I suggest every developer write a database from scratch at least once, and use it for something real. Or, even better, let somebody else use it for something real. Then you will know "why database".
Gamedev at a high level is similar in spirit to distributed systems or compilers in that it's intensely multi-disciplinary with hard constraints. In gamedev you have a main thread that you're always sweating about submilliseconds, especially with worker threads interfering with it. Processor, memory, bus characteristics, GPUs, cooling, etc. all matter.
This leads to e.g., everyday AoS vs. SoA, pooling and burst compile, to the classic fast inverse square root because of hardware at the time. Relentless optimization of hot paths produces code that's about performance, not abstraction. Then there's shaders, which are effectively a different programming model targeting different hardware entirely. Now add support for multiple operating systems, consoles, whatever. The list goes on.
Now, all of that doesn't obviate the value of design and craft, so I don't agree that it's "perfectly fine". There are plenty of programmers weak on these two axes in most any domain, but it's worth noting gamedev is a special case that significantly distorts what good code, or at least good-enough code, looks like.
Games start as little experiments and end up as Frankensteins. This is their nature; you're more sculpting a thing by building it and experiencing it rather than designing it a priori with systemic elegance in mind.
The most honest, logical, and practical take I've seen on this. People consistently underestimate the skill and effort it takes to write precisely and think critically both about their problem, and their processes. The closer you are to knowing what to ask for in the way knowledgeable people ask for it with respect to the process you are using to complete work, the closer the output will be to what you want.
I feel this. Almost exactly the same experience. 300bps in early days. At some point got a 1200bps. Then 2400, then 14.4 and 28.8 came fast. WWIV variants. CDC. 2600. Phrack. 612-341-2459 for local Telenet dialup at the time, my fingers still know the number unconsciously. War dialing! 5ESS. SS7. Bluebeep. 0700 bridges. Even in the early days of the internet, EFnet had BBS flavor to some extent. Certainly the warez. haha. A lot of the same people. What a time. I remember the first time I was going through Computer Shopper and found the BBS list. First one I ever called was Unlawful Entry... welp. If fate exists, it was busy that day.
NAL, but IMO it's legal & political maneuvering. DOJ asked Judge Mehta to consider forcing divestiture of Chrome after Google was found to illegally maintained a search monopoly. If it's determined the divestiture is feasible, especially with an existing more-or-less "credible buyer" at the ready, it looks executable. The offer is basically crafted to fit the DOJ/regulator concerns, ie everything is build around "least disruptive": keeping Google the default search engine, etc. Furthermore, just by doing this, they are putting ideas out there about what an "acceptable buyer" is and puts a number to the discussion about "what Chrome is worth". Purely remedies chess and an attempt to own the narrative. Google's going to say no, at least as-is, but this certainly throws a wrench in the works. Lots more moves to be made.
i think this has everything to do with the fact that learning chess by learning sequences will get you into more trouble than good. even a trillion games won't save you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
that said, for the sake of completeness, modern chess engines (with high quality chess-specific models as part of their toolset) are fully capable of, at minimum, tying every player alive or dead, every time. if the opponent makes one mistake, even very small, they will lose.
while writing this i absently wondered if you increased the skill level of stockfish, maybe to maximum, or perhaps at least an 1800+ elo player, you would see more successful games. even then, it will only be because the "narrower training data" (ie advanced players won't play trash moves) at that level will probably get you more wins in your graph, but it won't indicate any better play, it will just be a reflection of less noise; fewer, more reinforced known positions.