Talk:Sargon (chess)

Publishing source and details

Thanks for the edits.

Was publishing the source and details really unusual at the time? My impression was that this was pretty much the ethic of the time, and undisclosed proprietary software only became the norm later (in particular after Gates's screed against the sharing of his BASIC interpreter). My original Apple ][ manuals contained ROM source and object code and a complete schematic of the motherboard, for instance.

Actually, that's a good point. Making the source available wasn't necessarily "unusual", but wasn't quite the norm either. Publishing it in a book was a little unusual, and games often didn't have source. (Most of the very early 8080/Z80 programs had source, but later Apple ][ programs didn't. That's where I see the trend changing.)

Another famous game which had source available (for a price) was Chris Crawford's masterpiece, Eastern Front 1941. That definitely was unusual, as very few Atari programmers did this; I can remember quite a few hours spent disassembling ROM cartridge images and relocating them to run out of RAM.

Apple's publishing the Monitor assembly source was to facilitate development as much as anything else. There wasn't a structured system call mechanism, and calling into the ROM monitor was how you did things. Almost every computer sold at the time provided source for their operating system; even Atari made their ROM sources available, and of course there was the book about their (wretched) BASIC interpreter. 12.103.251.203 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The unusual part was perhaps not so much the source code publishing, but it was for a lengthy and state-of-the-art end-user application. It wasn't just Gates inveighing against sharing, lots of people were starting to see $$$ as they got past the "wow it works" and into the "now what is it good for" phase. I wonder if any historian has done a close study of this aspect of the 78-80 period. Stan 23:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The question about whether publishing the source code was "unusual" for the time is a very good one. Apparently the turning point came in 1976 when Bill Gates published his Open Letter to Hobbyists and (later) the U.S. Congress enacted the Copyright Act of 1976, which granted copyright protection to all works upon their creation (vs. requiring any filing with the Library of Congress). (I'm building an historical timeline.) Before then, I think it was actually very common for hobbyists to share source code, as many were academics (though many informal) who sought primarily only attribution (as in "look at what I can do"). As I recall, at the time, software was sometimes published in BASIC, which meant published source code. (At the time, was assembled code the only alternative?) Perhaps we should reconsider (or reverse) the "unusual" statement.

Thanks to 12.103.251.203: Though I still have my source code book for Eastern Front 1941, I didn't remember the book about Atari BASIC. (Apparently it was derived from the BASIC on Data General, which was started by DEC deserters; Microsoft BASIC was based on DEC BASIC. Though it was slow, I found Atari BASIC much better than, say, TRS-80 BASIC.)

By the way, while working on Sargon V, I sometimes spoke on the phone with Kathe Spracklen; as I recall, she had one of the best voices I'd ever heard. Johnlogic 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a transcript from Computer History Museum (see references) that sheds a new perspective to this discussion. They published the code simply because they wanted to make money out of it and were tired to death from dealing with mail orders. Yes, they placed an ad at Byte Magazine and selled photocopied Sargon listings for USD15. They said magnetic media wasn't very popular at the time and I agree with them; I bought myself listings from local magazines here in Brazil at early 80's. I updated the page accordingly with this new information and with many other points. I updated the referencing system also. Please help me correcting typos, styling and English grammar. BTW, I think this (long) interview has still a LOT of wikipediable material, I hadn't read it nor understand it thoroughly. SasquatchBR 03:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You can say that again! I hadn't known the Spracklens had also written code for the Applied Concepts Modular Game System and the Saitek Kasparov Sparc. Nor that they probably were the only folks that programmed an entire application for the SPARC directly in assembly language. Nor that Sargon was the first 3rd-party app that was available for the Apple Macintosh, and that Kathe's brother Dan Shannon was employee #17 at Apple Computer. Nor that they moved to Eugene, Oregon (my home state) after their stint of chess programming. Nor that Kathe (née Shannon) is very likely related to Claude Shannon! Now that would be some coincidence (if it is true; needs some geneological research). --IanOsgood 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversi

I'm not sure the mention of Reversi belongs in the article. I'm talking about this sentence from the "Sequels" section: "In 1980, the Spracklens' Reversi game finished in first place at a computer tournament at Northwestern University, and in 1981 it finished in third place at the Santa Cruz Open Othello Tournament." It's tangentially related and possibly interesting, but is it sufficiently relevant to be here? Ntsimp (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sargon III: Splitting proposal

I propose that the content of this game be split into a separate page called Sargon III. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. As seen on this version of the page, I believe I have ample reviews and content to have a worthy separate page; in addition, I found one more review here: [1]. Having all of that information on the main Sargon page would unnecessarily bloat one small section with too many details about a single spin-off, while there are clearly enough sources for Sargon III to meet the WP:GNG and develop into a sizeable article. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Polluks, Dgpop, Stan Shebs, Johnlogic, IanOsgood, Bubba73, Sun Creator, GregorB, Mika1h, Thibbs, Wizardman, Ntsimp, VIGNERON, Rich Farmbrough, Bumm13, Nabokov, GregorB, Huwmanbeing, Asav, Wtshymanski, Ost316, Ylee, Faizhaider, Scatterkeir, Emurphy42, Swpb, NapoliRoma, Phediuk, Amakuha, Dongord, Nealbo, and MarnetteD:

• Disagree - makes more sense to remain in the consolidated page, and better serves any person researching. Fails the criteria for WP:SPLIT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Disagree - revisions of game software are not notable enough to warrant a separate article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - please be aware that the ip is now canvassing for people to comment here. See: hereOnel5969 ^{TT me} 02:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to generate more discussion, but it seems no one is interested, so never mind, I will concede this one if no one else comes along to agree with me. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)