bob wrote:
Enough was posted here to answer the question, for anyone that wants to look at the data with an unbiased investigation. Some will never be convinced, as no data is good enough. I've seen enough, am convinced, and have moved on. I doubt we will ever see any sort of admission here, which is fine by me. I don't need one, because I _know_ what happened. So let's move on to something productive. This horse is out of the barn, the truth has been recognized by some, it won't ever be accepted by others, so what's left to say?
Bob thanks for making some points. It's already a bit late here but let me still make a final challenge. So that tomorrow morning things are clarified.
What I read here in this concrete message doesnt impress me. Ok, alone that you make such judgements it means something and I couldnt contradict you in details.
However what I could do is describing what would be more convincing for the mass of laymen here.
Smalltalk verdicts are always secondbest. why not making a short summary with clear definitions "who when did what" and why is this or that forbidden to do, morally, legally, relevant in trials or not, and then a sensible final judgement with a reflection about the overall situation in computerchess, how many such private court cases we've seen, perhaps with a comparison to legal loaning stuff from others, plus a future picture if now anonymous people could dominate computerchess and why they are better in your eyes than decent MIT guys.
But again I would like clear he then did this which is proven by and then estimation. NOT I've seen enough to know what is going on and the horse is out of the barn.
If however you must admit that this costs too much time then the criticism for Zach would apply.
I would then wish that from then on it is strongly forbidden for anonymous and known clique to continue to bash Vas.
Fair enough for you?
!
