OK, I imagine that Diamante was accused in a message from one of his opponents. Being overly sensitive, he reacted by posting here, but not speaking the language that the majority of us speak, he was not understood. In fact, I doubt that he is understanding the majority of the replies, including yours, yperq.
I have observed other players here react very negatively at such accusations, and quit our 'club', for example, Aaron C comes to mind. I can understand how emotionally hurtful false accusations can be to a person. However, I also believe that some folks here take this website, and it's games, way too seriously. There is NO money involved here, NO prizes, NO notoriety, in fact, NOTHING is really at stake. If you get your ass kicked, and think you were beaten by software (and I think that this has happened to me), the easy remedy is simply to not play this person again. If folks get you riled up by false accusations, or any comments, then the easiest response is NO response; flipping out is just giving the accuser exactly what they want - whether for fun, sadistic pleasure, or simply because they are a**h*l*s.
These are JUST GAMES, folks, and I, for one, am delighted that this website is here (and this is true, despite the fact that I don't plan to play any games here for the rest of calendar year 2017).
A couple of comments above addressed the general issue of the eventual superiority and dominance by algorithms in these strategy games. As a chess player, I naturally have faced that issue for years. I'm not really thrilled when strategy games that I enjoy, such as Qubic, for example, get papers published in journals showing that they have been 'solved', and algorithms have been created which will win every game (or draw, if that is the case). I also agree that for certain games, such as Twixt, these algorithms do not exist NOW because the games are relatively obscure, and 'solving' them would bring no money or fame to the solver, so nobody even bothers. I also agree with David's assertion that learning algorithms will be developed which can become dominant at EVERY strategy game. However, I see that more as a human failing - the fact that human beings can not use 'brute force' and calculate and analyze to the degree to which these ever-improving algorithms will make possible.
But this has not happened YET; it is for the future, and I agree with Florian, who simply states that he can enjoy playing these games in the present. Keep in mind that Chess continues to THRIVE, despite computer dominance. Thus, I am not worried particularly about the future of game-playing humanity.
vivat ludos
(meow)