Curious Analysis
Derek Ray
If you look at the webpage under this URL
...you should find a very amusing 64-point match.
I have 11 other matches by the same opponents which will be posted
there. I originally considered adding my own commentary, but I think
that the first match certainly speaks for itself regarding the relative
skill (and cube skill) of the participants.
It also speaks for itself as regards someone's claims that gnubg
controls the dice and cheats to win... take a good look at the luck
factors at the bottom, and take a good look at the series of rolls which
conclude the match.
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Murat Kalinyaprak
> If you look at the webpage under this URL
> www.geocities.com/lorimer
> ...you should find a very amusing 64-point match.
Hi Derek,
Thanks for making an effort to deliver on your promise.
Actually, it's more than what I had expected (despite
the HTML bugs or whatever) and I hope that you will
continue on with the project...
> I have 11 other matches by the same opponents which
> will be posted there. I originally considered adding my
> own commentary, but I think that the first match certainly
> speaks for itself regarding the relative skill (and cube
> skill) of the participants.
Well, maybe it doesn't...?? If you will insist in burying your
heads in the sand (not to say "in your asses" because I'm
trying to be polite:)) and live in a limited world "created for
you and sold to you" by some self-deceiving (if not worse)
people, why do you even bother spending time analyzing
my matches against gnudung...??
I had already expressed many times in this newsgroup that
I got a kick out of being rated "beginner" while at the same
time kicking "extraterrestrial" ass...
> It also speaks for itself as regards someone's claims that
> gnubg controls the dice and cheats to win...
Actually, if this was true, it would be the best case scenario
for the herds of ass-kissing "Morons" here...
Unfortunately the worst case scenario may be that all of your
"neural robot" and "book writing" idols may be out to lunch
about checker or cube skill or combined bg-skill in general...
Stop deceiving yourselves...! When somebody wins most of
a certain number of long matches against an extra-terrestrial
opponent, you better ask why and how...
Take a close look at my moves... Hopefully you would agree
that I'm capable of making the best moves or moves close to
them most of the time. And then I make very very bad moves.
Not much in between. So, it shouldn't take a rocket-scientist
to see that those moves are made knowingly and on purpose.
One key question may be whether I can recover from them if
they happen to explode in my face and the final result seems
to prove that I can... So, maybe there is more to BG than just
"cold statistics"...???
I didn't post my matches here for personal satisfaction. Like
some people already pointed out, I could pick and choose
what matches I post... So, you should either not trust their
validity and value at all or you should really take a close look
at them beyond your ass-kissing habits towards your ideal
rigged robots and/or book-publishing-world-class-gamblers...
> take a good look at the luck factors at the bottom, and take
> a good look at the series of rolls which conclude the match.
"Luck factor" is someting I never brought up (i.e. complained
about) in almost 6+ years of posting in this newgroup...!!!
Your bringing it up in this thread overly amuses me... :))
Here is one of the dumb "Morons" own adages that you can
shove up your ass: "The better player prepares for the next
rolls in such a way that whatever rolls he gets, he will seem
to be the luckier player"...!!
Have a nice day...
MK
Derek Ray
mu...@compuplus.net (Murat Kalinyaprak) mumbled something about:
>Derek Ray wrote 1atroukbfnu89rn9m...@4ax.com
>
>> If you look at the webpage under this URL
>> www.geocities.com/lorimer
>> ...you should find a very amusing 64-point match.
>
>Hi Derek,
>
>Thanks for making an effort to deliver on your promise.
>Actually, it's more than what I had expected (despite
>the HTML bugs or whatever) and I hope that you will
>continue on with the project...
More will arrive as I have time to run them through.
Apparently there was quite a flood of viewing when I posted the first --
I got a couple mails from Geoshitties pointing out that they had
actually temporarily turned off the site because of the bandwidth usage.
That seems silly, as there isn't more than 1MB worth of information
there, but I can't complain too much as it IS free.
>> I have 11 other matches by the same opponents which
>> will be posted there. I originally considered adding my
>> own commentary, but I think that the first match certainly
>> speaks for itself regarding the relative skill (and cube
>> skill) of the participants.
>
>Well, maybe it doesn't...?? If you will insist in burying your
>heads in the sand (not to say "in your asses" because I'm
>trying to be polite:)) and live in a limited world "created for
>you and sold to you" by some self-deceiving (if not worse)
>people, why do you even bother spending time analyzing
>my matches against gnudung...??
Because it does a much more accurate job of determining the best move in
any given situation than I would, and it does it more quickly, and it
provides this neat HTML export thing that allows me to splash something
up onto a webpage with minimal effort.
Deeper analysis as to "why is this good/bad?" would of course require a
human. However, simple determination of the "best move" in any given
situation is something that a computer is more than equipped to handle,
especially when it also is nice enough to provide equities along with to
distinguish just how much better certain moves are.
>> It also speaks for itself as regards someone's claims that
>> gnubg controls the dice and cheats to win...
>
>Actually, if this was true, it would be the best case scenario
>for the herds of ass-kissing "Morons" here...
However, you are willing to admit at this point that it is, in fact, NOT
true? It would be very easy to conceal "dice-forcing" in such a way
that you lose that match -- instead, there are some very large swings in
equity at several different points, and at the end there are four
separate rolls which all end up WELL in your favor.
>Stop deceiving yourselves...! When somebody wins most of
>a certain number of long matches against an extra-terrestrial
>opponent, you better ask why and how...
"Blind luck" is the conclusion as to why you won the first match. And a
damned lot of it, too.
>Take a close look at my moves... Hopefully you would agree
>that I'm capable of making the best moves or moves close to
>them most of the time. And then I make very very bad moves.
>Not much in between. So, it shouldn't take a rocket-scientist
>to see that those moves are made knowingly and on purpose.
If you recall, I did mention this at one point -- that it is possible to
deliberately make inferior moves in order to reduce one's position, thus
provoking the computer to double, as it has no way of knowing that you
are "downplaying" your position (and indeed doesn't care, nor should
it).
And if one were aware (as almost everyone is) that a computer will
almost NEVER lose its market, ie offer a double that should not be
taken, then one could use that information to gain a small advantage.
>One key question may be whether I can recover from them if
>they happen to explode in my face and the final result seems
>to prove that I can... So, maybe there is more to BG than just
>"cold statistics"...???
Oh, I wouldn't say it proves anything, Murat. Deliberately making poor
moves in a chess game will only provide you a victory if your opponent
is inferior to your own level of play.
Deliberately making poor moves in a backgammon game is relying on luck
to save you -- if you don't end up getting lucky, then you'll get
hammered. The last sequence of rolls in Match 1 demonstrates this
irrefutably.
Oh, by the way, you can't complain when gnubg rates you "Beginner" and
you're deliberately making very bad moves. The rating system in the
program (quite logically) assumes that people will attempt to play their
best game.
>I didn't post my matches here for personal satisfaction. Like
>some people already pointed out, I could pick and choose
>what matches I post... So, you should either not trust their
>validity and value at all or you should really take a close look
>at them beyond your ass-kissing habits towards your ideal
>rigged robots and/or book-publishing-world-class-gamblers...
I see no reason to trust their validity, other than that they are
games/matches that you actually played. I can't see that there's any
benefit for you in posting someone ELSE's games, so I'm willing to
assume that, if nothing else, these really are you v. gnubg.
Their value, on the other hand, is something else entirely.
>> take a good look at the luck factors at the bottom, and take
>> a good look at the series of rolls which conclude the match.
>
>"Luck factor" is someting I never brought up (i.e. complained
>about) in almost 6+ years of posting in this newgroup...!!!
Yeah, because you'd hate to have it come back and bite you in the ass.
I will try to get one of the 30-game matches next, as a good contrast.
>Here is one of the dumb "Morons" own adages that you can
>shove up your ass: "The better player prepares for the next
>rolls in such a way that whatever rolls he gets, he will seem
>to be the luckier player"...!!
That adage is only delivered to beginners, who don't understand how the
probabilities REALLY work in simple circumstances as whether they're
likely to be hit or not. Beginners tend to complain because they see
their opponent leaving blots everywhere (at 7-8 points away), and they
never seem to hit them, and then they leave their own blots (at 5-6
points away) and get hit repeatedly, blown off the board, and gammoned.
Unfortunately, when the position is simple enough, the luck factors
start to become far more obvious.
We begin our tale at move 61 -- bearing off has already begun, and Murat
is in a slightly superior position, having far fewer pieces caught
behind his 'gap'. He doubles to 8, at a 60% chance to win.
Gnubg considers it a wrong double, and I agree -- there are too many
rolls left in this game to be tossing the cube around. Doubles pops up
one in every 6 rolls, and there will certainly be at least ONE of those
seen, if not more. If that double happens to be a high one, things will
swing sharply -- and gnubg can make much more use of a high double than
Murat can in this position.
Move 62 is an "average" roll -- nothing special.
Move 63 illustrates this quite well -- gnubg gets one of the three
doubles that pull it completely out of the fire and push it into the
lead. Now the foolishness of the earlier cube decision is magnified, as
there are far fewer rolls left in the game to save Murat.
Move 64 is meaningful only in that Murat didn't roll a 2, which would
have hurt his position even worse -- and in that he now has gaps on both
the 2 and 3 points, making future misses a 56% chance already -- and
Murat can't afford to miss any more.
Move 65, gnubg sees its 70% winning chances and doubles. I doubt I
would have, myself; I'm a bit more skittish of rolls like 4-3, 5-3, 4-1,
and 5-1, none of which make things pleasant for me, especially if Murat
doesn't miss. But I also wouldn't have thought I had 70% chance of
winning here; I'd see it more at 60%.
Move 66, gnubg gets proved right, because when it rolls stuff like THIS
its winning chances go through the roof. At this point the only chance
Murat has to win is through high doubles (6-6/5-5), or for gnubg to miss
on its next roll (30% chance) while Murat DOESN'T miss (44% chance).
For those of us who are mathematically impaired, gnubg missing and Murat
failing to miss works out to about a 13% chance, and that just on the
next roll (Murat could miss on his second roll too, and if gnubg misses
once, it won't miss again). The chance of Murat rolling high doubles is
1/18, or 5.5%. All this boils down to about an 85% chance of gnubg
winning... and oh, look, that's what gnubg thinks too, although it can
do the math a lot faster than I can.
Move 67. Murat would like us all to believe that his double here is
part of some greater plan, but realistically, 5 out of 6 times from here
he just gets raped. I would like to see Murat defend his double here,
and indicate how it actually proves anything at ALL other than that he
really doesn't understand how the cube works, and has put his entire
faith in luck.
Move 68 doesn't change things much; 5-5 and 6-6 are still stupidly good
for Murat, but he DID hit his 44% chance by not missing. Unfortunately,
he still has to hit that same 44% chance *again* next roll, and I like
gnubg's 70% chance of not missing a lot better.
Move 69, gnubg predictably flings the cube back over, and so would I.
The only reason this is a "take" for Murat has to do with this being a
64-point match; his chances of winning this game are higher than his
chances of coming back in a match where he's down 32-0. No human would
ever let him push the cube up high enough twice to make it all up in a
single stroke (and it would be interesting to see if gnubg would let him
do so if it were up 32-0).
Move 70. Whiff! 30% raises its ugly head.
Move 71. Murat hits his 44% again -- and also avoids the "success" of
rolling 4-1, which would leave him an even higher chance of missing on
his next roll (although now even 2-2 is good for him).
Move 72. 16% chance of rolling doubles and winning here, no cookie.
Move 73. Murat only has to roll a 4, 5, or 6 here to win, and he does.
(3-3 and 2-2 also win).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, I don't see how this demonstrates anything about cube-skill,
other than "Murat doesn't have much of a grasp of it at all, and got
damned lucky to win." The math here was pretty obvious all the way
down, and the sequence of rolls Murat needed to win only had a 17%
chance of happening ... even assuming he could know that gnubg would
whiff on move 70, without which he STILL loses.
Feel free to defend your position, Murat. But you've got a lot of work
to do, because the math here is awfully straightforward.
Oh, that reminds me -- what happened to your courage you kept blabbering
about before? I certainly didn't see much in the way of "doubling at
every opportunity" in this game... in fact, you hung onto the cube at 4
for a very very very very long time. Not impressive for someone who, by
your own words:
>One key question may be whether I can recover from them if
>they happen to explode in my face and the final result seems
>to prove that I can...
If you have that much confidence in recovering from them, then you
should've been doubling every single time.
Murat Kalinyaprak
Derek Ray wrote 6upbpu8ussmbmputn...@4ax.com
> In 2831c30c.02092...@posting.google.com Murat
> Kalinyaprak mumbled something about:
>> Derek Ray wrote 1atroukbfnu89rn9m...@4ax.com
Thanks again for your effort and comments. I will do my part to
contribute some comments also and to keep the articles from
getting too long, I'll respond to what I deem most important...
>>> It also speaks for itself as regards someone's claims that
>>> gnubg controls the dice and cheats to win...
>> Actually, if this was true, it would be the best case scenario
>> for the herds of ass-kissing "Morons" here...
> However, you are willing to admit at this point that it is, in fact,
> NOT true?
Not at all... Here is what I mean, once more for the record:
"I still firmly believe that gnudung cheats and I try to make my
"own humble effort in order to counter that. And I attribute my
"success against in to having figured out its ways/patterns of
"cheating"...
What I was trying to say above is that if this is not the case, then
you guys (and me too, for that matter) would have much harder
time in explaining the results I'm getting against gnudung... Now,
is this clear enough this time...?
> It would be very easy to conceal "dice-forcing" in such a way
> that you lose that match -- instead, there are some very large
> swings in equity at several different points, and at the end
> there are four separate rolls which all end up WELL in your favor.
The dice forcing may be easy to conceal on a per roll basis but
not so easy to implement and if it is done on a per several rolls
basis, it may be easy to detect after literally thousands of games.
Unless gnudung has the dice and can pretend to evaluate cube
action, it has to roll the dice immediately after its opponents is
done with his move. Not much time to figure out what to do... So,
what it may do, for example, is to try to figure out what to do one
roll ahead while its opponents is thinking his move... I think this
is ridiculously obvious with gnudung... :)) If you want, we can get
into this more later but let me proceed with the subject on hand...
>> Stop deceiving yourselves...! When somebody wins most of
>> a certain number of long matches against an extra-terrestrial
>> opponent, you better ask why and how...
> "Blind luck" is the conclusion as to why you won the first match.
> And a damned lot of it, too.
But luck does (or is supposed to) even out in time, remember...??
So, unfortunately you will have to come up with a better explanation.
> And if one were aware (as almost everyone is) that a computer
> will almost NEVER lose its market, ie offer a double that should
> not be taken, then one could use that information to gain a small
> advantage.
I admit that I still don't understand nor do I care to understand all
that precisely calculated and intricate stuff like doubling window,
market losing, etc... I guess I just have a different way of going
about things... But as far as taking a bot's double, I have quite a
different reason than a bot's almost never losing its market, etc...
> Deliberately making poor moves in a backgammon game is
> relying on luck to save you -- if you don't end up getting lucky,
> then you'll get hammered. The last sequence of rolls in Match
> 1 demonstrates this irrefutably.
Not true at all... Your are relying on bots' evaluations which are
mainly based on consecutively making the statistically best
moves... It is a very subjective evaluation and a very limited one
at that, because bots just aren't sophisticated enough yet of any
strategy beyond paying the "cold statistics". I think this is where
bg is nowadays suffering in the hands of "coin-tossing gamblers"...
> Oh, by the way, you can't complain when gnubg rates you
> "Beginner" and you're deliberately making very bad moves.
> The rating system in the program (quite logically) assumes
> that people will attempt to play their best game.
I never complained about it. I said that I get a kick out of its rating
me a "beginner" while I repeatedly whip its "extraterrestrial" ass.
Obviously, gnudung is out to lunch on this issue of "ratings"...
> We begin our tale at move 61 --
Let me start much earlier, at move 4...!!
I play very fast in "Turkish coffee house bg style"... I don't worry
about fine details like whether I have a 44% or a 52% chances
of hitting, etc... In this position, I fugure that I have roughly 50%
chance of hitting and getting ahead in a "long" match... "Long"
is the key word here. I don't worry about cube ownership, since
my opponent has access to the cube when it's centered anyway.
I just want to raise the stakes whenever I can and so I do it here...
Remember, if we you are playing with the cube, "use it"...! Don't
just let the silly thing sit there...
Move #8..."Bad"...? Hmmm... When I have the 20 point on that
diagram and when my opponent has nothing more than the
12 and 17 points (which it started out with) and have 4 pieces
in my home board as candidates to be blocked in, I don't think
I need that "precious" 13 point anymore... If I'm wrong and you
or gnudung are right, so be it...
Move #16... "Very bad"...? No way...!! This is very isteresting...
Take a look. I have to get in with "bar/22(2)". That, we already
know. Now, don't ask me why but I want to keep my man on the
23 point... I just have no way of playing 2 more 3's in any way
other than the way I played... Plain and simple but can you see
why I want to keep that guy on the 23 point...??
At this point, let me clarify something, make a claim and offer
a bet...
If it sounds like I make such moves taking 10 minutes to think,
you are wrong... As I said before, I play at the "Turkish coffee
house speed"...!! I claim that I will beat gnudung not only at
long matches but even at short 1-pointers **against the clock**
on even the fastest desktop computers (i.e. nat a "Cray")... Do
you or anybody else wants to bet and for how much...??
Move #31... According to gnudung this is my next "bad" move...
What am I supposed to do...? Give up the 20 point by playing
20/14 9/8...?? Hah hahhh... Get lost miserable bot...
Move #35... Bad move again...? What is this bot wanting me
to do for god's sake...??
This is a 64-point match and the cube is only at 4. So, the night
is still young...
I have 5 men in gnudung's home board, in 2 points vs. its having
only 2 points and a blot...! I just can't let his blot on my own 3 point
get away...!!
After my "bad" move, I have 4-points and a blot aginst gndung's
2-points and a blot... My being behind a 4-block is irrelevant in
this decision since I'm there anyway no matter how I move...
Look at my next several moves... I can't cover and save my blot
on my 3 point but am I worried about it...? No...
Let's cut it short and jump to where we lose contact... At that point
I'm ahead by 1 pip and I'm on roll, (i.e. I'm ahead by about 9+ pips).
By the coin tossing logic and strategy, I already won, right...??? :))
I mean, after 4 billions of games starting at this very position, I
would win more and on top of that, the cube is yet at a measly 4
in a looong 64-point match...
Now that the "skill-stage" ended and the "luck-stage" begun, we
proceed to move #62 where you chose to begin your comments...
> bearing off has already begun, and Murat is in a slightly superior
> position, having far fewer pieces caught behind his 'gap'. He
> doubles to 8, at a 60% chance to win.
> Gnubg considers it a wrong double, and I agree -- there are too
> many rolls left in this game to be tossing the cube around.
Gnudung and you are wrong...!! I'm 3 pips ahead, one roll ahead
and have a better distribution of my pieces... This is a 64-point
match and the the worse that I can lose is only 16 points...!
> Doubles pops up one in every 6 rolls, and there will certainly be
> at least ONE of those seen, if not more. If that double happens
> to be a high one, things will swing sharply -- and gnubg can make
> much more use of a high double than Murat can in this position.
You are in denial and telling yourself feel-good stories... Zzzzz :(((
> Move 62 is an "average" roll -- nothing special.
> Move 63 illustrates this quite well -- gnubg gets one of the three
> doubles that pull it completely out of the fire and push it into the
> lead. Now the foolishness of the earlier cube decision is magnified,
> as there are far fewer rolls left in the game to save Murat.
Heh heh... Gnudung has a "tower" on its 4 point and rolls a 44 and
you still talk about saving Murat...? Why did you skip talking about
saving gnudung...??
On top of that "very lucky" roll, it rolls another "lucky" roll of 65...
If gnudung was capable of any more than 1-ply luck analysis, you
would have perhaps seen it... (Too bad you won't look at what
I try to show you)... :((
> Move 67. Murat would like us all to believe that his double here
> is part of some greater plan, but realistically, 5 out of 6 times from
> here he just gets raped. I would like to see Murat defend his double
> here, and indicate how it actually proves anything at ALL other than
> that he really doesn't understand how the cube works, and has put
> his entire faith in luck.
This is a simple position. I'm a roll ahead but a 8 pips behind... So,
things are even just before my roll, (which means that I need to roll a
double vs. gnudung's not rolling a double for the remaining few rolls).
But I'm looking at this within the context of:
1) I'm the inferior player against the extraterrestrial dung here...
2) The cube is only at 16 in a 64-point match...
3) This is only one of a series of many 64-point matches...
> The only reason this is a "take" for Murat has to do with this
> being a 64-point match;
Looks like you got this one right... :))
> his chances of winning this game are higher than his chances
> of coming back in a match where he's down 32-0. No human
> would ever let him push the cube up high enough twice to make
> it all up in a single stroke (and it would be interesting to see if
> gnubg would let him do so if it were up 32-0).
Please remember that I have been emphasizing all along that my
moves are "adjusted" for playing against a "sterile statistical" bot
and my belief that gnudung is a cheating piece of shit... No, make
that "scum"... It sounds better, especially after writing this long of
an article without hardly swearing at all... :))
Gosh, you almost succeeded in getting me serious about bg here
for a moment... :))
> Move 73. Murat only has to roll a 4, 5, or 6 here to win, and he
> does. (3-3 and 2-2 also win).
Lucky for you...!!! :)) Remember that I was ahead when the contact
was broken... If gnudung had won (which it came "realisticly" close:)),
I would have told you to shove it up your ass...
Believe me, I would have preferred to be able to say that to you than
to have won a match and get blamed for gotting lucky against some
piece of extra-terrestrial cheating scum...
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Personally, I don't see how this demonstrates anything about
> cube-skill, other than "Murat doesn't have much of a grasp of it
> at all, and got damned lucky to win." The math here was pretty
> obvious all the way down, and the sequence of rolls Murat
> needed to win only had a 17% chance of happening ... even
> assuming he could know that gnubg would whiff on move 70,
> without which he STILL loses.
> Feel free to defend your position, Murat. But you've got a lot of
> work to do, because the math here is awfully straightforward.
As much as I may have to defend my checker and cube decisions,
you may have to explain how is it happaening that I keep winning
more than imaginable...?
I would be happy to repeat my performance against gnudung in
front of spectators/witnesses on even shit-pit like FIBS... Let's
ask Patti to lift my site-ban so I can log on and demontrate it to
you (not to say shove it up your dumb asses:))...
> Oh, that reminds me -- what happened to your courage you
> kept blabbering about before? I certainly didn't see much in
> the way of "doubling at every opportunity" in this game... in
> fact, you hung onto the cube at 4 for a very very very very long
> time. Not impressive for someone who, by your own words:
Yes, I played literally thousands of "matches" (not games!!!)
against JF and then gnudung, with chunks of tens or hundreds
of matches for different purposes...
I asked people what would they offer as bets on me playing
against gnudung while doubling at my every opportunity but
nobody, including you!!! had come forward...
If you would want, we can pursue such a bet still... Just name
how much you would want to bet on how many percent oy my
winning 25, 50 or 64-point matches against gnudung while I
double at my each and every opportunity...
>> One key question may be whether I can recover from them if
>> they happen to explode in my face and the final result seems
>> to prove that I can...
> If you have that much confidence in recovering from them,
> then you should've been doubling every single time.
Not necessarily... I played so many series of long matches for
so many purposes... I'm not ashamed to admit that I even played
making random cube decisions, similar to the experiments
they had done with old ladies in quilting-clubs and monkeys to
play the stock market...
If some monkeys did just as good with the cube as your much
adored book-writing-world-class-clowns, you guys would have
been heart-broken much more than me... :))
Anyway, as I realised that I wrote a very long article with less
than my average swear-words per paragraph, I'm pisses at
myself and feel the pressure of having to say something like
"fuck you", etc.. to make up for it just before I finish... :))
But I'll resist and say have a good day my friends... :((
MK
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Kim
hey murat how about this? u post one of your 1,285 unfinished
matches from fibs so we all can see how brilliantly you were playing
before you dropped the match. LOLLLLLLLL
Warwick
You can beat the inferior robot most of the time, except when it cheats.
And it cheats all the time.
Is that a fair abstraction of your latest effort in creative writing?
Best
Warwick
"Murat Kalinyaprak" <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote in message
news:3d96...@post.newsfeed.com...
Murat Kalinyaprak
Kim wrote b6609a77.02092...@posting.google.com
> hey murat how about this? u post one of your 1,285 unfinished
> matches from fibs so we all can see how brilliantly you were
> playing before you dropped the match. LOLLLLLLLL
Hey Kim,
Do you know how many matches I got to play on the "shit-pit"
just a few days ago using the nickname "optionaldrop"...? :))
If you don't know, ask Patti. I'm sure she can tell you, or for that
matter tell us all here openly...
Do I need to explain that the nickname "optionaldrop" was to
mock at the notion of "optional double"...??
I don't know about you but I'm having fun... :)) Yet, if you wanted
to get serious, I could get serious too. I would have no problem
posting here any matces I won or I lost (drpped) if they could be
somehow taken as proof of what "shit-pit" is made of...
To that end, I myself proposed countless times to play on the
"shit-pit" against any opponent, as many games as you guys
would want me to, as long as they are witnesses by at least
two people from this group and posted to this group...
Somehow, nonody has ever written one single fucking word
to pursue this... What about you...? Do you think you could fit
FIBS up your ass...???
Surely I wouldn't waste so much time just for you who can't do
any more than spitting 3-4 lines of silly stuff but I wanted to take
the opportunity to dare any and all ass-kissing-Morons of RGB.
Come on "herd"...! Raise your hand... Speak up...
Kim
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
ok its painfully obvious to everyone here that you dont like (for
whatever reason) fibs. well you know what? no one cares! build a
bridge and get over it! whenever you have something intelligent to
say, we would welcome your comments, otherwise STFU!
Murat Kalinyaprak
Kim wrote b6609a77.02093...@posting.google.com
> ok its painfully obvious to everyone here that you dont like (for
> whatever reason) fibs.
What "whatever reason"...?? I think I have been more than clear
enough about why I don't like the "shit-pit" for anybody to still be
saying "for whatever reason"...
> well you know what? no one cares!
Exactly... I'm having a bad dream about falling off of a cliff and I
try to scream for help, but no sound comes out of my mouth... :(
I wake up in sweat and have to write these to the dumb Morons
who are just spectating it all, while muching on ther pop-corns...
If the scum sucking sick bastards were in the business of running
movie theaters, they couldn't have been more satisfied... :((
Don't care, Kim, please don't care... Remember that Jesus had
also said: "Don't care, for they're only busting their butts to show
you what you can't see"... (25.10.117.6)
> build a bridge and get over it! whenever you have something
> intelligent to say, we would welcome your comments, otherwise
> STFU!
Sorry, I have nothing more intelligent to say... Perhaps I could
FTSU instead ("fuck the shut up") in order to make up for it..??