ICGA shame part 3

Part III

The ICGA refusal of an appeal.

Right after the ICGA verdict in June 2011 the computer chess fora exploded, while the (hidden) Panel forum contained only 214 postings the real investigation took place in the the various computer chess fora over a period of more than 2 years, estimated postings 50,000 - 60,000.

A sea of contra evidence by various chess programmers was compiled into a document and send to the ICGA for feedback, the ICGA did not reply, not even after a friendly reminder.

Because of the silence Rajlich in 2013 asked the ICGA for an appeal.

Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 08:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vasik Rajlich
Subject: Rybka-ICGA appeal
To: David Levy
Cc: Ed Schroder, Soren Riis



I confirm that I appoint Ed Schroeder as my representative in the request to appeal submitted to the ICGA. I assert I have the right to appeal and the right to be represented at that appeal.

Best regards,




Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 03:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Levy 

Subject: Re: Rybka-ICGA appeal
To: Vasik Rajlich  
Cc: Ed Schroder, Soren Riis


As you well know, you were invited before the investigation began, and at every significant stage of the investigation process, to defend yourself against the allegations and the evidence that was presented against you, but in response to each of the ICGA's invitations you declined to do so, usually by simply not responding to the invitations.

The ICGA's invitations even included offering you the right to be part of the investigation panel.

The ICGA will therefore not entertain any appeal by you or anyone representing you.

Best regards,




Statements of critical

   chess programmers.

The biased composition

   of the Panel (jury) 


The Panel Cheat

The lie that Rajlich not


• The ICGA refusal of an


The myth Rajlich copied


A disappointing answer by ICGA president David Ley. Still referring to Rajlich's unwilling behavior to stand trial in his biased court room facing a biased jury resulting in a manipulated jury report by the ICGA Secretariat.

We asked the chess community in one of the computer chess fora about their opinion if it was Rajlich fundamental right to an appeal. From the 17 chess programmers 16 voted yes. A second poll among experienced users ended in 25 x yes, 3 x no and 2 undecided.

We like to end this review of this historic low point in the history of computer chess with the words of Marcel van Kervinck  a Dutch software engineer and author of the chess program Rookie, a Panel Member who voted Rajlich guilty but had a change of heart afterwards:

This is a manufactured justification.

A lot more people didn't follow the forum rules and that was just let go.

Chris was excluded because he would undermine the purpose of the panel: to provide a case against Rybka.

One member announced preliminary findings in a public forum.

One member leaked discussions on a public forum.

Half of the panel was discussing things behind the backs of the rest, despite the rules forbidding this.

In retrospect, and from my point of view, that panel was just setup to lend credibility to the desired outcome, and nothing else.