[ekelsen]

Yeah, I don't understand why the metric isn't "complete chess engine that achieves X ELO" in yyy bytes or something.

Instead it seems to have been "minimal thing that kinda looks like chess in yyy bytes"

[applfanboysbgon]

> X ELO in yyy bytes

Because then you're measuring on two axes. Which is better, 1500 elo in 300 bytes or 1550 elo in 310 bytes?

For a byte count comparison to make much sense, the program really ought to have a static target criteria.

[ekelsen]

I used a placeholder for X ELO, but my point was the community should pick one value that makes sense and then not change it.

[noiv]

Interesting would be how much bytes improve by 100 ELO?

[taftster]

I'd suggest just ensuring that the entire rules of chess are first evaluated or supported in a chess program, before worrying about ELO rating, etc.