About computer backgammon games cheating...
rkarmo
subject, but it's new to me.
I've played some computer backgammon games before, and I've always suspected
that at crucial moments, the computer was just a little bit *too* lucky,
getting exactly the role it needs, or that I was too unlucky, being stranded
on the bar, or stuck with no possible moves. (Wait wait, read on.) I don't
mean just modern games of today, using neural network technology, but also
classical, potentially weaker, implementations like that found on Sun
workstations as long ago as 1988.
So what to do? Before jumping to any false conclusions, I thought I would
search newsgroup archives to see if other people had the same impression,
and even conclusive documentation of some kind of backgammon dice rigging
conspiracy. "Google" (and formerly "Deja News") is a great tool for
searching newsgroups! I was surprised to learn what I guess most of you
know already, is that this is a recurring, controversial, many years old
discussion about possibly every implementation of computer backgammon ever
made.
My conclusions:
1) Looks like the consensus is that most of the good backgammon games don't
cheat, but that good players make their own luck. People suspect it
primarily for psychological reasons and use selective memory.
2) Saying the dice are rigged is comparable to saying that you are a bad
player. (Note, *I* didn't claim that any dice were rigged, I only suspected
it. This means that I don't *claim* to be a bad player, I only suspect it.)
3) I did not find any post which gave conclusive or statistically
significant evidence of loaded dice in any backgammon implementation, beyond
subjective impressions from some self-proclaimed pseudo-experts of the game.
Most posts which included text like "and here's the proof", were poorly
argued and unsubstantiated. Statistically speaking it's hard to prove
anything one way or the other, but in the long run, if the rolls are
statistically balanced, than you should win more games only if you are a
better player than your opponent. Defining appropriate statistical
measurements takes an expert to do, and probably a similiarly trained expert
to understand the full meaning of the results, which is probably why some
reject any statistical collection as meaningless numbers.
4) I got the names of some good backgammon games to try: Jellyfish and
Snowie just to name two. Looks like a "Tutor" or "Analyzer" would be a good
investment at improving my game.
5) Someone didn't like Gary Wong's software complaint form, and thought he
should take a more serious position, given his stature. After reading many
posts, I thought it was funny, hilarious, well-timed, worth repeating, and
appropriate! Well done. Looks like he also has a backgammon implementation
under Gnu licensing so one could get the whole source code, which should
satisfy some people.
6) If people are losing money with online backgammon, and they suspected
loaded dice, it says more about the person than about any backgammon
implementation. "A fool and his money are soon parted" or "Fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!"
7) I learned a couple of new terms. Dancing at the bar has nothing to do
with going out to clubs.
How to determine if backgammon games are rigged?
1) Seems to me that getting your butt kicked with the same "luck", using a
"Manual Dice" option should remove doubts about losing because of rigged
dice. I don't understand why it's not as obvious to others. One popular
poster points out that just because Jellyfish kicks butt with Manual Dice,
doesn't mean it's not rigging the automatic dice. True, selecting Manual
Dice, or alternate DLL's says nothing about the built-in generator. You
can't really argue with that, but it does give you a possibility for an
independent comparison, and it should tell you something if your losing
percentage remains the same by changing the dice.
2) Options to print out all of the future rolls in Notepad should also
remove doubts about getting the computer changing his luck when required.
The rolls could be computed in advance, and it would be easy to see that the
rolls are not dependent on the game state. Of course this doesn't mean that
the computer won't take advantage of the knowledge of the next few roles. I
saw one guy routinely changes the seed (or the counter, I forget) to avoid
this kind disadvantage.
3) What about publishing random number generator code?
Some indicated that the only true way to settle the argument is to publish
the RNG code. They claim there are so many good reasons for it and
virtually no reasons not to, so they can not understand the resistance of
programmers not to reveal the source code. They even interpret the
resistance as avoiding the issue because there is something to hide. I'll
tell you why: the reasons for publishing it are weak!
- Source code is proprietary! Unless they are developing for the Free
Software Foundation, or under the GNU licensing, programmers make a living
developing code and most people making a living are at a monetary
disadvantage if they reveal their source code. (Of course they are also at
a monetary disadvantage if people falsely claim their product cheats, so a
certain tradeoff is required.)
- One can argue that RNG code is not significant to a backgammon
implementation, and that at least this could be published without harm.
However, publishing the RNG code does not go as far as is claimed by its
proponents towards settling the discussion unless the complete context is
published too. Suppose the RNG code is published. Who's to say that the
published code is actually the same code used, and that it is consistently,
unconditionally called every time? Suppose the dice rolling logic went
something like this:
IF (computer is getting butt-kicked)
CALL roll_rigged_dice;
ELSE
CALL roll_prng_dice;
END
Publishing only the non-sensitive source code for "roll_prng_dice" does not
help settle the argument at all. It would only raise further questions or
doubts, until all of the source code were published, or a similiar post
analysis of the dice rolls, were done to confirm that indeed this code is
always used. I repeat, a statistical post-analysis of the dice rolls is
still required whether you have the source code or not! This makes the
posting the RNG code valueless.
3) If you are smart, and statistically trained, and have the patience, you
can analyze the dice rolls yourself without requiring source code. You need
to pick the right things to measure (that's where statistically trained come
in) collect the measurments (that's where the patience comes in), and then
see for yourself (if you are smart and statiscally trained).
What about pseudo-random versus a true random number generator?
For all purposes of playing backgammon, it seems to me that a sufficiently
random pseudo-random generator with the right statistical properties should
be undetectably different than properly rolling perfect dice from a cup.
However, I have thought of one way, which I've never seen discussed, to
introduce better randomness into dice rolling. Why not update the RNG
counter periodically during the idle time in between rolls? This way, the
next roll becomes partially a function of how long the player waits to roll
the next dice, introducing some human variance. It seems like this goes a
long way towards true randomness without upsetting any statistical
properties. (I give this idea for free, without any expectation for
remuneration, but I wouldn't be opposed to getting credit for it).
Put things in perspective:
- I'm not a good backgammon player, but can hold my own against my free Palm
implementation from Whitehorse games. I can beat my brothers and friends
when I play. I'll go try JellyFish Lite and see what happens.
- I'm not a statistics expert, but did take a computer course in statistics,
and I am pretty gifted in math.
Happy backgamming
BackGammon
Have you ever wondered how come some people complain about backgammon
software to be rigged? Do we ear such comments about chess or bridge
programs however ?
I am working for NetGammon as Customer Service Representative and I hear
such comments quite often. But most pepole that complain are either newbies
to backgammon or people that feel that backgammon, since it use dice, to
play the game is only a luck game.
Backgammon is an eay game to learn and an hard one to skill.
Why would backgammon program like Snowie, Jellyfish, our own GotoBackgammon
or MasterGammon cheat? What would be the interest of any software publisher
to put on the market progarms that would cheat?
There are mainly 3 phases in a backgammon game:
Oppening rolls
Mid game
Bear off
In the opening roll phase, a player that have a bit experience with
backgammon will most likely be as good as any computer player. 6-1, 3-1, 5-3
etc... are standards and played the same way by everybody as opening rolls.
In mid game, the computer player, depending on the opponent level you
selected, start to gain some advantage on the human player. A good computer
program is able to coumpound every possible move on a dice roll and evaluate
the equities of those moves. It is done ususaly in less that 3 seconds. For
the human player to do the same thing, it would teak an average of 5 minutes
per roll and you would not even be sure that all possibilites avec been
seen.
In bear off, good computer programs also have the advantage of using bearoff
database. Human player oftenly forget at this stage that in some situations
it is better not to remove 2 checkers if possible but to move them to
decrease number of roll that would get only one piece out.
Computer players that I know are also very good using the cube. This part of
the game is where the luck is no longer a factor and the skill and the
ability is an advantage.
Computer players have no feelings. Basicaly they are machine that perform
calculations. They don't care about winning or loosing. Even though you
paid up to 380$US (Snowie Pro) to buy one, they don't care about you.
Human players are proud, sensitive, emotional... They are sure they can beat
the machine and will try up to a point they will come to the conclusion that
the machine (program) cheat.
However, backgammon programs are a good tools to learn if they are used
wisely. Whatever program you use, you should set the computer level to it's
lowest strenght at first and play him. Once you are beating yopur computer
almost all of the time, icrease the level by one and start again. Doing so
you will start to see patern's that will help you when you will play either
online, in live game or aginst the computer.
Remember that in all things, practice make's perfection.
In conclusion, if you still feel that computer backgammon players are
cheaters, why on earth are you still playing with them?
Sincerely,
Pierre Labbé
NetGammon Custommer Service Representative
p...@goto-software.com
"rkarmo" <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:3c6fc1bf$0$12222$4d4e...@news.be.uu.net...
JP White
>
> Put things in perspective:
> - I'm not a good backgammon player, but can hold my own against my free Palm
> implementation from Whitehorse games. I can beat my brothers and friends
I suggest you also try Slapgammon for your palm. It has got good reviews
and can perform rollouts. I doubt you'll fair as well against it as your
current free program.
As for the main part of your post with regard to people viewing BG
programs as rigged. I can add some anecdotal observations.
I have introduced 3 friends to BG programs such as Jellyfish, GNUBG, MVP
BG etc. etc. Without exception the feedback I have received from these
friends is that the programs are 'rigged' getting just the right rolls
at the right times, and denying them the rolls they are deserved of.
I am currently 'counseling' a member of our local club to help him stop
seeing things that way, otherwise he will never realize the potential of
the program if he distrusts it.
The club in Nashville started as result of us meeting on FIBS and
Gamesgrid and realizing we lived close to one another. It was amazing
how in real life we all got 'FIBS Dice'. Every time one found oneself
dancing against a three point board roll after roll, we'd curse our
'FIBS dice'. This was confirmation to us that the likelihood of
'rigging' is remote enough to be ignored and that 'incredible stuff'
happens with more frequency than we had thought possible.
JP
--
JP White
mailto:jpwh...@bellsouth.net
Ryan Long
> I've played some computer backgammon games before, and I've always suspected
> that at crucial moments, the computer was just a little bit *too* lucky,
> getting exactly the role it needs, or that I was too unlucky, being stranded
> on the bar, or stuck with no possible moves. (Wait wait, read on.) I don't
> mean just modern games of today, using neural network technology, but also
> classical, potentially weaker, implementations like that found on Sun
> workstations as long ago as 1988.
Let me offer a nontechnical point. Let's say that you are put on the
bar, and your computerized opponent has X number of points covered. If you
enter on your first roll, for how many days will you remember this sequence?
If you enter on the second roll, for how many days will you remember that
sequence?
If you enter on the third, how many days? The fourth? Fifth?
As your "luck" decreases, your memory increases.
After an extended period of time, your unlucky sequences will be
overreprented in your memory.
Nobody remembers when it was easy to come in off the bar; after all, you
deserved it, didn't you?
Gregg Cattanach
GamesGrid, FIBS and several of the other servers I suspect. There is a
single RNG running for the all the games in progress and it delivers the
next pair of number to the next table that needs a dice roll. So from your
opponent's roll until your roll, dozens or hundreds (depending on how many
games are in progress) of number pairs have been delivered to other tables,
and the exact time that you wait until clicking for your next roll WILL
affect the actual numbers your receive. Of course, waiting longer won't
necessarily improve or worsen the actual roll you get (50% chance either
way), but it will make it different because waiting longer gives 'your'
numbers to some other table.
Gregg
"rkarmo" <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:3c6fc1bf$0$12222$4d4e...@news.be.uu.net...
<snip>
> However, I have thought of one way, which I've never seen discussed, to
> introduce better randomness into dice rolling. Why not update the RNG
> counter periodically during the idle time in between rolls? This way, the
> next roll becomes partially a function of how long the player waits to
roll
> the next dice, introducing some human variance. It seems like this goes a
> long way towards true randomness without upsetting any statistical
> properties. (I give this idea for free, without any expectation for
> remuneration, but I wouldn't be opposed to getting credit for it).
<snip>
Silverfox
BG is not rigged. Open both Jelly fish and Snowie. Play them opposite by
using one of them to generate dice and the other to use manual dice (to be
entered as the other dictates). Then play.
If cheating is for real you would expect whichever bot is rolling the dice
to win more often (note that the two programs have no way to know they are
really playing each other).
Switch and play some more.
What you will find (because I have done this for MANY many games) is an
approximate 50:50 win loss ratio regardless of which bot is rolling the
dice. Just what you'd expect of two equally skilled opponants.
But for crying out loud, don't believe ME... Do it yourself. Snowie web is
free. Jellyfish is free.
~Silverfox, the one and only
"rkarmo" <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:3c6fc1bf$0$12222$4d4e...@news.be.uu.net...
rkarmo
JP White <jpwh...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C700194...@bellsouth.net...
> I suggest you also try Slapgammon for your palm. It has got good reviews
> and can perform rollouts. I doubt you'll fair as well against it as your
> current free program.
Thanks for the tip. I tried Slapgammon. He is tougher than my current free
program.
He has already improved my level from random hobbyist to educated novice.
I find that I can hold my own with "SG Difficult", if each game counted as
one. However,
he kicks my butt with that stupid doubling cube, so that his victors count
as 4 or 8.
I had one streak going where I was ahead 13 to 4, and then after 3 games, he
won
4, then 4, then 8, and all of a sudden I was behind 19 to 13. Just like
with drugs, I have
to learn to just say no.