I don't want to sound negative, but 'greatest program ever written' is really an overstatement. He has created this program, because he needed to fit into 1k. If it was needed nowadays, hundreds of programmers could achieve this result. (I would be so happy to code these kind of things at my working place instead of the bloated overcompilcated softwares...)
If someone would create a prize (a prize like the netflix prize or the Hutter prize) with $100k or something, to create the smallest chess program, I suppose hundreds of contestants would fit into 1k. But the competition would be high, and the winners would be probably very sophisitcated algorithms, which might deserve the 'greatest program ever written' title. But without competition it is easy to be the best.
Isn't this like saying "Orville and Wilbur wright really didn't do anything that great. Thousands of hobbiests could easily build an airplane that is safer, faster and more maneuverable than the wright flyer, and in their garages on weekends!".
It is the nature of tech to build on what was done before. It's hard to remember that something that now might be laughable, was at one point considered impossible.
The Wright Brothers made the first powered heavier-than-air aircraft capable of sustained controlled flight.
The subject of the article is a person who wrote a chess program. Not the first chess program. Not the first successful chess program. A chess program. Nonetheless, it is still an impressive feat to fit a chess program with AI into 1k. But it is not comparable to the Wright Brothers' airplanes.
If someone would create a prize (a prize like the netflix prize or the Hutter prize) with $100k or something, to create the smallest chess program, I suppose hundreds of contestants would fit into 1k. But the competition would be high, and the winners would be probably very sophisitcated algorithms, which might deserve the 'greatest program ever written' title. But without competition it is easy to be the best.