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"

> 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 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Interesting would be how much bytes improve by 100 ELO?

taftster 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.