Yes, the notation is .... strange.
That is what I mean. If you don't know it you can not read it.

I guess it is the 110volts ...

If they say 'gas' they likely mean 'gasoline'.
Just my thought.

And APL or the more modern derivates of it ... impossible to read. No joke. Either you know the language or you are lost. It is easier to read a random assembly language if you only have a raw idea how assembly works.

Just becuase LISP has lambdas it is not a functional language ...

I second that!
And: two beers are btter than one!

At least when you live in a country that actually has beer :)

The question if you can get a favorable relative speed is a question of fuel and burn times.
Getting there to hit it, is easy (besides the actual hit) but you likely have to break again to match the speed again, to come down to the 9km/sec you mention.

Not challenging your numerical figures, however a nuke hitting will not even transfer 1 pro mille of its energy to the asteroid. So if your calculation was correct, the speed change of the asteroid is in the range of mm per second, not metes, likely even less. Hold a hand besides a flame of a a candle or a lit bulb. Only the radiation on the side where your hand is will affect your hand or in the asteroid example the asteroid. The rest of the explosion in the "sphere of the light bulb" just goes into space.

OTOH if you indeed manage a direct hit, preferable with an explosion 'under ground' then only that part of the explosion that ejects matter will alter the course of the asteroid.

The rest of the energy will simply heat up a crater of molten /evaporating 'stone' which will only change the momentum minimal ... especially considering the rotation of the target, which will spread the acceleration of that radiation equally.

In other words: the transferred energy will be 99% heat, and only one percent momentum. And depending on the 'hit scenario' the transferred energy will be probably less than 1 pro mille, so bottom line only 1/10000 of the nukes energy changes the impulse/course of the target.

Well, if you read the thread, the original record is decades old and was on a ZX81 (I believe) ... at least it was a Z80 hime computer with only 1k of memory.
As the computer only had a very limited AI (if you want to call it that) the game was no real challenge anyway, for some one who had experience.
Well, 30 years ago, I knew the chess rules 'somewhat' and played quite good. However I never knew that 'rochade' or 'castelation' is a kings move. So I always tried to move the tower first and then the king, obviously every chess program I tried when I was young switched to the other player after I moved my tower.

Counter point: the record is in so far valid as the Z80 predecessor implemented even less rules (I believe the promotion of a pawn was omitted).

The games you link are not 'Chess', they are very different games and have nothing to do with chess at all.
They only have the name in them in the english/american translation ...
If you would read the links you post, you had seen 'Chineese chess' is called Xiangqi, the korean is called Janggi (and is derived from the chinese version and the jap. is called Shogi.
Only Shogi has similar pieces and movements to our western chess. Both are probably derived from a common indian origin.
I guess our anonymous parent meant with 'variants' variants if the modern chess, derived from india as it got established in the islamic and christian world. It makes no sense imho to add Chinese or other asian variants that only have in common rectangular/square playing fields and moving pieces of different values/capabilities.
Otherwise Checkers is a variant of Chess, too.

The relative speed is the problem. The asteroid will pass with something like 30km/sec. That is ten to hundred times faster than reentry of a missile.

And a nuke that kills a bunker, wont really scratch a 'real' asteroid which easy is dozens of km in diameter.

The only technical feasible approach is to hit it so far out that a minimal deflection is enough to have it miles or more away from its original path when it reaches earth.

You are very far off from reality.
Most high cost brands/types of cars already have electronic systems to assist the driver. Like lane recognition, sign recognition and pedestrian recognition. As they are based on cameras and the last 30 seconds are stored liability is no problem.
If a pedestrian runs into your lane and the car does an automatic emergency break AND the car following you crashes into you because of that, the liability issues are clear.
First the pedestrian is liable, for forcing the emergency break and secondly the following cars driver is liable for being to close and not paying attention (he should have seen the pedestrian, too!)

And Audi :)

We have no nukes that can 'fly' so far ... besides a nuke likely won't even 'hi't it.
If a nuke would work at all, we need a new targeting and ignition system for the nuke (besides a missile to get it there).

How did you come to the retarded idea that I implied anything of what you say here?