules specifically lay out such penalties in writing. A reasonable request. But they did not even insist that the ICGA rules be modified, just a warning that they should be.

As far as the entire Rybka affair goes, they dismissed it outright as being outside of their purview. Which most of us expected. The entire basis of the complaint was "The ICGA was a bunch of bad boys and ought to be slapped down." No specifics, as usual. As far as the shortcoming in the rules, that will be addressed. As far as potentially reconsidering the lifetime ban, no idea. I suspect that won't happen.

One thing is for sure.

The ICGA are going to have to get their act together real quick, as they're no longer seen by many as having the same importance, relevance or mana that they used to have before this whole affair.

This can be seen in their so called World Championships, which are now little more than second rate events, currently shunned by many of the top engine authors and therefore sadly often used by the title winners as propaganda to con unsuspecting buyers (if their product is commercial).

In effect, they've lost touch with much of the computer chess community. That should concern them, surely.

mana (Maori word meaning prestige, authority, control, power, influence, status)

Guess I'll cop the usual abuse from the usual offenders for posting this.