Talk:First video game

Initial Discussion
I made this article to initially curb all the "claims" to such-and-such a person being the FIRST creator of a video game. This article intends to discuss the history dispassionately and allow the reader to form their own opinions as to who indeed created the first video game. Drumpler 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also relied on two initial sources, neither of which are primary (except for the patent), so any additional sources would be appreciated. Bear in mind, this is a stub and so it needs to have time to grow. Drumpler 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it was not dispassionate and glossed over the court's definition and statements on the very same site you used as a main reference. Ralph has not "claimed" anything, he was legally backed up and in fact still gets called on to testify in video game related suits to this day.  I fleshed it out a little more given these facts and the resources you cited. --Marty Goldberg 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What wasn't dispassionate? Thanks for the help, nonetheless. Drumpler 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see where the misunderstanding arises. Thank you for the clarification. Drumpler 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I made some grammatical changes. Nothing more. :) Drumpler 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) I think all parties involved are equally important in the history of things, so don't get me wrong.  And it was a good idea for you to set up this stub (though somewhere down the line its probably going to be merged in with another current entry when someone gets the inkling to do it).  But as a writer in the industry, it seems I see this confusion pops up all the time and the plethora of web pages that present personal opinions over the years haven't helped the matter.  Dave (my friend that runs Pong Story) has tried to clear it up with his amazing resource site, and Ralph just released a book last year that goes in to it all in great detail as well.  But it seems its not always enough to avoid the confusion because Video Games in the popular sense have gone on to become a generic term for any computer/electronic game in any display environment.  I've even seen the old LED handhelds from the 70's and 80's (Mattel Football, etc.) refered to as a "video game".  --Marty Goldberg 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand that. It is nice to have someone in the industry helping with this article. I, myself, am just an avid game addict who is aspiring to one day sit on my arse, learn some code and write my own games, a challenge that becomes daunting when I see that the industry is now in the millions. :-P So what I know is merely what I can glean from books and sites on the subject. But yes, I did believe the topic deserved its own stub/article and I think one can flesh out all the different sides of the issues neutrally. Thank you for clarifying my own terms. Drumpler 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add another "source of confusion" is within the game industry itself. Steve Rabin, who wrote the book I cited, is a senior software engineer at Nintendo of America and likewise attributes Higginbotham with the creation of the first video game. Question is, which definition are we to rely on? The court's definition? Drumpler 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's because Nintendo tried to use that position as well in court and lost. They wound up having to pay Sanders as well.  --Marty Goldberg 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Back to the left - indentation was getting exessive) A very fine start, but I think this sentence is unnecessary, redundant: "Depending upon how a video game is defined in a general vernacular, the above candidates are also credited with being "the first", with William Higginbotham, Steve Russell and Ralph Baer being the most popular in debates." - DavidWBrooks 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Might actually work better reworked as an intro paragraph? That way its followed up in the text by the cited examples you have.  --Marty Goldberg 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I just did, shortening it considerably. That intro could probably be expanded, though. - DavidWBrooks 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this phrase in the section on NIM: "The display in this case was a panel of lights, so again it can't be classed as a 'Video' game." I did so because I felt it was redundant (the paragraph on Baer and the court battle already state that none of the other other games were playable on a video monitor). If there's any reason it should be included, please clarify. Otherwise, I think everyone is doing a fine job with this article! :) Drumpler 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with removing the "so again it can't be classed as a 'Video' game" part, it was redundant. But the first half of the sentence should still be worked in since now there's no actual mention of what it used to display the game.  --Marty Goldberg 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. I actually was going to work it in after I removed it, but didn't know where to place it. I think you did well. Drumpler 04:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

NIMROD
Okay, now I'm confused... (:-/) My original wording seems to have crept back in! I was going to agree with that revision Drumpler made, but object to some of the other wording that got put back. I don't like the statement that NIMROD was "Released" on a particular date, as if it was a PS3 or something. There was only a single unit that was rather 'exhibited' to the public for around 6 months. Unless someone has good reason for that wording I'll go and revise it again. Pete G. 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had reformated to be similar in structure to the other paragraphs (which all start with the year introduction), which is probably how that happened. I just changed "released" to "presented" then and added a few more things to coordinate with the information in the Wikipedia article on NIMROD.  --Marty Goldberg 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New Odyssey or Other Filler Image Needed
Apparently the original wasn't properly sourced. I do not know how to do that, so if anyone feels up to task, that's something that can be done. Drumpler 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I put it back, provided a source for the original. --Marty Goldberg 16:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

CHASE AND PONG YEAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(first_generation)

UR NOT ADDN CHASE FROM 1966 MADE BY RALPH BAER B4 PONG NOR DUZ THIS ARTIKL SPECIFY WEN PONG WUZ IN ITS 1ST ERLY PROTOTYPE STAGE WHERE IT WUZ AZ EXCLUSIV N UNCOMERSHAL AZ MISSILE SIMULATOR FROM 1947


 * I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Uhhh.....what?". Please turn the caps key off and use full english when writing comments.  This isn't a cell phone, and you're not a hax0r.  --Marty Goldberg 18:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I figured it out. It's an acronym for "Help, I'm trapped in a CapsLock key factory! Send help and a Strunk & White manual!" - DavidWBrooks 19:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

History of early video games
I think this article should be renamed to History of early video games since that is what it really covers. I'll do that unless there is consensus to not rename. The article is not really about the first video game, so the tile is slightly misleading as to the content. Vegaswikian 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what it covers. The entry was created to specifically address the contested topic of what is a video game and what is not, what was considered the first (the Odyssey), and why.  The very first paragraph specifically addresses what the purpose of this entry is, so there's not much confusion there.  Video game history is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.  --Marty Goldberg 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The title is still somewhat misleading. How about First video games or Early video games or List of first video games?  The current title implies that it is about the first video game, content not withstanding.  Vegaswikian 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because none of those would be accurate, and would be misleading themselves. Once again, this entry was designed (by a group of us) to discuss what the first video game was and was not and why.  Naming it what you want is misleading to the intent of the entry, because those early games are not considered "video games" by the definition.  Hence what this entry is about.  Likewise the title and content was reached by consensus. --Marty Goldberg 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

non-video computer games
The definition section seems to me to say that computer games are video games. To me (and I suspect other retro enthusiasts) computer games is a better term; having "Adventure" in a list of "video games of 1972" is just wrong when so many people played it on printing terminals. Now, I realize that there is no perfect term; as pointed out, digital games doesn't cut it (no Tennis for Two), and electronic game could include anything with an audio amplifier in it, but I know of no video games that are not computer games, but can name computer games that are not video games; I think this article, all the "video games of 19xx", and probably a bunch of other articles and categories could use a rename of video game -> computer game with redirects for the video version of the name. And computer game has to be separated from personal computer game; right now it's a redirect. Thoughts? -- Akb4 (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're probably not aware of it, but everything under "computer games" was merged to video games this last year by consensus at the video games project. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * why? Did no one point out that not all computer games are video games? -- Akb4 (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but because the term is used so generically now they didn't care. I had a hard enough time getting the actual definition in to the leading paragraph of the Video game article.  That's also what lead to this article, which tries to show the strict definition of the term.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If video games came out in the 60s, why is baer the inventor?

Can someone please explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.251.18 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He is generally credited as the "father" of video games as we modernly define them. The point of the whole article seems to be that there are different definitions of what video game means, and as such, there's different starting points for each definition. Of one definition, he had the first. Sergecross73   msg me  20:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Racing game?
Wasn't there a racing game made in 1971? I cant recall the name of it, but I saw it at the skating rink and the date clearly stated 1971. Coolman1250 (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would of had to of been an electromechanical (em) arcade game. The first video arcade game was Computer Space in '71.  Video arcade driving games didn't appear until 1974. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradition
It says the Odyssey came out in 1966 or 1967 and the Computer Space in 1971, yet, in parenthesis, it says Computer Space "predated the Odyssey by six months." I just happened to notice this, and I'm not going to work on this article, but I thought it should be pointed out.


 * You're mistaken or missreading it. The article clearly states "was released in May 1972 by Magnavox under the name Odyssey." and only that work began on it in '66. Likewise the statements regarding it predating the Odyssey are in relation to it's market availability.  The games Baer and company created in '66 onward (and based their patent filings off of), that eventually were released as the Odyssey in '72, still predate Computer Space. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "Video Game"
The article starts with a lawyerly definition that is contrary to 1) common usage outside the retro video game community and 2) the actual contents of the article. For support, it cites a historical video game enthusiast site. I cannot find significant support for the notion that "video" implies raster outside of wikipedia. More formal sources differentiate, for example http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4267555.html says "The raster technique is used in most video display monitors and in virtually all television receivers.". The body of the article does a better job of describing the fine points of this distinction, and I suggest changing the intro to a broader and less argumentative definition like "'Video game' may refer specifically to electronic games played on a television-type raster display, or more broadly to any graphical electronic game, including computer and arcade games played on a vector display. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.216.240 (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There is nothing contrary in the definition portion of the article. Current common usage is addressed per the "with the popular catch phrase use of the term "video game", the term now implies all display types, formats, and platforms" statement.  2) Video refers to a raster display method and television by definition, or "relating to the transmission or reception of a televised image" or "the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."  Or as Webster's defines it - "video (adjective): being, relating to, or used in the transmission or reception of the television image" and "being, relating to, or involving images on a television screen or computer display", computer displays using the same raster or pixel process.  A video signal represents an encoding and transmission process of pixels to reproduce, i.e. rasters.  There is nothing in your given patent that contradicts this or what is pesented, likewise what is presented in the landmark patent of the industry which I will happily change the reference over to (even though said "historical video game enthusiast site" actually meets reliability requirements having been used as a reference in publications and books). 3) The confusion in this case arises that both use a CRT, however a CRT does not imply display method or a transmission signal.  A vector driven CRT is not a video display - there is no video signal present, nor signal decoding to generate an image.  Rather instead it uses a direct control of the CRT's beam by the computer or electronic device (in the case of an oscilliscope) to generate images like an etch-a-sketch, or what is traditionally called an XY Monitor or "Random Scan" display .  Unlike what you claim, the process of how a vector display works and it's difference to raster/video is more than well documented outside of Wikipedia.  There is no argument that vector/XY/Random Scan displays were used in the coin-op industry, that does not however make them video displays.  Nor does it rewrite history to how the term video games arose - arising to describe the TV technology encased in all of the early video coin-ops referred to collectively by their manufacturers and the media as TV Games, TV Tennis, Space Age Game, video action game, electronic game, television skill game, and video skill game and video game.  (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No Citation of Baer vs Atari court documents/US Courts definition of "video game" ?
There is one glaring problem with sources for this page, or lack thereof. I personally do NOT consider Baer to be the creator/inventor of video games, though I agree his role in video game history is equally as important. However, the difinitive source to clarify this has not been cited here. This page quotes the definition of "video game" as concluded by the US Courts. There is, however, no citation of the court documents that validate this. Perhaps this page was made prior to these documents being available to the general public, but I believe now we do have access to these documents. I'm trying to research this myself, but I'm at a loss as to how to find these court documents. I'm sure one of the other contributers to this page would have a better idea than me how to find this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.197.215 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not really a lot of room here for personal opinion, a "video game" from a technical and not pop culture standpoint is very specific. And from that standpoint, i.e. display and manipulation (interaction) of symbols through an actual video signal for the purposes of a game, he is the creator of video games (see above as well).  Patents referred to in the case, such as 28,598 Television Gaming, are specifically geared towards the appropriation of video signals (i.e. a Television set) for gaming purposes.  A vector display has no video signal, hence it was irrelevant to the case and games like Spacewar or Higginbotham's Tennis For Two were judged as such, and treated as a different technology.  I don't believe there was ever a call for him as the creator of CRT based games, i.e. any game played on a CRT which would include vector display games like Spacewar.  But that's not video.  As far as the case and what the judge said, I have the documents (paid for) and as quoted he stated "The '480 patent, I think, is the pioneer patent in this art, and I refer to the art of playing games on a small scale, with the players participating in the game in an environment such as a home or someplace where a large computer would clearly not be available."  He then goes on to discuss it in relation to a video signal and the additional patents involved in suit that were also being defended, and the plantiffs violation and duplication - "Another factor that I took into consideration on the question of the obviousness of the '507 invention is the fact that it was imitated by others, and that is quite clear from the evidence in the case of the Pong game."    The findings were in The Magnavox Company, et al. v. Chicago Dynamic Industries, et al. District Court, N.D. Illinois, E. Div. Nos. 74 C 1030 and 74 C 2510 Decided Jan. 10, 1977.  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You forget about Computer Space. The very first coin op arcade cabinet, which had actual TV sets installed in the cabinets. Baer's timeline that sets his "invention" of the Odyssey in 1966 I find rather sketchy and all too similar to the recent trend of fake companies filing patents with no physical technology to back them and then suing legitimate video game companies when they produce real technology showing some similarity to the previously filed bogus patents.    The Odyssey was not actually released until 1972.  Furthermore, this whole notion of what is "video" probably needs to be revisited.  Most people today play video games on LCDs which obviously do not use CRTs.  Technically LCD technology has been around since the late 1800s, but not actually used until calculators a few decades later and finally as colour displays within the last 2 decades or so.  So does this mean the electronic games we play today shouldn't be called "video games" since they no longer use CRT tv sets?  "and I refer to the art of playing games on a small scale, with the players participating in the game in an environment such as a home or someplace where a large computer would clearly not be available."  Apparently no one refered him to Tennis For Two or the Galaxy War prototype cabinets which were comperal to the size of TV sets available back in the 60s/70s. "Large (mainframe) computers" were not used.

Edit: found a great resource of legal documents etc. to further research this. http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Activision_Index.asp A collection of Ralph Baer legal documents and such. I will look through this material further. I found that you omitted the statement of the Judge in question erroniously tying "video games" specifically to CRT devices. "“My own view as to what art is involved here is that we are dealing with the art of playing games on cathode ray tubes by means of electronic circuitry. The state of that art immediately prior to the '480 invention, I think, was rather primitive.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.197.215 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not forget computer space, neither did the courts. It's design did not start until late '69/early'70 long after the patents and devices they were based on were produced.  You're also under the misconception there was no physical technology when there actually was, and the devices in question are actually in the Smithsonian and clearly documented in Ralph's book.  Likewise, hind site in to what people use now is not relative to what was in use when the term was derived (which is the time period being covered here), nor does an LCD denote the absence of a video signal, i.e. a television signal being decoded.  Of course the judge would be talking about CRT based video displays in 1977, since the technology in use now did not exist.  Likewise in this case, modern TV's now use digital video signals vs. older analog.  Tennis for two used a vector oscilloscope, Galaxy Wars also used a vector display and literal mini-computer inside.  Both of which were actually well covered in the case, I have copies of Higginbotham's testimony from the case actually.  Lastly I did not omit anything, it was not relevant to the topic to reproduce entire blocks of content already given in a specific obvious context.  There's several bankers boxes full of documents and series of documents that puts that statement in the context of the video signal technology (which is what the entire multiple patents case and patents themselves were about), not just CRT's as you seem to be implying - CRT based video technology was simply the primary method at the time.  I also have access to about 12 of those boxes of material related this case and preceding cases with other companies (including the linked to Activision case), which were picked up from Ralph for archiving that myself and another person are doing (as well as providing scanned archives to several law libraries).  I appreciate what you're bit by the research bug and asking questions (which have been researched and answered many times before), however personal opinion and synthesis aren't really how we engage in article improvement here, and this article already adequately covers the distinction of the modern popular culture derived version vs. the original technical origin of the term.  I don't see that this conversation is going to add anything new other than more debate about your personal opinions on Ralph Baer, or further misinterpreting of long established technology and it's terminology. That sort of topic and method of discussion belongs more on a personal blog, where that material is more prevalent, then it does in the constraints of something like Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to conclude and to get back to the original point of this discussion, I think the parts of the article that explain the definition of "video game", both at the beginning and in the part about the legal activities could use a better citation than pong-story.com. While it's a good site, I've noticed it seems to be a little biased toward Baer, (though I could be mistaken.) Also some key pieces of early video game history are omitted there. (To be fair, I've found some of that information to be rather difficult to come by.) Anyway, before I go off on another tangent, pong-story.com is just another second hand source, not much different from Wikipedia itself.  Citing the original "horse's mouth", the court documents in question, would be alot better. The link I provided does have some material along those lines; although they pertain to other legal precedings that Baer was involved in, about 10 years later, they still cover the topic(s) in question. So I suppose it's a start.  There's alot of material there to sift through, including hours of Ralph Baer deposition video footage.  I did find a link that has more quotes from the Judge you referred too, but it was entirely second hand so I saw no point in hanging on to it.
 * pong-story actually meets the requirements of reliability and notability here (having been also referenced by media outlets, books, etc.). And it's actually pretty leveled on the material, giving resources and such vs. a bias fan based approach.  We could change over the reference to the same patent reference as is used on the video game page.  As a side note, keep in mind while you're doing your research that a reference here doesn't need a direct link to a representation on the web to be valid.  It would simply need a valid citation of the material that would allow someone to look up the reference themselves, just as references are cited in a book or paper.  Good luck in your research, as a professional industry historian and writer I know how involved it can get when digging deep in to something. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Machine to play a game of NIM (1940)
Someone should add "the earliest known interactive electronic game" created by Edward Condon in 1940 called Machine to play a game of NIM. Here is patent: http://www.google.com.tw/patents?id=TwVTAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.153.44.206 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's an electro-mechanical game. No different than pinball and other EM driven games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * NIM wasn't made by Edward Condon, it was invented by Raymond Redheffer, and in 1942 according to documentation. From what I've read so far, and there seems to be even less about NIM than there is about CRT Amusement Device, it used a radar/oscilloscope screen for a display. 71.168.246.159 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Startropic1

NIM, N.I.M., and Nim
There is obviously slight confusion about the what Nim is in this article. In the first mentioned game it is said that Raymond Redheffer made a playable "NIM" device in 1942. But when you click the link attached to "NIM" it takes you to the article about electronic modules while the rest of the "1942: NIM" section apears to be referring to an electronic device that plays Nim. Also, many other times in the article, the game of Nim is reffered to as NIM. Capitalizing the letters actually makes it mean something different. just my $0.02. 72.26.85.168 (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent point - I'll fix it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Early chess programs - do they belong here?
How much background should be included in this article? For example, the current reference to Alan Turing and Claude Shannon's work, while interesting and part of the history of computing and of game computing, seems to me to be too far afield from an article about The First Video Game (not even history of video games), since they had no video output. In fact, they weren't even games. Another editor, however, disagrees. Any thoughts?

I would note that History of video games doesn't seem to have any similar entries (i.e., of programs without output). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since it's just in relation to the primordial history, one or two examples of what lead to the succession is really all that's needed with a pointer to a main article as you did. I.E. to provide one or two examples of computer games that used some form of visual (non-crt) display as part of the gaming mechanism.  This page, as you note, is not intended to document game history (there's other articles that do that) but rather to present material in relation to the "first video game" debate.  Really a small succession of what history/technology lead up to the subject of the debate is all that's really needed, with the intent to define both sides of the argument (i.e. the modern pop culture "video game" meaning any electronic game with a display vs. the very literal "based on video technology".  As far as to what the anonymous IP's initial confusion, I think it was the fact that the ferranti has CRTs on it, but these are not used for display - rather as early memory devices.    --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What distinction are you making between Bernstien's game and Prinz's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.202.252 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction that only one example is needed as stated. The article is not about computer games, nor computer chess games, there is already an article for that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So then put in the EARLIER case of a computer chess game. This is an article about the FIRST computer game isn't it. godssakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.45.214 (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is not an article about the first computer game (which was already stated above). This is an article discussing the first video game and the debates surrounding it. There's already plenty of other articles surrounding computer gaming if that's what youre looking for. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)#

Look, I'm starting to get pissed off. Bernstien's game was identical in kind to Turing's and Prinz's. Both did not have any form of visual output. Turing and Prinz's was written in 1951, Bernstien's was written in 1958. Now will you kindly STOP changing it back. Got it?


 * Sorry you're pissed, but you're wrong. Not that Bernstein is quite right, either: His gamne didn't have a video output (as I just noted). So what was the first game WITH a video output? Turing does not, by any stretch of the imagination, belong here because his work *wasn't even a game!* - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise please leave threats and grandstanding out of the conversation. We have policies regarding  civility. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to say this nice and slowly. Prinz developed a computer program for playing chess in a limited way in 1951. It was made, it existed it was played and exhibited and there are many references in the article to this that you can look at for your greater education. However, it seems I'm going to have to spell this out. Prinz's program was the same as Bernstien's only more limited. Do you understand? They both existed - they were both programmed into a computer - they were both played. The difference lies only in their sophistication. Neither of them had video outputs. However there is one difference; Prinz's program was written in 1951, 7 years before Bernstien's. In case you haven't yet grasped the implications of that, let me try to make it even clearer: This means that in the article discussing the FIRST videogames, Prinz's game should be mentioned, not Bernstien's. Why, you may ask? Because it was created 7 years earlier - it therefore has a greater claim to being the first chess game. Comprendez vous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That wasn't slowly - I could see you typing really fast!
 * You are, I have come to realize, partially correct, in that the Bernstein item does not belong in this article due to its lack of video output. I apologize for not seeing it earlier. However, Prinz doen't belong here either for the same reason, and Turing REALLY doesn't belong because he didn't even write a game. If we include him, we might as well include Babbage, who wrote about solving the Knight's-move problem.
 * What we need to do instead of bristling at each other is figure out what was the first chess "video" game - the first computer chess game with some type of video output - and mention it in the article. Until that time, I'm removing the "chess" header since it's not really helpful. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OOkaay. Changing the rules a bit, I see. Well if you're going to be consistent with that, then you should remove the first two items in the list, as they didn't have a graphical output either; for instance the 'Nim' game's output was a series of flashing lights - exactly the same output as in the chess game. The following quote on the 1947 cathode ray tube device: "Since it did not generate video signals which were then sent to a raster scan display such as an ordinary TV set or monitor, it was not a video game. However, it is believed to be the earliest system specifically designed for game play on a CRT screen." From http://www.pong-story.com/intro.htm From the same source, Douglas's tic-tac-toe game was the "the earliest graphical computer game known to exist." So, as I see it, you either accept a very limited definition of 'video game' as requiring a graphical output, and delete the first few items, or you accept a more expansive definition of the term to include all forms of entertainment that require a programmed computing device and include chess. Hope I've made this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a bit backward from what's being stated and you're misunderstanding why this article was created. The article is about the argument over the definition of video game - either the literal definition (a game played and transmitted via a video signal to the display device, usually a CRT) and the later pop culture definition of anything with a display device.  "programmed computer device" is not part of the equation or debate as to what constitutes a "video game".  Additionally, the early examples are intended to show logical steps in the advancement towards video games (TV games) via interaction with interactive displays for game play, i.e. the previous work that made the eventual leap to video technology possible.  Hence the inclusion of the CRT amusement device which represents the first instance of trying to manipulate a CRT beam for the purpose of playing a game.  I don't have a problem with a chess game being in the article if it directly involves some sort of display in the interaction (even blinking lights will suffice) and is electronic.  And I'll repeat again, please follow WP:CIVIL and loose the sarcasm.  This is not a discussion forum, and we have policies here.  Likewise you're also past WP:3RR.  We're all looking for the best possible article here, and in fact it was via discussions like this that lead to the creation of the article in the first place. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I really can't believe this. The earliest chess program is certainly a "logical step in the advancement of video games." Let me endeavour to explain why. Chess is a game. I hope you would agree with that. The chess program was a piece of software designed to allow a game of chess to be played on a computer, with the computer intelligence acting as the opponent. Hence, it is a game on a computer... a computer game. And yes, the computer output was indicated through "blinking lights;" a concession you amusingly make as being considered a "sort of display in the interaction." Is this enough or are you going to split an even more indecipherable series of hairs to justify its deletion? I think anyone with their head screwed on would admit that the earliest computer chess game certainly warrants being mentioned in this article. I honestly have no idea why you are displaying such uncommon resistance to the idea, especially since there has been a section on chess in this article for ages: a section I just tidied up. Couldn't we just.... please ...... call this a day? I'm really getting fed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.142.73 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're getting that worked up over wikipedia article, you need to re-align your priorities. If this isn't fun and interesting, don't do it; there are enough irritants in real life. Find something more important to be sarcastic about!
 * I'm surprised you keep returning a reference to Turing's work, since it's not defensible as a game by any stretch of the imagination; he did theoretical work that others expanded on, eventually leading to something that would be called a first chess video game ... but so did lots of folks.
 * However, there is more of a debate than I realized about what is the simplest display that counts as output for a "first video game" ... not just as a step in developing an eventual first video game, which could cover almost anything. I don't think blinking lights is enough, myself, but if it is enough then our irascible friend has more of a point than I thought. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough to be a "first video game", no.  As I stated, that section of the material is purely for examples of early work that helped pave the way vs. actual first representations. I mentioned the blinking lights because playing an electronic game interactively through visual medium (blinking lights) would be a valid example for that section - I was not stating it as a first video game.  And again, we really don't need a bunch of different examples, just a single notable and verifiable example in each of the primordial works sections is enough.  The actual video game debate related part doesn't really start until Tennis For Two onwards. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what was the first chess video game? Nothing that has been placed into the Chess section would seem to fit that definition, and its seems that in a section titled "chess" in an article titled "first video game", we should have at least a candidate for the title. No wonder there's disagreement about what should/shouldn't be there. The materials I've read are frustratingly silent about the output - they have lots about the processing and programming, but it's usually unclear about how exactly the user knew the computer's move, whether via a printout or what. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * David, please re-read what I just wrote. Those sections were not intended to document "first chess video game", "first nim video game", "first oxo video game" etc.  They were included to demonstrate technological advances or stepping stones that lead to the games involved in the "video games" argument  (Tennis For Two, Spacewar, BrownBox/Odyssey). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... then I guess I'd have to say that User:Noodleki's point of view is legitimate, if slightly overheated. He wanrts to list early work on chess-playing programs that is earlier than, but seemingly just as important as, the early work which was previously mentioned. I thought his examples were insufficiently game-like to be included here, but if the role of the Chess section is to give example of early work that helped pave the way, then apparently not. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Chess section is different
Continuing the long discussion from above, I think the confusion - my confusion, at least - comes from the fact that the "chess" subsection is different than all the other game subsections ("Nim" "Tennis for Two" etc).

Despite the introduction saying the whole "History" section includes "events and earlier technology that paved the way for the advent of video games", all the other subsections concern a single actual game, a single developing team, usually at a single time ... but the "Chess" subsection doesn't concern any game at all, just pre-game development covering a long period of time and multiple developers. It never (unlike all the other susbsections) mentions anything that's a video game like Oxo or even the 1947 missle simulator. It's out of place.

I'm not quite sure what the solution is, but as it stands, something should change - either a true "paving the way" section written, or the chess subsection be sharply redone.

In my humble opinion, of course. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The solution is exactly what you picked up on, which is what I mentined earlier as well - each section needs only a single example, not a whole list. The chess section should only have a single example that represents the advent of that technology in relation to a visually interactive game. Simply having a computerized or electronic chess game is of course not enough, it has to have been interacted with visually which of course then shows it's place as a step forward towards actual video games. What's there currently needs to be rewritten to reflect it's visual nature if there is one.  The turing statement is of course unimportant to the needs of this article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I read all that text above and I still don't know why the Chess section is in here. It's the only section that describes a game with no display output. We could also argue about, for example, whether Bertie the Brain belongs since it didn't have a video output. But the Chess section really looks out of place to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)