Incontrovertible proof that FIBS is fixed!
John S Mamoun
NYCGuy (nyc...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: As anyone who's played TD_one knows, it plays very fast. If you happen to be on
: the bar against a closed, or quickly closing board, the action is sometimes too
: fast to follow with the nekked eye. So, after being hit and TD closing up on me
: (my board already closed), i decided to answer nature and let TD finish me off.
: When I returned a couple of minutes later, I found the game in this position!
: The dice kept rolling for both sides, until I bailed out to prevent an imminent
: FIBS meltdown!
: How could this have happened if there was no monkey business going on???
Yep, no question about it. FIBS dice are garbage, plainly and simply. I
have often wondered if such a position is possible in backgammon. I
haven't worked out the logic formally, but heuristically it seems to me
that the position is impossible. FIBS is either screwing with the dice
or it has a major bug. This finding is sure to create a scandal.
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:29:17 GMT, nyc...@worldnet.att.net (NYCGuy)
wrote:
> You vs. TD_one: score: 0-0 match: 1
> +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> O| O O O O O O | X | |
> O| O O O O O O | X | | O= TD_one
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |64
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | X X X X X X | | | X = NYCGuy
> X| X X X X X X | O | |
> +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
> O to roll.
>
> As anyone who's played TD_one knows, it plays very fast. If you
happen to be on
> the bar against a closed, or quickly closing board, the action is
sometimes too
> fast to follow with the nekked eye. So, after being hit and TD
closing up on me
> (my board already closed), i decided to answer nature and let TD
finish me off.
> When I returned a couple of minutes later, I found the game in this
position!
> The dice kept rolling for both sides, until I bailed out to prevent
an imminent
> FIBS meltdown!
> How could this have happened if there was no monkey business going
on???
>
> --
> Marty (NYCGuy - FIBS/IBS/NOBS)
>
> "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that
> man doesn't have to experience it." -- Max Frisch
>
Maybe the two people on the island logged in on FIBS and made it's
random generator crash ?
Zorba
Matt Koundakjian
Yeah, great proof. Just think of the dice that the generator had to
create to allow TD_one to obtain such a board.
...Zoiks
Trevor Speering
Matt Koundakjian (ma...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Yeah, great proof. Just think of the dice that the generator had to
Where did Marty say it was the dice's fault? If the board he showed us
was true, then there obviously is a bug in FIBS or it is 'fixed'. Be this
by the dice or whatever it is a fact.
Trev. (Haslar)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Speering -- at the University of Newcastle, Australia
c942...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au
Seriousness is refuge for the shallow.
Lars Wisler Pedersen
NYCGuy wrote:
>
> You vs. TD_one: score: 0-0 match: 1
> +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> O| O O O O O O | X | |
> O| O O O O O O | X | | O= TD_one
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |64
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | X X X X X X | | | X = NYCGuy
> X| X X X X X X | O | |
> +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
> O to roll.
>
> As anyone who's played TD_one knows, it plays very fast. If you happen to be on
> the bar against a closed, or quickly closing board, the action is sometimes too
> fast to follow with the nekked eye. So, after being hit and TD closing up on me
> (my board already closed), i decided to answer nature and let TD finish me off.
> When I returned a couple of minutes later, I found the game in this position!
> The dice kept rolling for both sides, until I bailed out to prevent an imminent
> FIBS meltdown!
> How could this have happened if there was no monkey business going on???
>
> --
> Marty (NYCGuy - FIBS/IBS/NOBS)
>
> "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that
> man doesn't have to experience it." -- Max Frisch
Dear NYCGuy,
One thing is sure here : that position is IMPOSSIBLE! No doubt about
that, so the only answer here is that the FIBS-server contains a major
bug! (For the bg-newbie : If someone is on the bar and the home is
closed, how can that player get time to hit the other player - as one
got on the bar first). Btw, does Marvin (Andreas Schneider) knows about
this? I've noticed that some people were debating about fixed dice -
both in this 'case' and in generel. Could there be a connection between
NYCGuy vs. TD-One and dice-manipulation in generel? My answer will be
YES !!! If dice manipulation is possible (!), making illegal moves is
possible too (!). And hence the debates about dice manipulation has been
on here for very long now, why haven't Marvin responded to it? (Or have
I missed it?)
Best wishes,
Lars W. Pedersen aka Wisler ;-D
Ps. Has NYCGuy tried the command 'board' to get his own board
re-synchronized with TD_One's?
Robert
The interesting thing to discuss now that we are quite certain that the
dice are not random and are generating an above average frequency of
doubles ...I have logged 30 different games on the Games Grid and the
distribution of doubles there is also skewed in favor of doubles and falls
almost 3 standard deviations from the mean...Of almost 1100 rolls there is
not even 1 stretch of 100 rolls where there is less than 20 doubles and
usually 23...working out to around 1 double every ~ 5 rolls instead of 6.
The question now is:
What is the optimal way to modify your game to incorporate this new
knowledge? I am sure there must be many strategical chyanges in your play
if you are in possession of this knowledge. As an ~1600 player I realize
that I am only average and am unable to answer this question
adequately....but how about some of you champions out there......what
should we do in this situation??
Thanks
My views are my own and do not reflect
those of the Microsoft Corporation
AJM
You people shouldn't publically gripe about Fibs
dice!! I had gained 80 points from playing
Pubeval and had a very nice rating. I came in
here, bitched about player position rolls on Fibs
and ZAP - within 5 days, my rating plunged!!
Suddenly, I can't even win against the player
I took all those points off! I am now down to
nearly where I was before winning. Did Pubeval
suddenly learn how to play? Nope. Did I make
a BIG mistake of opening my mouth? Yup.
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 20 Oct 1996 12:10:16 GMT, c942...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au (Trevor
Speering) wrote:
> Matt Koundakjian (ma...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : Yeah, great proof. Just think of the dice that the generator had
to
> : create to allow TD_one to obtain such a board.
>
> Where did Marty say it was the dice's fault? If the board he showed
us
> was true, then there obviously is a bug in FIBS or it is 'fixed'.
Be this
> by the dice or whatever it is a fact.
>
> Trev. (Haslar)
> --
> ---------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Trevor Speering -- at the University of Newcastle, Australi
> c942...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au
>
> Seriousness is refuge for the shallo
Hmm... I *really* thought NYCguy was fooling us !
Or is he really serious about that diagram ?
Well, one thing I've experienced with FIBS is that when you have
toggle double on, sometimes FIBS tries to roll *after* the match
finished, causing "You're not playing" to be displayed...
Something similar happens sometimes when you get "It's your turn to
roll or double" *after* finishing a match.
Maybe this could have something to do with it...
Zorba
illium
In article <326aec31....@165.254.2.53>,
wi...@carroll.com (AJM) wrote:
Hi AJM
A very interesting comment AJM, I've noticed a similar slump every time I
have made comments in this newsgroup or via shouts on FIBS. When I made
derogatory remarks about the dicegods during a 9pt match with dorothea (as
a test of this theory) my form immediately slumped and I doubt whether I
could have beaten my granny. Also after posting my Sherlock Holmes piece I
only won 3 of the next 18 matches. Coincidence? maybe, but the evidence is
growing. Anyone else tried a similar exercise? It's all too easy to think
it's just you these things are happening to, so let's here from anyone with
similar experiences, don't be shy speak out and reclaim FIBS for the fair
players.
Regards
William Hill
James A. Hulsey
In article <326aec31....@165.254.2.53>, AJM <wi...@carroll.com> wrote:
>You people shouldn't publically gripe about Fibs
>dice!! I had gained 80 points from playing
>Pubeval and had a very nice rating. I came in
>here, bitched about player position rolls on Fibs
>and ZAP - within 5 days, my rating plunged!!
>Suddenly, I can't even win against the player
>I took all those points off! I am now down to
>nearly where I was before winning. Did Pubeval
>suddenly learn how to play? Nope. Did I make
>a BIG mistake of opening my mouth? Yup.
Yup, it's all a conspiracy. And the government has an alien spaceship
hidden in Hangar 18.
In 18 months on FIBS, my rating has swung over 350 points as follows.
1660 1660
/ \ / 1620
/ 1520
1500 /
\ /
\ /
\ /
1300
Big rating swings happen, especially when your experience is low and
your learning the game.
Just wondering, but exactly *what* does marvin (or anyone else) have to
gain from unfair FIBS dice? If you don't compete in money tournaments,
I really don't understand all this concern. It's only rating points,
it's not like money's being stolen from you. Your paranoia is completely
misplaced.
Take a look in a beginning logic book for the fallacy of misleading
vividness.
Jim Hulsey (admiralh on FIBS)
Kit Woolsey
There has been much discussion on r.g.b. about the possibility of the FIBS
dice being skewed, so I thought I should put in my two cents worth.
I have been playing on FIBS for about three years, and have logged plenty
of experience points. It is my personal judgment from my playing
experience that the dice are not biased in any way.
How qualified am I to make such a judgment? I have been playing
backgammon for over 30 years, both money play and tournaments. In
addition I have been active in many other gaming activities which involve
chance all my life.
When one is involved in gambling, there is always the danger of
cheating. It is important to be on the lookout for irregular
occurrences, and to distinguish them from the normal lucky and unlucky
sequences which will always happen. On more than one occasion I have
sensed that things weren't right, and walked away from a situation which
could have cost me a lot of money had I stuck around. Thus, from my
experiences in the gaming world, I believe my judgment in this area is
better than most people's judgment.
Strange things do happen by chance. When I was playing blackjack for a
living, I saw several "unbelievable" occurrences. Once I lost 19
consecutive hands! (that really was an outprice -- I've never seen
anything close to that before or since). Another time, I went through an
entire 4-deck shoe without losing a hand. If you play enough, these
types of things will happen.
It is very easy to make the mistake of having a selective memory when it
comes to unusual occurrences. This is because we tend to remember the
abnormal, while forgetting the normal. We remember the unusual times our
opponent won an "unwinnable" race, while forgetting the many times
nothing special happened and we won the race we were supposed to win.
This is just human nature, and often accounts for suspicions that the
dice are rigged.
A good example of this occurred in duplicate bridge, when computer-dealt
hands were first put into use. There were several complaints that the
hands were more distributional than they should be. Extensive testing
demonstrated conclusively that the hands were not more distributional
than one would expect. What happened was that players tended to remember
the freak hands, while dismissing the more normal hands, and they came to
the subjective conclusion that there was something wrong with the
hand-generating program. It takes quite a bit of experience to be able
to put things into perspective and not be fooled by selective memory.
Now to the FIBS dice question. The claim that the dice are intentionally
programmed to be rigged in some way is patently absurd. What would
marvin's motivation be? He has no profit from FIBS. He created the
program because he enjoys backgammon and wanted a free backgammon server
to be available on the net. In addition, programming the dice to be
rigged is much more difficult than programming random dice. Any such
assumption about the dice being intentionally programmed to be rigged is
completely contrary to logic.
The question of the random number generator being faulty in some way is
another matter. This is a possible danger, of course. Usually when a
random number generator (or a routine which takes the output from a
random number generator) is flawed the error is either so small that one
would not notice it with the naked eye, or so large that it jumps out and
hits you in the face.
One can, of course, test various hypotheses about the dice. When the talk
about rigged dice started (there has been such talk for some time -- this
isn't the first thread along these lines), I attempted to test the dice as
best as I could. I had over 150 matches played on FIBS in my data base.
I ran through the dice rolls from these matches. All the numbers came out
within normal tolerance limits. The hypothesis that there were more
doubles than usual was not supported -- in fact, slightly less than 1/6 of
the rolls were doubles. Similarly, there was no indication that
consecutive doubles occurred more often than normal.
For those of you who want to do your own testing, you don't have to
wait around until you have played thousands of games. Last year, Mark
Damish had a program called Big_Brother, which was a match logging
program. It logged onto FIBS, and automatically selected, watched, and
recorded matches. I believe these matches should be available at
www.gammon.com and there are quite a lot of them, so anybody with the
inclination and good programming skills should have no trouble taking
these matches and performing appropriate tests. I'm sure everybody would
be interested in the results.
It should be noted that statistical tests can't prove anything one way or
the other; they can only give us indications. For example, suppose I
flip a coin 5 times in a row and it comes up heads every time. My
reaction would be: so what. If it came up heads 10 times in a row, I
would start to raise a suspicious eyebrow. If it came up heads 20 times
in a row, I would decide that the coin was biased and would have to be
convinced otherwise to change my view. Not that it is impossible for a
coin to come up heads 20 times in a row, but it is very unlikely if the
coin is unbiased. These numbers represent my personal judgments --
another person may have different thresholds.
It should also be pointed out how important it is to formulate one's
hypothesis before testing. Otherwise, it is easy to be misled by after
the fact reasoning. If someone announced to me that a coin was biased
and then the coin came up heads 10 times in a row, I would be quite
convinced. On the other hand, if the coin was first flipped 10 times and
came up heads every time, and then the person announced to me the coin
was biased, I would be far less convinced. The difference is that in the
second case his claim was an after the fact claim. The same is true of
dice testing. For example, suppose you looked at a million dice rolls,
found that 5-4 came up more often than any other combination, and
claimed that the dice were biased in favor of 5-4. This would not be
very convincing -- after all, some combination will come up most often
over the million rolls. If you made the claim before looking at the
rolls, it would be far more convincing.
I have no objections to people stating that they think the dice on FIBS
are biased, even though I disagree with them. It's a free world on the
internet, and such points of view do spark interest and perhaps will show
that there is some bias. I do hope, however, that these people will make
more of an effort to substantiate their case with proper testing, rather
than mentioning a few isolated runs of good or bad luck or expressing
their feelings that the dice are biased.
My main reason for writing this is to persuade FIBS players not to let
their game be affected by thinking that the dice are unfair. Once you
start to believe there is something wrong with the dice it is very easy
to think you should distort your play in order to compensate for the
dice, and the results will not be good.
Kit
illium
In article <kwoolseyD...@netcom.com>,
kwoo...@netcom.com (Kit Woolsey) wrote:
>There has been much discussion on r.g.b. about the possibility of the FIBS
>dice being skewed, so I thought I should put in my two cents worth.
.......[snip]...............
>My main reason for writing this is to persuade FIBS players not to let
>their game be affected by thinking that the dice are unfair. Once you
>start to believe there is something wrong with the dice it is very easy
>to think you should distort your play in order to compensate for the
>dice, and the results will not be good.
>
>Kit
>
Hi Fibsters
Yes, kit, you have a very well reasoned arguement there. There are however
two possibilities that still don't sit well with me. Firstly, there do seem
to be periods when the number of doubles in a particular period( an hour
say) appear to be a lot higher than would be expected. I propose a test to
isolate this, when anyone becomes aware of the frequency of doubles
increasing they should immediately do a dicetest and save the result, an
hour later they should do a further dicetest and compare the results. I
don't have a clear grasp of the statistics involved but a frequency of over
25% doubles would surely be significant (comments statisticians?)
Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a mathematical
formula. The only way to prove this I suppose is to try and predict the
rolls myself. If I were able to predict the exact format of the dicetest
20000 rolls after a restart would this be considered reasonable proof?. I
know this would fall short of the task of getting a particular roll but
it's half way towards it and would involve as much time as i'm willing to
spend on the subject at the moment.
I note that most of the people who now tell us that FIBS is completely fair
had their own doubts about it in the past, some going to great lengths to
convince themselves. So I fell entitled to my own dose of healthy
sceptisism.
Regard
William Hill, illium on FIBS
ken tarver
> >dice being skewed, so I thought I should put in my two cents worth.
> >My main reason for writing this is to persuade FIBS players not to let
> >their game be affected by thinking that the dice are unfair. Once you
> >start to believe there is something wrong with the dice it is very easy
> >to think you should distort your play in order to compensate for the
> >dice, and the results will not be good.
> >
> >Kit
> >
completely destroy our board position ? Because of the way I play , I
have routinely trapped opponents in my home behind a 6 prime . Fibs will
invariably force me to break up the prime while giving my opponent
EXACTLY the rolls needed to hit my forced blot and then leave me on the
bar while running around the board with lightning speed . It is not
uncommon to for me to be left on the bar for 5 or 6 rolls while my
opponent is allowed to get far enough ahead to make my re-entry
pointless.
Or if you don't like this example , how about when you are in a three
game match and are up 2 games to 0 and in the third game it doesn't make
any difference how well you play , the dice are definitely against you ?
I have NEVER won the third game outright on FIBS , It always goes to a
fifth game usually with a score of 2 to 2 . I believe that this is
programmed into FIBS.
I can offer nothing other than my personal observations . I am not a
statistician or a math prodigy , I can only tell you what my heart
believes , FIBS is doing something other than letting dice be rolled by
random or whatever you want to call it.
One other observation , When someone comes to r.g.b and complains about
a shareware program (such as MVP Backgammon) why aren't there as many
detractors pointing out how they don't have any proof ? Their
opinions/observations are accepted at face value. Why ?
I also play against a MS-DOS based program called PCGAMMON . It
undoubtedly cheats when it needs to , but the author defends the program
and swears it doesn't . I am willing to send it to anyone for their own
independent study .
The point of this message is that some of us on FIBS are apparently
experiencing behavior not immediately apparent to everyone else.
There are two things that are possible here , Either all of the
conspiracy theorists are paranoid/psychotic/freaks or else for whatever
reason we are seeing a different side of FIBS.
I personally believe that there is some method in FIBS to target players
(for whatever reason) for game play that is not favorable to them .
I have observed several players in this forum telling of thier problems
with ratings drops after they made public a gripe about FIBS oldtimers
or said something detrimental concerning the fairness of FIBS.
If you truly want this thread to stop , send e-mail to mar...@fibs.com
and pa...@fibs.com and tell them that you want an unbiased FIBS.
It seems rather interesting that the only people defending FIBS dice
are the ones with high ratings or the ones with a vested interest in
FIBS. Isn't it strange that we don't see any 1100 or below players
defending the fairness of FIBS dice ?
While I am on the subject , why are the FIBS defenders resorting to
personal attacks on the people who have a different opinion ?
Poor Zorba has been called everything but a nice guy just because he
has had the temerity to advance his theory in this forum.
WHY ?
Hugh B. McNeil
If I understand random number generators correctly, then NO
number generated by a computer is random.
The numbers are chosen by means of mathemagical equations,
which will generate OVER TIME a a random sampling of numbers. I
suspect, however, that the numbers will/ may in the short term
be subject to streaks which have more to do with the equations
than the actions of real world dice.
Perhaps our resident mathematician, X-22, or machine language
programmers can expand (or pounce) upon this idea...
MTCW
KEVIN MANSFIELD
Kit Woolsey wrote:
>Now to the FIBS dice question. The claim that the dice are intentionally
>programmed to be rigged in some way is patently absurd, What would
>Marvin's motivation be?
implying there is no conceivable reason why someone would wish to control
the rolls. This is clearly fallacious. Here are some possible reasons for
(at least partial) control of the dice:
1) fibs is being used as an advertising platform for the (backgammon
playing) program jellyfish. This sells for a street price of US$ 250. To
sell jellyfish, the buying public must be convinced it is rated among the
worlds top few players. If, in reality, its play was only of an advanced
level, then its appeal would be much diminished and in this case, its rating
would need to be artificially maintained through say, control of the dice.
2) fibs is being used for diabolical psychology experiments. See the
wonderful composition "Induced Dysfunction Through Simulated Gaming" of
Richard Greenberg (rich...@deadbear.com).
3) in the future one envisages large stake chouettes on fibs (or
similar backgammon servers). Of course, being able to manipulate the dice
would give various "in the know" players a decided edge.
I do not wish to imply that there is any truth to these possibilities, just
that in a complex world Kit's statement is simplistic at best.
Also his statement,
>In addition, programming the dice to be rigged is much more difficult than
>programming random dice. Any such assumption about the dice being
>intentionally programmed to be rigged is completely contrary to logic.
that programming the dice to be rigged is more difficult than programming
random dice, is obviously true, but given the potential financial rewards
I am sure such is being (or has already been) done.
Keywords:
Michael Fuhrmann
Hey you,
You must know that it not uncommon to have longish winning and losing
streaks in the BackGammon universe. As a result, it's very possible to
lose or gain a 100 elo points. What happened to you is just a normal
event. It's happened to me a few times too.
So settle down and don't let the dice spook you. Or else play more
stable games like chess or go.
Hang tough,
A Cool Cookie
Nevin :-] Liber
> But what are we to think of the occasions when MIRACLE rolls
> completely destroy our board position ?
Well, that is what happens when you play a game based on randomness. Do
you ever take the time to figure out the probability of the rolls involved,
keep track of the actual rolls, and figure out how far away you are from
long-run behavior?
Most people's gut feelings about probability are dead wrong. Suppose you
have an open piece 6 away from one of my pieces. What is the probability
that I will get a roll that can knock it off? Many people believe that
probability is as low as 1/6=17%, yet most of the time that probability is
actually 16/36=44%. The lower bound on needing a specific number between 1
and 6 is 11/36=31%, and that only occurs when all the locations between you
and me are blocked. Even the so-called miracle rolls (eg: only a 4-1 can
beat me) still happen 1/18=6% (or 1/36=3% for a specific double) of the
time.
> Because of the way I play , I
> have routinely trapped opponents in my home behind a 6 prime . Fibs will
> invariably force me to break up the prime while giving my opponent
> EXACTLY the rolls needed to hit my forced blot and then leave me on the
> bar while running around the board with lightning speed .
How often do you give them something within 6 to hit? They have a minimum
of a 31% chance of rolling something that can hit it; in other words,
nearly 1 out of 3 rolls.
By the same token, getting off of the bar is dependent on how many free
positions there are. Given that you need to get one piece off the bar,
here are the probabilities of it happening based on how many free positions
there are:
0 0/36= 0%
1 11/36=31%
2 20/36=56%
3 27/36=75%
4 32/36=89%
5 35/36=97%
6 36/36=100%
> It is not
> uncommon to for me to be left on the bar for 5 or 6 rolls while my
> opponent is allowed to get far enough ahead to make my re-entry
> pointless.
The question is: how common/uncommon is it? If you want to show something
is biased, you have to start taking strict measurements. Vague "gut
feelings" are as useful in backgammon as they are in craps.
> > I can offer nothing other than my personal observations . I am not a
> statistician or a math prodigy , I can only tell you what my heart
> believes , FIBS is doing something other than letting dice be rolled by
> random or whatever you want to call it.
Take the measurements, and we'll do the stats if you'd like. There are
only 36 possible equally likely (assuming fair dice) dice rolls; the math
isn't very difficult. You count up how many of those rolls work for a
given situation, divide that number by 36, and you have the probability of
that situation occuring. Multiply it by 100 if you want the percentage of
how often that situation occurs, on average.
> I also play against a MS-DOS based program called PCGAMMON . It
> undoubtedly cheats when it needs to , but the author defends the program
> and swears it doesn't . I am willing to send it to anyone for their own
> independent study .
Again, why don't you just post the dice rolls for a few hundred games, and
we can do the stats for you. Surely you are willing to do that much work
to prove your point, aren't you?
> The point of this message is that some of us on FIBS are apparently
> experiencing behavior not immediately apparent to everyone else.
No. You have a "gut feeling" on how the world should be, and since the
world doesn't behave like you think it should, you assume bias. If you
give us some actual numbers (just the numbers; not even an analysis of
those numbers) to back up your claims, then we might start taking you
seriously.
> There are two things that are possible here , Either all of the
> conspiracy theorists are paranoid/psychotic/freaks or else for whatever
> reason we are seeing a different side of FIBS.
The former is more likely, since most of the conspiracy theorists for some
strange reason refuse to learn anything about probability and statistics.
They tend to be "willfully ignorant" than learn something that might prove
their "gut feelings" wrong.
> It seems rather interesting that the only people defending FIBS dice
> are the ones with high ratings or the ones with a vested interest in
> FIBS. Isn't it strange that we don't see any 1100 or below players
> defending the fairness of FIBS dice ?
Well, I have no vested interest, and my rating has been below 1500 almost
since I started playing FIBS (well over a year ago). There aren't many
players below 1100; not enough to be statistically significant. I've also
played them, and can notice fundamental flaws in their play, as I'm sure
the players who have significantly higher ratings than me notice in my
play. I think at some point I was down around 12xx, and by becoming a
better player, I'm now in the 14xx range.
The secret to doing better is to learn the game and a bit of probability on
some level. Example, it is much safer (roughly half as likely to get hit
or better) to leave an open piece 7 away (0%-17% chance of getting hit)
than leaving it 6 away (31%-44% chance of getting hit). If you want us to
take your bias theory seriously, then present us with some evidence other
than a "gut feeling".
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:ne...@CS.Arizona.EDU> (520) 293-2799
<http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/nevin/>
Mark Betz
I just thought I'd mention this point as well: As the author of MVP
Backgammon I've been getting reports since the program was first released
two years ago that the dice were biased towards the computer player. I've
explained numerous times that this is architecturally impossible, and have
also performed analysis which shows a very even frequency distribution of
values over a long sequence. The random generator is actually rather good,
but as you say, people tend to remember the positions in which they got
skewered by an opponent's "lucky roll".
--Mark Betz
John B. Clements
In article <54uraq$f...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
KEVIN MANSFIELD <mans...@phnom-penh.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>the rolls. This is clearly fallacious. Here are some possible reasons for
>(at least partial) control of the dice:
>
> 1) fibs is being used as an advertising platform for the (backgammon
>playing) program jellyfish. This sells for a street price of US$ 250. To
>sell jellyfish, the buying public must be convinced it is rated among the
>worlds top few players. If, in reality, its play was only of an advanced
>level, then its appeal would be much diminished and in this case, its rating
>would need to be artificially maintained through say, control of the dice.
>
> 2) fibs is being used for diabolical psychology experiments. See the
>wonderful composition "Induced Dysfunction Through Simulated Gaming" of
>Richard Greenberg (rich...@deadbear.com).
>
> 3) in the future one envisages large stake chouettes on fibs (or
>similar backgammon servers). Of course, being able to manipulate the dice
>would give various "in the know" players a decided edge.
>
>
Ssshhhh.... the walls have ears.
john "note followups" clements
John B. Clements
In article <AE97CA71...@whills.demon.co.uk>,
illium <ill...@whills.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
>predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
>appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a mathematical
>formula.
I would like to address this one point, and reiterate Patti's post of
several days ago: while the die-rolling algorithm may be
'deterministic' (relative to its inputs), there is a readily available
pool of quite random numbers available to FIBS; namely, numbers based
upon its interaction with the real world. For instance, if FIBS were
to use, say, the microseconds place of the interval between received
packets, the result is essentially noise. It would not be hard to
build a random number generator around this set of inputs that would
be basically impossible to predict.
john clements
Donald Kahn
ken tarver <ken...@sat.net> wrote
>
> But what are we to think of the occasions when MIRACLE rolls
>completely destroy our board position ? Because of the way I play , I
>have routinely trapped opponents in my home behind a 6 prime
You ROUTINELY prime your opponents? Would you consider permitting me
to pay your travel, hotel, and entry fees to the next World
Championship? You can give me 1/3 your prize money, after deduction
of aforementioned advanced expenses.
Donald Kahn "deekay" on GamesGrid (of course, I would like to play an
11 point match with you before finalizing the deal,.)
Susan Jane Hogarth
ken tarver wrote:
>
> But what are we to think of the occasions when MIRACLE rolls
> completely destroy our board position ? Because of the way I play , I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> have routinely trapped opponents in my home behind a 6 prime . Fibs will
> invariably force me to break up the prime while giving my opponent
> EXACTLY the rolls needed to hit my forced blot and then leave me on the
> bar while running around the board with lightning speed . It is not
> uncommon to for me to be left on the bar for 5 or 6 rolls while my
> opponent is allowed to get far enough ahead to make my re-entry
> pointless.
Maybe you need to change the way you play?
[snip]
> I also play against a MS-DOS based program called PCGAMMON . It
> undoubtedly cheats when it needs to , but the author defends the program
> and swears it doesn't .
If you think this, *why* do you use it? I've never understood this -
people complaining about "rigged dice", but coming back for more...
[more snip]
> It seems rather interesting that the only people defending FIBS dice
> are the ones with high ratings or the ones with a vested interest in FIBS.
I'm not sure what you mean by "vested interest"...
As for ratings, I think it's actually to be expected that those with
little experience and less skill would be the ones to suspect
nonrandomness (although not all of us!)
> Isn't it strange that we don't see any 1100 or below players
> defending the fairness of FIBS dice ?
Does below 1500 count? ;-)
--
Susan
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/sjhogart/public/home.html
Louis Agassiz, about Lorenz Oken (1885) (quoted from S.J.Gould, 1977):
"Constructing the universe out of his own brain, deducing from
_a priori_ conceptions all the relations of the three kingdoms
into which he divided all living beings, classifying the animals
as if by magic, in accordance with an analogy based on the
dismembered body of man, it seemed to us who listened that the slow
laborious process of accumulating precise detailed knowledge
could only be the work of drones, while a generous, commanding
spirit might build the world out of its own powerful imagination."
Dan
On 27 Oct 1996, KEVIN MANSFIELD wrote:
> 2) fibs is being used for diabolical psychology experiments. See the
> wonderful composition "Induced Dysfunction Through Simulated Gaming" of
> Richard Greenberg (rich...@deadbear.com).
Please, tell me you didn't believe it. (Or am I the madman who thinks the
world is mad and I'm sane....?)
-----------------------------------------
Dan McCullam McCu...@Uni-Hohenheim.de
DMc on FIBS (now with sadly less exp.....but a higher rating...for now!)
Nevin :-] Liber
In article <327722...@cam.ac.uk>, Stephen Turner <sr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> It's basically true, but not in a helpful way. Random number generators
> actually generate a very long sequence of numbers; when they want a new one,
> they just pull the next one from the sequence.
And they are sometimes made harder to predict by using things like the
current time, process id, etc., as part of the seed. Although none of this
makes a psuedorandom sequence good enough for cryptographic use, it is
usually good enough for gaming on the Internet.
Stephen Turner
It's basically true, but not in a helpful way. Random number generators
actually generate a very long sequence of numbers; when they want a new one,
they just pull the next one from the sequence. But this doesn't help you,
because you couldn't predict the next one without knowing where you were in
the long sequence, and you can't tell that by looking at the patterns of
1s ... 6s, even if you knew the formula.
And there are short term streaks governed by the formula -- but in the same
proportions as one would expect from real dice.
--
Stephen Turner sr...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory,
16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, England Tel.: +44 1223 337955
"Collection of rent is subject to Compulsive Competitive Tendering" Cam. City
Stephen Turner
illium wrote:
>
> There do seem
> to be periods when the number of doubles in a particular period( an hour
> say) appear to be a lot higher than would be expected. I propose a test to
> isolate this, when anyone becomes aware of the frequency of doubles
> increasing they should immediately do a dicetest and save the result, an
> hour later they should do a further dicetest and compare the results. I
> don't have a clear grasp of the statistics involved but a frequency of over
> 25% doubles would surely be significant (comments statisticians?)
>
This would be a good test PROVIDED that every time someone did it they
reported the results whether or not there were too many doubles.
> Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
> predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
> appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a mathematical
> formula. The only way to prove this I suppose is to try and predict the
> rolls myself. If I were able to predict the exact format of the dicetest
> 20000 rolls after a restart would this be considered reasonable proof?
What do you mean? The exact number of each roll that have occurred in
the
first 20,000? If FIBS dice work as I expect, then it would be different
for
each restart.
Craig Connell
"Mark Betz" <mb...@conductor.com> wrote:
>--Mark Betz
When I first started learning about backgammon - I got a little
backgammon program. It seemed to me that the program was so lucky, so
i assumed it was fixed. However, the program had an option to allow
me to roll the dice myself. I did that - and lost just as much.
I think Robertie said that when you start to get good at backgammon
your opponent's always say your lucky.
Anyway, what makes me think those who say FIBS is fixed are pyranoid
is that they imply the "fix" is against them. Why? We all play with
the same dice generator.
David Smyth
In article <AE97CA71...@whills.demon.co.uk>, ill...@whills.demon.co.uk (illium) says:
>>
[Kit Woosley's memoirs snipped]
>>
>Hi Fibsters
>
>Yes, kit, you have a very well reasoned arguement there. There are however
>two possibilities that still don't sit well with me. Firstly, there do seem
>to be periods when the number of doubles in a particular period( an hour
>say) appear to be a lot higher than would be expected. I propose a test to
>isolate this, when anyone becomes aware of the frequency of doubles
>increasing they should immediately do a dicetest and save the result, an
>hour later they should do a further dicetest and compare the results. I
>don't have a clear grasp of the statistics involved but a frequency of over
>25% doubles would surely be significant (comments statisticians?)
>
This is simply introducing experimenter bias. Waiting until you
have the result you're after (more doubles than ordinary) and
then comparing it with another time when there may or may not be
more doubles is simply trying to manufacture a result.
>Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
>predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
>appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a mathematical
>formula. The only way to prove this I suppose is to try and predict the
>rolls myself. If I were able to predict the exact format of the dicetest
>20000 rolls after a restart would this be considered reasonable proof?. I
>know this would fall short of the task of getting a particular roll but
>it's half way towards it and would involve as much time as i'm willing to
>spend on the subject at the moment.
>
Even if the random number generator used by FIBS was faulty it would
still be impossible to predict the next roll. I can't say for sure
but I would imagine the software calls the same routine for ALL of the
games currently being played on FIBS. There would be no way of knowing
how many times the dice were rolled for all the other games being played
while you sit there trying to predict the next roll.
The fact there are nearly always many games being played at once and
the precise number of random number generator calls between times your
particular games calls the random number generator is in fact random,
ensures the dice will be quite random in spite of a faulty random number
generator (not that I'm saying the FIBS random number generator is
faulty).
You just can't beat the addition of truly random factors such as the number
of games being played and the times players choose to type in the 'r'
command to roll the dice.
David Smyth
Nevin :-] Liber
In article <55bl4h$j...@gemini.fdu.edu>, con...@alpha.fdu.edu (Craig
Connell) wrote:
> Anyway, what makes me think those who say FIBS is fixed are paranoid
> is that they imply the "fix" is against them. Why? We all play with
> the same dice generator.
Yeah, they do seem to have very big, overinflated egos, don't they? As if
they are really important enough to matter for some stranger to go and
actively try to ruin something as inconsequental as a FIBS backgammon game
for them. Since they don't play very well, they come here with their
absurd "theories", desperate to get some of the attention they can't seem
to get on FIBS. And admittedly, I haven't been strong enough to resist
giving these children the attention they so desperately crave.
It kind of makes you wonder what kinds of excuses they come up with when
they lose games that don't have an element of chance to them, such as
checkers or tic-tac-toe.
illium
>What do you mean? The exact number of each roll that have occurred in
>the
>first 20,000? If FIBS dice work as I expect, then it would be different
>for
>each restart.
>
>--
>Stephen Turner
Hi Stephen
You are correct, the FIBS roller should generate a different set of rolls
after every restart, if it doesn't I'd be very surprised and in fact
shocked. What I propose to try and do is look at the rolls and try and
derive the algorthm if I can do that I should be able to do a dicetest, or
maybe several dicetests, during a period after a restart. The 20000 rolls
is to give me time to analyse my data and post my projected dicetest matrix
before FIBS reaches 20000 rolls. If the two matrixes match then bingo, I
claim the jackpot. If however the roll is also dependendent on the timing
of the arrival of the roll commands ( as someone indicated was the case)
then this is more difficult, but not however, impossible. One thing we know
for sure is that time isn't random:-)
Regards
William Hill, illium on FIBS.
Martin Lee
>When I first started learning about backgammon - I got a little
>backgammon program. It seemed to me that the program was so lucky, so
>i assumed it was fixed. However, the program had an option to allow
>me to roll the dice myself. I did that - and lost just as much.
>I think Robertie said that when you start to get good at backgammon
>your opponent's always say your lucky.
>Anyway, what makes me think those who say FIBS is fixed are pyranoid
>is that they imply the "fix" is against them. Why? We all play with
>the same dice generator.
I think it was Arnold Palmer who said: "You know, the more I practice
the luckier I seem to get!"
Martin Lee [YLee on FIBS]
"Look on my dice, ye Mighty, and DESPAIR!"
Stephen Turner
illium wrote:
>
> What I propose to try and do is look at the rolls and try and
> derive the algorthm if I can do that I should be able to do a dicetest, or
> maybe several dicetests, during a period after a restart. The 20000 rolls
> is to give me time to analyse my data and post my projected dicetest matrix
> before FIBS reaches 20000 rolls. If the two matrixes match then bingo, I
> claim the jackpot.
So you look at early rolls or matrices or whatever, and then predict the
dicetest some rolls later? I would be very surprised if this were possible.
Steve Mellen
In article <552l89$s...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, clem...@tucson.princeton.edu
(John B. Clements) wrote:
> In article <AE97CA71...@whills.demon.co.uk>,
> illium <ill...@whills.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
> >predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
> >appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a mathematical
> >formula.
>
> I would like to address this one point, and reiterate Patti's post of
> several days ago: while the die-rolling algorithm may be
> 'deterministic' (relative to its inputs), there is a readily available
> pool of quite random numbers available to FIBS; namely, numbers based
> upon its interaction with the real world. For instance, if FIBS were
> to use, say, the microseconds place of the interval between received
> packets, the result is essentially noise. It would not be hard to
> build a random number generator around this set of inputs that would
> be basically impossible to predict.
>
> john clements
>
And surely the real world is deterministic as well.
Michael Haney
In article <solon-06119...@cnc807137.concentric.net>,
so...@concentric.net says...
>
>In article <552l89$s...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, clem...@tucson.princeton.edu
>(John B. Clements) wrote:
>
>> In article <AE97CA71...@whills.demon.co.uk>,
>> illium <ill...@whills.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
>>predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
>>appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a
mathematical formula.
>And surely the real world is deterministic as well.
YES! YES! YES!
The real world is ruled by the laws of physics. If you knew all of the
variables involved in rollling dice out of a cup (force, friction,
direction, gravity, angles, etc) and were given enough time (aha!) you could
predict with 100% accuracy every roll of the dice. But, since you CAN'T
know all of this information and do the calculations in the allotted time,
you cannot predict the outcome. This takes us to (open your notebooks
class):
*** Mathman's definition of randomness: ***
A "random" event is one in which the outcome cannot be predicted BEFORE the
event occurs.
As technology and science advance, more and more things that we consider
random will become predictable. Weather is a good example of this. Whether
an event is random is not an absolute; not a "yes or no" question. It is a
matter of degrees. Are heart attacks random? Are tornados random? Is the
extinction of species random?
So as we discuss the "randomness" of FIBS dice, let us not forget that
randomness, computerized or not, is a fuzzy subject. (Insert your own joke
here about fuzzy dice).
Mathman@FIBS
John Clements
In article <55u0g3$o...@news-central.tiac.net>,
James Garner <da...@laraby.tiac.net> wrote:
>Michael Haney (g...@virtualtoystore.com) wrote:
>
> Actually, it is quite possible, and probably likely, that among
>the zillions of variables affecting the roll of dice is a good host of
>variables that are themselves functions of quantum functions. In other
>words, quantum variables that have become magnified to macroscopic
>magnitude.
>
> If so, you could never predict the roll. You might as well
>predict the decay of atomic particles.
Think I can't do that? Okay, this particle in front of me is going
to decay... uh... uh... NOW!
john "how'd I do?" clements
illium
>In article <552l89$s...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, clem...@tucson.princeton.edu
>(John B. Clements) wrote:
>And surely the real world is deterministic as well.
Hi John
Well maybe, but not in any predictable way. You could of course prove me
wrong by indicating the winners of all the horse races at the next meeting
a York.
Steve Mellen
In article <AEAA946D9...@whills.demon.co.uk>,
ill...@whills.demon.co.uk (illium) wrote:
I'm glad you understand that identifying something as deterministic does
not make it predictable, as that was the entire point.
Donald Kahn
ill...@whills.demon.co.uk (illium) wrote:
>>In article <552l89$s...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, clem...@tucson.princeton.edu
>>(John B. Clements) wrote:
>>And surely the real world is deterministic as well.
>Hi John
>Well maybe, but not in any predictable way. You could of course prove me
>wrong by indicating the winners of all the horse races at the next meeting
>a York.
>Regards
>William Hill, illium on FIBS
John B. Clements did not write any such sentence. Illium, you should
get a life.
Donald Kahn
illium
Hi Fibsters
First an apology, It has been pointed out to me that a statement I
attributed to John B. Clements was actually made by Steve Mellen, to both
parties I apologise unreservedly. Since both people were saying
approximately the same things I doubt if there was much confusion.
Secondly, there has not been any statement, as far as I know, that the FIBS
RNG is dependent on Quantum events. The time of arrival of the roll
commands has been suggested as a good random variable, however when FIBS
gets quite busy i.e most of the time, surely the roll commands are held in
a Queue and for as long as the queue is not empty the commands will get
processed in a regular periodic fashion assuming each loop of the algorithm
takes the same number of instructions or machine cycles. In fact, if time
is used as an input it will be the dominant variable and the alogorithm
will hardly matter.
Regards
William Hill, illium on FIBS
P.S I don't quite understand why Mr Kahn should be concerned that I
misquoted someone else? And was that any reason to get personal?
John Clements
In article <AEAD72CA...@whills.demon.co.uk>,
illium <ill...@whills.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi Fibsters
>
>First an apology, It has been pointed out to me that a statement I
>attributed to John B. Clements was actually made by Steve Mellen, to both
>parties I apologise unreservedly. Since both people were saying
>approximately the same things I doubt if there was much confusion.
Actually, no. You are completely mistaken. I don't think it's
really worth rehashing at this point. Reread the posts if you care.
>P.S I don't quite understand why Mr Kahn should be concerned that I
>misquoted someone else? And was that any reason to get personal?
I considered misquoting you here for rhetorical effect, but I won't.
Essentially, when you misquote me, you're putting words in my mouth.
In groups like r.g.b, mistakes like this may be relatively
insignificant. In some groups, however, discussions may become fairly
emotionally charged. For instance, suppose I propose the extermination
of all Africans. You reply that you think that's a terrible idea.
Someone else then replies, in such a way that it looks like _you_
were the one suggesting genocide. That's not so nice.
Ta ta,
john clements
John Greenwood
ill...@whills.demon.co.uk (illium) wrote:
>In article <kwoolseyD...@netcom.com>,
>kwoo...@netcom.com (Kit Woolsey) wrote:
>>There has been much discussion on r.g.b. about the possibility of the FIBS
>>dice being skewed, so I thought I should put in my two cents worth.
>Secondly, I haven't altogether ruled out the possibility that someone can
>predict the sequence of the rolls of the dice. While the dice roller
>appears random it is based on a deterministic algorthm i.e a mathematical
>formula.
The random number generator will be deterministic if the numbers are
generated by an algorithm, ie prorammed. The only way to get truley
randomised numbers is to use a genuinely random phenomenon such as
radioactve decay as for example the ERNIE random number generator that
choses UK premium bond winning numbers.
But this statement surely goes a step too far even for an algorithmic
generator if what I assume about FIBS is correct. The number sequence
will be deterministic but the numbers don't go in sequence to only one
match. I assume they are dished out to the various matches as
requested by their roll requests. This adds a randomisation into the
sequence a given board receives that cannot be determined by any given
player, it seems. It doesn't make the sequence itself random and the
chances of getting too many of a given number if the generator is
poor, for example, but a given series of rolls for a board will not be
predictable even if the actual FIBS generated sequence of rolls is
actually known.