Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Zillions of Games

Keep this page. Zillions of Games is not just any commercial product. It is a one-of-its-kind product, an interpreter of a computer programming language for playing countless board games against a personal computer. It deserves as much attention as any other computer programming language. Furthermore, Zillions of Games is so much more significant than the games that come with it. More importantly, it has been used to program countless games that no one has ever been able to play on a computer before, and it has provided game creators with a tool for developing and creating new strategy board games. In fact, its existence has resulted in a boom in the creation and availability of new strategy board games. In the world of strategy board games, and especially in the world of Chess variants, Zillions of Games has been of monumental and far-reaching consequence.

The suggestion that Andreas Kaufmann and Karl Scherer are the same person is ridiculous. Both men are well-known to me outside of the Wikipedia. Karl Scherer is a New Zealander who has published numerous Zillions rules files (ZRFs) of several games and puzzles of his own invention, and Andreas Kaufmann is a German developer of ZRFs and a well-known member of Chess Variant Pages, against whom I have played several games online with my own invention, Game Courier, and against whom I am presently playing a game of Grand Chess online. If both men have posted to the Wikipedia only on related subjects, it is only because they share a common hobby. I share the same hobby and have also posted only on Wikipedia pages related to Chess Variants. But I am also a separate person with a verifible identity. In fact, you will find a separate link to each of our websites on the page http://zillions-of-games.com/moregames.html

Fergus Duniho (Fduniho)


 * (Unsigned advert by User:66.153.14.163) who has zero prior edits - Probable SOCKPUPPET     6 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)

Fergus Duniho is very well known. He is definitely not a sockpuppet. Perhaps, he became involved, despite never establishing a user name until recently, because he heard some maniac is trying to delete this important entry. --BadSanta


 * 1) You are strongly reminded to refrain from personal attacks. Do not make personal attacks under any circumstances. See No personal attacks.
 * 2) An editor who appears at VfD with zero prior edits is always considered a sockpuppet.
 * 6 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)


 * Accusing a newcomer in sockpuppery is a personal attack too... Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
 * It's standard practice in VfD. Sockpuppets are frequently used to try to change outcomes.     7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * This is not a standard practice. Please read Guide to Votes for deletion: "...such cases are hard to distinguish from good-faith contributors writing their first article for Wikipedia, or anonymous users who have chosen to become pseudonymous users. It is difficult to tell sock puppets from newcomers. If you are contributing your first article, or are a newly pseudonymous user, please state this clearly and up-front, and please don't become offended if another Wikipedian points out your lack of editing history. On the other hand, if you see new users, do not call them sockpuppets; pointing out that an account is new is enough." Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
 * Please read practice and learn where it is different from theory.     7 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
 * I think it is important for our chess variant community to not let a minority of highly vocal editors who have no respect for our hobby abolish this important entry. If they are rewarded with a victory here, what is to keep them from eventually mowing-down any or all entries for prolific authors, game collections and individual games they consider insufficiently popular?  --BadSanta

I am no sockpuppet, and I don't have zero prior edits. I edited the page on Baroque Chess last year. I posted here without a signature before posting essentially the same message on the main vfd page with my signature, because I was rusty using Wikipedia. The accusation of sockpuppetry suggests that you didn't even read what I wrote. --Fergus July 7, 2005 02:38 (UTC)
 * user has 4 prior edits     7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

VfD Process
I will admit to never having been involved in a VfD before. However, if this is how it usually goes, I'll admit that I'm a little leary of how well this sytem would work. What I've seen so far are a lot of personal attacks on people voting to keep the article. It is automatically assumed that all such people are invalid, "sock puppets," all the more suspicious because we've had some experience with the program in question. {shakes head in bemusement} This is the first encyclopaedia I've run into where competency in the subject matter disqualifies you from giving input. I'm hoping this is an anomolous case. *wry grin* The rules seem to indicate otherwise, but then again, as the tildéed one keeps saying, apparently practice is opposed to theory in this case. Or, at least it seems to be the case on the VfDs he's been involved in. (I'll admit to only going back about 6 pages of history on his contributions. He's a prolific contributor on many articles and he's been especially prolific in a VfD for any article which mentions Zillions.) -Fuzzy 8 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
 * The point is that Wikipedia does not allow original research (No original research) . I.e. you are not permitted to describe games or programmes you yourself are involved with. All reporting must be from other sources, not yourself. Consequently "competency in the subject matter" (as you describe it) automatically disqualifies you. Original research is not permitted.     9 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying to stretch the concept of "no original research" here. None of us are commercially involved with Zillions of Games as far as I can tell. None of us work for them. None of us wrote the program. The closest we've had so far was someone who helped beta test it. I thinking you're chasing demons here which only exist in your head. -Fuzzy 05:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Original Research is the concept whereby you are the source of the information, rather than someone relaying it. That simple. You are not discussing the opinions of reviewers, on the article, but your own views. This is original research.     11:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And I could see that applying if your complaint was about the article text. Looking at the article text, I believe I could include cites for almost everything there. The only sections which are troublesome are the commentary about the limitations of the Zillions engine and how that has been overcome. Most topics on that have only been published on the web, and some of those by the people you've been attacking on here. *wry grin* And a good bit of the rest of the article would involve linking to the company's text on the game itself or reviews thereof, of which I get the impression you'd see that as an advertisement. I'm really not sure what kind of an answer you want here. -Fuzzy 15:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think -Ril- does have a slight obsession with ridding Wikipedia of anything vaguely Zillions related. I wouldn't take it as the standard means by which a VfD is conducted, however. There is no need for this amount of personal attacks, or accusations of sock puppetry, and I made that clear in my post on the VfD. I also disagree with -Ril-'s comment with regard to users of the software seemingly disqualifying you from being capable of making decent input. UkPaolo 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
 * I have an obsession with removing original research and spam.     9 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Alternate Geometry

 * No, that is a naive understanding of Chess variants. They may be played on boards of varying sizes, shapes, and geometries, and with pieces not used in Chess. Zillions of Games enables the play of countless Chess variants that cannot be played with the standard equipment of Chess. --Fergus 01:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that there are different boards. For example, a 6 sided one for 3 players is the most notable of these. It still isn't mentioned in the article though. I think you mean different geographies. I strongly doubt that zillions could cope with the Minkowski geometry, Riemann geometry, or Kerr geometry, for example.     11:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can give an example of how these gemoetries translate to chess, I'll be mighty impressed. And then I could probably create a ZRF which encompasses it. I'm not a mathematician, so bear with me if I've got this wrong. Technically, Riemann geometry is mapping over a complex function. We have spherical and toroidal boards already. As for Minkowski geometry, I get the feeling that it only covers special relativity. Since I'm fairly sure our pieces are travelling under the speed of light, I don't know that it's applicable. Kudos on finding some obscure mathematical terms to throw out though. -Fuzzy 15:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Minkowski geometry is any geometry where the distance between two points involves the negative square of the time between them. In Minkowski geometry, an article moving at time tA from point pA to point pB at time tB, will be percieved by someone else as potentially (depending on who they are, and the direction in which it moves) occurring in the opposite order, i.e. from point pB to point pA. Minkowski geometry is totally not obscure at all, its one of the most fundamental. It applies to all fundamental physics, including general relativity, electromagnetism, etc. It can also be used in a more general situation. It applies whenever something is moving comparable to the speed of light. You can redefine that speed to be anything you want in a game, or you can define the speed things are moving in the game to be comparable to the speed of light, so Minkowski can be made to apply easily. Kerr geometry is likewise not obscure, it is the most probable case for a black hole.
 * Map over the complex function z^2+1/z - 4z^0.5 + 12e^z. A sphere, and toroid are simple.     16:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ^_^ I'll concede that they're not obscure for people studying black holes and the like, but board games? The request I made was how such a surface would map to a chess board, a necessary condition of creating complex surfaces for boards. However, I'll admit that I'm having fun diving into all of this information. Essentially, for a board to exist, there have to be some degree of constraints. Pieces exist in discrete chunks of space in board games whatever the dimensions. You don't move to the spaces in between the squares of the chess board, at least in any of the variants I've played. Anyhow, if you have a preferred way of chopping up the space, please reply. I'll be researching the subject and finding my own way if there's no answer. -Fuzzy 20:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * None of those geometries are restricted to empty space (although the Kerr geometry is only known to be valid outside a black hole - this is how it is normally derived). You could easily put a board in such a space. Indeed real-world boards are already in Minkowski space, just not noticably - insist that the pieces are moving at near-light speeds (by defining them to be), and it becomes highly relevant.     22:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Although my original request to show how many of these geometries could be mapped to a board has yet to be fulfilled, I'm starting to see my hubris in stating that I could map it from there. I thought 2 years of college calculus would give me enough background to be able to at least rough out what you're talking about, but I've thus far failed. *wry grin* I guess 5 years out of such classes doesn't help either. Anyhow, the offer still stands that if you can explain to me how one of those geometries would map out to a board (my assumption thus far based on what understanding I have, is that all of these are topological equations which one can map to Rn space), I'll give a go at creating a file. Quite frankly, I'm still at the position of not knowing where to start. -Fuzzy 23:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, youll need to learn at least Complex analysis, Manifold, Metric spaces, Tensor algebra, Topology, and Differential geometry.     23:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Noncommutative geometry would also be relevant.     23:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got to admit that that makes me feel better about having failed. I'd gone far enough as to be able to map your equation from carterian coordinates to a complex plane, but was unsure as to where to go from there. Nevertheless, I thank you for introducing me to these concepts. I'm always open to new things, even if I don't fully understand them. -Fuzzy 03:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)