Talk:Zillions of Games

For previous VfD discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions of Games.

Zillions of Games is just an advertisement for a computer program. Shouldn't it be deleted?

8,740 hits on google - though only 602 of those are non-duplicates [1]. I think it can be kept. A good way to de-advertise such articles is to dig up some dirt^H^H^H^H additional background on the relevant company... Martin

I seriously doubt anyone is going to find much "dirt" on Zillions Development, its business dealings or its principal architects- Jeff Mallett and Mark Lefler. This is where the Microsoft analogy breaks down. They are experienced chess programmers who can make a great deal of money writing engines for commercial products. Yet they invested years of programming work in creating and refining the world's first universal board game program which they sell at a minimal price of $25 (by download). Apparently, they undertook this project because they knew it would greatly benefit inventors and players of chess variants. We are a very small community worldwide. So, there was never any realistic hope on their part of making a lot of money. Consider that. --BadSanta

For some strange reason I could create normal external links at the end of the article chess-type problems in the puzzle section. Always the http:... stuff is showing instead of the description text only. Can someone please correct it? Thanks, Karl Scherer

Done; it was a problem of your having written "html" where it should have been "http". Could you please take time to learn the wiki conventions of articles here, perhaps by looking at some of your own article which others have modified? Your contributions would be more appreciated if others didn't have to clean them up afterwards. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:07 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm intrigued as to why chess-type problem now has nine external links all pointing to the same page (not to mention that that page is selling a Windows-only commercial software product). Several other puzzle-related pages are the same. Is "Zillions of Games" so good that it should receive this kind of endorsement from Wikipedia? --rbrwr

Be bold in keeping wikipedia free of advertising. Martin

I bow to your boldness, Martin. I took the ads out of a couple of those pages about 15 hours ago, but they got reverted, so I thought I'd try a different tack. --rbrwr

1. I just started to correct the mising highlights when I got your message that the highlights are missing. But thanks for the reminder anyway.

2. The links to Zillions games are NOT COMMERCIAL LINKS. If you would have ever followed any of these links you would have seen that ALL LINKS leads to games and puzzles which various authors around the world have created for free, not receiving a cent for it, and they are FREE to download from the Zillions page. Zillions does not earn a cent from that, no matter how many you download. That you have to own the Zillons CD in the first place (a huge expense of US$15) it think should be a minor issue comapred to the fact that everyone can create their own games, and about 1000 games are available for free from many places on the net. I could refer many of the links to my own or other web pages which are non-commercial, but Zillions simply has the BIGGEST collection of free downloadable games. Many puzzles and games would stay totaly unknown to the public and whither apart in old tomes would it not for the unique opportunity to easily create them in this wonderful game language!!!!

I have created more than 300 games and puzzles in Zillions myself, free for everyone to download. The Zillions download page is simply the most central page to do this from. Believe me, I do not get a cent from Zillions for all that work.

I hope this made it a bit clearer that YES, Zillions deserves all that attention. There is nothing comparable in the word relating to games and puzzles. Please correct me and show me why I am wrong. Thanks for listening Karl

And please don't delete the links. They are very valuable for everyone who is intersted in agmes and puzzles, and I know there are thousands of people who love them.

The problem I have with the links is that they point to the Zillions main games page, which makes them look like advertisements. They should point to the individual game pages (e.g. L Game) instead.--Eloquence 23:56 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Zillions DOES NOT HAVE a 'main games page'! (because the games on the Zillions CD are nowhere mentioned on their pages at all!)
Zillions HAS a home page, which I am NOT linking to. I am linking to the FREE DOWNLOAD PAGE (look at the link, that indeed IS its name!), were NON-ZILLIONS authors display their work.
OK, I should have done the linking to the specific pages for the games, I agree. I am willing to do all the corrections necessary. But this is only posssible when you REVERT your deletions!!!! Do you expect me to type everything in again???

Please be aware of your power: People with the power to DELETE are 100 times stronger than people who CREATE because typing takes so much longer.....

...and saying (as you do) "If you would have dome it differently, I would not have deleted your stuff" obviously immensely adds to the frustration that authors have with the admin.

You can revert to an earlier version yourself, if you like - see Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. But please don't put in a stack of links to the same page again. --Camembert

I'm sure that if others agree with you on the critical importance of Zillions to the game-playing community then they will put the links back in. However, there are hundreds of implementations of sliding puzzle games, for example, and I fail to see why implementations available on Zillions of Games should get special treatment. I also consider posting identical links to many entries to be spam, and I get enough of that through my letter box...Martin

Sidenote: Is this advertising or what? --Jatos

Actually, it is only a relevant description of the capabilities of the Zillions Of Games program correctly placed upon the Zillions Of Games page. A page is dedicated to it because it is the most powerful, adaptable tool inventors and playtesters of board games (esp. chess variants) have available. This is common knowledge to EVERYONE who is deeply involved in this craft. Obviously, you are not involved. So, what gives you the earned authority to vandalize this page? Don't do it again. --OmegaMan

Sounds like we have quite an adversarial relationship going here. Editors don't have to be involved in whatever a page is about, in order to edit that page. Spam is a serious and valid concern for those who administer the Wikipedia pages. A community of hundreds if not thousands of ZoG programmers has developed. We enjoy creating and sharing our creations for free. It costs money to "join the club," but in my opinion the expense is well worth it. Zillions is a useful tool for "testing out" an abstract game concept, and understanding the basic tactical elements that form the basis for learning the game. So, ZoG has value above and beyond the games you can play on it. At least, it does for me.

Can we all get along? I suspect the editors are willing to let the ZoG page remain, as long as future additions observe the rules of protocol which are clearly listed for those who take the time to read them.

Thanks!--Twixter 4 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

User has 17 prior edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

I am concerned by the fact that most users editing this talk page supporting this article's existence have few edits and don't even have user pages. This may be an indication of sockpuppetry and/or fancruft. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

What information could I provide to convince you otherwise? I'm interested in what I'm interested in. What hoops should I jump through at this point? Edit some topics I don't even care about? I put my email address and some basic info about me on my user page. The whole idea of a user page seems pretty vain to me. What if the word "Twixter" pertains to some Robert Frost poem or something? Who am I, to tell the world what "Twixter" is all about? --Twixter 5 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

User pages are useful, if only because of the attached User_talk pages. You don't need to worry about "twixter" having some other meaning, because your user page is in the user namespace, not in the article namespace, so it can coexist with a twixter article. (By the way, it's obvious from your edits that you really are David J. Bush. Who cares what -Ril- thinks?) --Zundark 5 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

User -Ril- seems to be paranoid about Karl Schere using Sock puppets. He suspected already 6 users (including myself)! The best thing to do is to ignore these accusitions. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

• sigh* While I know it was done with no doubt the purest of intentions, I don't know that the most recent edit sits well with me. Given the recent controversies, in particular involving Karl Scherer, it may be best off to not offer too many accolades to specific people in the article. Too, the edits on the section involving limitations and how to work around them is sounding less like an explanation of limitations and more like the "original research" Ril has been harping about. We cannot allow fear to rule us, but I'm thinking we may wish to not make the article too controversial in the wake of the recent VfD. Anyone else feel this way? I'm not bothered if you don't... I'm one person and I've got a personal history for avoiding conflict, often when I should not. -Fuzzy 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have also noticed some of the flaws you mentioned. Accordingly, I have revised every section. Other flaws I doubt exist. Fergus Duniho, who is admittedly a new editor to Wikipedia, is overall a very good editor from the start due mainly to his extensive experience and understanding of the subject matter as well as writing skills. This article was little more than a stub before FD expanded and restructured it. Further contributions from everyone are encouraged.

There is huge contrast between the overboard behavior Dr. Karl Scherer has been accused of and been found guilty of. In any case, I left the mention of his accomplishments in place wherever appropriate (for the sake of example).

I do not regard FD's description of the limitations of the Zillions program as original research. These are objectively verifiable facts, most of which I know to be true, although only a minority of us have this incisive knowledge of technical details, gained from experience.

--BadSanta

• I think "Limitation" chapter should be significantly reduced to a couple of paragraphs. The stuff is too advanced for encyclopedia article to be of general interest. The section "Capabilities" should be expanded with examples to give a fealing of how the game is coded in ZRF. May be also add some small code fragments for defining board, piece movement, game goal etc. Andreas Kaufmann 21:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I didn't care for the changes BadSanta made to the article, and so I reverted back to my last version with only Andreas's minor revision included. In many instances, BadSanta sacrificed clarity for conciseness. Also, in adding mention of its ELO rating, he engaged in sheer speculation. Zillions of Games has no fixed ELO rating, because its playing ability depends upon the memory and processor speed of the computer it is running on. The most reliable way to discuss its ability to play any game is to compare it with other computer programs.

As to Fuzzy's concern about another VfD, I'm not worried about it. If worse comes to worst, I'll just put the article on Wikinfo. Anyway, I'm willing to take suggestions on how to improve the article. --Fergus 23:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have downloaded a comparison of my version with BadSanta's revisions, and I will go through it see which of his revisions are worth keeping. --Fergus 23:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a small amount of clarity may have been sacrificed for the sake of conciseness. As you scrutinize your original version and my revision of it, please bear in mind what Andreas Kaufmann said about what is appropriate for an encyclopediac entry. Frankly, your original version was too verbose, too detailed, too trivial and occasionally redundant (explicitly or implicitly). Incidentally, I also believe that the limitations section should be severely editted.

The higher the CPU and memory of the computer, the greater its ELO. The estimate of the ZOG program's ELO range came from its website. Actually, ELO takes the quality of moves and average time required into account. --BadSanta

I have now incorporated BadSanta's improvements into my previous version of this article. He sometimes used a word or a turn of phrase that worked better than what I wrote, sometimes expressed what I meant more concisely, and sometimes deleted unnecessary details. But he also made several changes I didn't keep. He sometimes changed the meaning of what I wrote, sometimes used words or phrases that didn't work as well, sometimes deleted details that didn't need to be deleted, sometimes inserted inaccuracies, frequently miscorrected correct punctuation, and occasionally added redundancy. In some instances, seeing how he changed what I wrote led me to add more clarification to what I was originally trying to say.

Regarding the information on its "ELO range" coming from the Zillions website, here is what it actually says: "Zillions has never been officially rated, but it is certainly much weaker than today's commercial chess programs, including our own engines (NOW, Innovation,...). However, on a really fast computer (I use a 450MHz Pentium) on a faster time control it does seem better than me, and I've been as high as USCF 2050." This doesn't report any official measure of its ELO rating, and this fact is even explicitly claimed here. All that is being said here is that on a 450MHz Pentium computer with some unspecified time control, it seems to play better than one unidentified person (probably Jeff Mallett without signing his name) who has been rated as high as USCF 2050.

The Limitations section is trimmed down a bit, but not to the two paragraphs Andreas has suggested. As for adding ZRF code to the Capabilities section, I think this would be too technical for the casual reader. Let anyone who is interested read the documentation, Jens Markmann's ZRF Programming Guide, or the ZRFs themselves for examples of ZRF code. --Fergus 03:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am still somewhat dissatisfied that you have only recognized and accepted some of my relevant deletions and changes. However, you will find that noone in their right mind enters into an edit war at Wikipedia over their preferred adjectives. You need to realize that other editors can and will "change the meaning of what you write" intentionally and for a constructive purpose with impunity. You have not written a sacred scroll. Nothing is sacred here.

Online encyclopediac entries (which require scrolling for every screen full of text) should be structured with greatest emphasis upon the most important, general facts of a subject. This does not render details inadmissible but it is vital to keep the word count as low as possible while achieving a reasonably complete, clear explanation. Accordingly, a division between important and trivial details must be made. The trivial details must be jettisoned from the article. You can still treasure them within your mind. Moreover, the education clarity of the important details you present must be evaluated. Technical details in a topic of interest to the general public (such as this one) must be regarded with extreme caution and used sparingly.

The article is still too long. More deletions and summaries are needed and thus, forthcoming, either from myself or other editors. --BadSanta

General platitudes mean little to me. If you have specific complaints, please discuss them here. --Fergus 16:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

As to the last statment of your "Limitation" chapter, this link is to an independent ZoG developers listing of chess variants, on which he includes his variant with opening books. Might be something you'd like to look into, I can't vouch for the veracity of his claim. http://karl.kiwi.gen.nz/swindex3.html --Piggyjon382 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

BadSanta, where can this survey be found? --Fergus 03:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Zillions of Games

See last paragraph.

Only the unique board games and variants on the ZOG web site were estimated.

--BadSanta

Should the fact that the program is exclusively Windows-based (if it still is so) be mentioned as a weakness? J S Ayer (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since third-party game rules are currently not available at Zillions' web page, I have made a virtual museum of all of the Zillions game rules I could find on the Internet (as well as a copy I made of all of the rules back in 2009), and have added a link to this (ad-free; I'm hosting it as a courtesy and as a momemto for the thousands of game rules people made for Zillions) museum available in the "External links" section. Samboy (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply