2.2 - The voluminous email conversation between Levy and Rajlich as found on the way-back machine.
The email conversation in a nutshell:
- Levy told Rajlich about accusations and inquiry, invited Rajlich to participate.
- Levy told Rajlich the ICGA would decide after the inquiry.
- Rajlich with reference to 2.1 replied he would prefer to answer to the final arbiters (the ICGA) not the accusers.
- The inquiry took place.
- Levy sent Rajlich the misleading (not checked) Panel Report and told him now was time to respond since ICGA was going to come to a verdict.
- Rajlich responded the same day, emails back and forth about no code from others in Rybka, and therefore Rajlich understood Rybka to not be a derivative (addressing rule 2) and thus in compliance with rule 2.
- That was the defence: under the general accepted Berne Convention, a derivative contains (substantial) copyright code from others.
- ICGA Panel weren’t saying Rybka in ICGA Turin 2006 contained copyright code from others.
- That’s it, either not guilty, or a technical infringement because ICGA never defined derivative (as mentioned in rule 2) as anything other than the legally accepted definition (Berne Convention) in the application form.
10. Levy’s decision “guilty” of a breach of Rule 2 was based on nothing. Rajlich didn’t breach Rule 2 because while Rule 2 mentions “derivative” it did not define “derivative” and the Panel consensus was that Rybka did not at Turin time 2006 contain Fruit copyright code.
11. There is a critical moment in the discussion, as second part of his defence Rajlich offered ponder-hit-defence addressing the rule 2 part (playing nearly all moves the same) and strangely enough Levy did not respond to that defence where after the discussion rapidly stalled. Instead of forwarding Rajlich's defence to the Panel for advice Levy decided to ignore Rajlich's defence.
In more detail
12. One can see that from the beginning (Februari 2 to 6) Rajlich is cooperative answering Levy's questions, that it is Levy who refuses Rajlich's invitation to discuss the matter by phone and cuts the conversation and 13 days later on Februari 19 Levy starts a frontal attack on the ChessVibes site making public accusations against Rajlich without any fair hearing, without having the technical knowledge to judge himself, fully relying on informations of the Rybka accusers, not checking other voices. Bias introduced from the get go.
13. Februari 23 - the investigation starts and as we have understood from Secretariat member Robert Hyatt the charter (the operation rules) wasn't even available to them and we wonder when a) when it was available or when it became available it was even read as during the voting thread on April 21 Secretariat member Robert Hyatt stated: It isn't clear whether members of the secretariat should reply or not, so I thought I would offer my comments to start the ball rolling. And then voted Rajlich guilty of breaking rule 2.
14. March 1 - Another mail from Levy. Rajlich answers promptly on Februari 28 (time zone) prefers to talk with Levy and not with his accusers, offers to cooperate with Levy asking time to prepare himself properly. Again no courtesy of a reply followed by a long silence of about 2½ months.
15. May 13 - The talks with the final arbiter (ICGA president Levy) starts, again we see Rajlich replying promptly.
16. Levy misses Rajlich's point of ponder-hit-defence (Levy - I'm afraid that your latest reply misses the point. The rule in question is tournament rule 2) No David, Rajlich's ponder-hit-defence is all about rule 2! It's you who did not understood and then changed the subject instead of seeking advice from the Panel and properly answer the accused in your court room as final arbiter.
17. In the next email of Levy the topic is the word "derivative" as used in rule 2. Rajlich correctly calls the use of the word "derivative" in rule 2 vague because rule 2 lacks any definition of the word "derivative". And once again we see ICGA president David Levy make the same mistake. Instead of giving Rajlich a proper definition what the loaded word
"derivative" means, or seek help from his Panel, and explain the accused of what he is accused of in order that the accused can defend himself properly, Levy cuts the topic once again and changed the subject. Not the kind of judge one wants to meet in a real life court room.