From the press release by ICGA president David Levy on June 28th 2011 that got worldwide news on media like CNN, the New York Times etc.
During the course of the investigation and upon presentation of the Secretariat’s report Vasik Rajlich did not offer, despite repeated invitations from the ICGA to do so, any kind of defence to the allegations, or to the evidence, or to the Secretariat’s report,
The truth of the matter is that Rajlich:
1. Did not had to cooperate;
2. And yet he did, in his own chosen way.
1. The reason Rajlich did not had to cooperate is simple, because there is nothing in the THEN (2006) tournament rules that said so.
Tournament rule #2
Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
All participants were obliged to have their source code available in case suspicion was raised during the tournament in order that the Tournament Director during the tournament could make an ad hoc decision about the raised suspicion during the tournament. There is nothing in the THEN tournament rules that can undo the results of the tournament after it has finished. The ICGA history of banned chess engines until 2011 before the Rybka investigation started shows that consistent pattern.
Meaning, by the rewrite of history stripping Rajlich from his 4 world titles ICGA president David Levy (notable) broke Tournament rule #2 himself!
Meanwhile rule #2 has undergone a major change among that, giving the ICGA the right of one year after the tournament to call for a source code inspection / investigation, admitting they did not had that right under the tournament rules of 2006.
2.1 - We will demonstrate the statement made by ICGA president David Levy that Rajlich was unwilling to defend himself at best is a half-truth (or the meanest lie of all depending on your interpretation) by deliberately skipping the voluminous email conversation (discussed below) between Levy and Rajlich. Levy's accusation started to lead its own life until author Ed Schröder (Rebel / ProDeo) asked Rajlich about the reason not to participate in the Panel discussions.
it was clear that the ICGA had no intention of handling things in a fair manner. They made loud and unnecessary public accusations. They put vocal Rybka critics in charge. They did not investigate any other engines. And so on.
It's hard to disagree with Rajlich as it went as he said, see our previous topics: The biased composition of the Panel (jury) Members and The Panel Cheat.
Furthermore authors Chris Whittington (Chess System Tal) and Ed Schröder convinced Rajlich to answer questions from his accusers (notable) in his own forum. And in the end it did not matter, the myth Rajlich was uncooperative still lives on in the mind of the Rybka accusers.
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.
Tournament rule 2
Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice.For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
Rajlich was found guilty by Levy for breaking Tournament Rule 2 but going through Rule 2 Rajlich addressed the pink part of Rule 2 in   and  and the blue part of Rule 2 in .
Whether one agress with Rajlich's defence is up to the reader, the accusation