Backgammon is a strange game ..
az-willie
awful in almost every category.
It said gnubg was supernatural etc. in almost all categories
But I won the game big time.
Funny I thought.
Scott Steiner
Did you check the luck rate? Plus, isn't probably an issue here, but
what are your analysis settings?
Douglas Zare
az-willie wrote:
The reason you won is that ... you deserve to win! Not 100% of the
time, and it sounds like maybe not even 30% of the time, but you
deserve to win some of the time. For knowing to hit when you get a good
shot, you deserve to win a few percent of the time. For knowing to make
inner board points, you deserve to win a few percent of the time. If
you know when to play safely versus boldly, you will deserve to win a
few percent more. As you get better, you will not only deserve to win
more, and you will win more, and perhaps only a few humans and programs
will still deserve to win more than 50% of the time against you.
Douglas Zare
Derek Ray
mu...@compuplus.net (Murat Kalinyaprak) mumbled something about:
>What you called "funny", he had called "amusing" and he had
>declared: "I have 11 other matches by the same opponents
>which will be posted there"... But he failed to follow up on his
>promise... :(( Perhaps, he might have liked shoving up those
>remaining 11 matches up his ass rather than analysing and
>posting them at his web site... :))
No. I just don't have the time to waste on someone who refuses to
actually discuss the facts. If Geocities hadn't been free, I probably
wouldn't have bothered. Sane people only need the one match to realize
just how out-of-mind you are anyway.
You spend most of your time avoiding issues and trying to twist every
conversation into a discussion about things which cannot be proven,
instead of observing the situation as it stands. I posted a very brief,
obvious analysis of the situation which involved you getting
demonstrably lucky; you opted to ignore the whole thing and rant
senselessly about how much "luckier" gnubg must have gotten, and how it
was really all your mad skill. Right. Whatever. You don't seem to
realize that one roll to the next doesn't have any relevance in the
grand scheme of things, and the past dice rolls don't influence the
future.
In short, you're a kook who is simply interested in "air-time", and not
interested in any sort of meaningful debate. I note that you've already
refused to respond to several offers to gamble. I suggest you go back
and find those; that's about all the air-time you're going to find
anymore.
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Derek Ray
(bunch of crap snipped)
I believe little to nothing of what you say. You consistently refuse to
acknowledge and make use of the scientific method, preferring instead
the ever-classic "proof by assertion"; you consistently attempt to argue
about side issues instead of the original one, throwing up straw-man
after straw-man for yourself to shoot down instead of responding.
Several people have offered you more appealing variants on your "bet"
(which is pointless); you've done nothing but woof. I personally
wouldn't gamble anything against you unless you were right there, in
person, and the money was being held by a trusted third party: punks
like you are all the same.
Bye now.