Talk:1K ZX Chess

Proposal

I would propose this article be linked to a new heading minimalism in chess programming at Minimalism_(computing). Oldsalo (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical acceptance

1K ZX Chess breaks 7 new FIDE rules : en-passant, 50 moves rule, 3-repetition rule, castling, king in mate, queening, under-promotion. Considered as chess-enough or pre-FIDE rule chess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.114.103 (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A program that doesn't implement the rules of chess isn't a chess program

Pretending this is chess is simply misleading our readers. You can always make a chess-like program smaller by throwing out more and more rules, which is what the one that has "beaten" this one has done in turn (according to the release notes). We're under no obligation to simply parrot our sources when they say something that is clearly false. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between "not chess" and "does not implement all rules". 1K ZX Chess clearly does the latter, as reliable sources (such as the BBC article) state, but that does not mean, in turn, the former. Said RSs unambiguously call it chess, not "almost chess" or "chesslike"; until and unless we can find RSs comparable to Your Computer or Tim Harding or BBC or Gizmodo that describe it that way, we must stick with calling it chess. Ylee (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I await a more scientific write up. Yes, this was pretty impressive, as Harding says, for when computers ran on cassette tapes. I might have considered this "chess-enough" were I writing about this in 1982 but even Harding points out the caveats. But now a new program comes along in 2015 and claims to have "beaten" this one? A program that can't even handle castling! Is there any line you would draw on what a WP:RS claimed was still "chess" before you'd no longer be willing to put it in Wikipedia? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The new program's claim's validity has nothing to do with 1K ZX Chess.

Let me repeat: Multiple quality cites, including a bona fide chess writer and grandmaster who wrote a book on computer chess, call 1K ZX Chess a chess program. We can only judge whether a cite that otherwise qualifies as RS merits ignoring if it conflicts with others. Find cites of comparable quality that agree with your stance and we'll talk.

That the program is 30 years old and doesn't implement every FIDE rules is immaterial, given the above; by your logic, Tecmo Bowl and every other such video game of a comparable age that doesn't have 11 players per side isn't a football game (no matter what every RS of the era and today says), but a video game that simulates a football-like sport. Feel free to go to WP:VG and propose that every such article be immediately rewritten accordingly. Ylee (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't act like the History of computer chess and the History of computer American football are comparable scientific fields. There's no Deep Blue of American Football that I'm aware of. The year is not 1982 or '85; I'd be happy to say this was considered a chess playing computer program by 1982/5 standards. The technological achievement at the time was running something even close in less than 1K of memory (!!), not that it was exactly "chess". It's not chess as any somewhat precocious 5th grader, who has played a dozen games of actual chess, would understand it. Forget FIDE and it's technobabble and persnikitty rules. Ask yourself: Is Wikipedia Smarter Than a 5th Grader? The answer to that question, at least when it's obvious, should always be: hopefully at least barely! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kendrick7, I don't see the merit in your argument. Something such as hexapawn is clearly not chess, so there are certainly chess-related games that would not be called chess. However I would say that it is reasonable to classify a 1982 program for a tiny machine to be a chess program even if it didn't implement castling, e.p. or promotion. The modern rules for castling weren't standardized until the 17th century and rules for promotion were not settled until much later, with disagreement on the specifics occurring as late as 1862. En passant was a bit earlier, but the fact remains that the the game played before the modern rules were adopted was called "chess" by those playing it and is still called chess by those writing about that historical era today. The article's sources call this program a chess program, and I think that casual and serious chess players alike would have no difficulty recognizing 1K ZX as a chess playing program. I know that you don't agree, but your opinion on chess matters doesn't hold as much weight for me as that of Tim Harding. (@Ylee–Harding is a respected chess writer and authority, but he isn't a GM). Quale (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the best wording is defining it a chess variant. For a similar case see the page about Los Alamos chess. Tcp-ip (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS source that calls it a chess variant. As far as I am aware, all our sources call it a chess program. Also, Los Alamos chess isn't a very close match to 1K ZX, as the latter used the standard board and all pieces with standard moves except for the exceptions noted. Quale (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this argument about 1K ZX Chess not implementing all of the rules or BootChess not implementing all of the rules? BootChess implements one more rule (limited) than 1K ZK Chess does and one less rule than 1K ZK Chess. Neither 1K ZK Chess or BootChess implement all of the rules of standardized chess today. As a side note, comparing either of these programs to deep blue is ridiculous. BootChess takes up fewer bytes than DeepBlue has processors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindeneau (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)