info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts
rigged backgammon
641 views
Skip to first unread message
glen moulder
Aug 18, 2023, 3:20:48 PM8/18/23
to
The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer. I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up". I can have my opponent on the bar with only one opening and way to hit me, and think, " the only way out is for the roll to be a 6 - 1" and that's what happens. Wish I could stop being seduced into playing. Wish, and would pay subscription money, to play in an "honest" game.
Frank Berger
Aug 18, 2023, 5:01:11 PM8/18/23
to
glen moulder schrieb am Freitag, 18. August 2023 um 21:20:48 UTC+2:
> The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.
Would you bet on that under controlled conditions? Say you win if you predict 5 out of 10 and loose otherwise?
> The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.
>I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up".
But it is you own fault. Do the same that your opponent did to get the good rolls (because that is the funny thing with BG, your bad roll is his good roll).
MK
Aug 18, 2023, 6:47:17 PM8/18/23
to
On August 18, 2023 at 3:01:11 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> glen moulder schrieb am 18. August 2023 um 21:20:48 UTC+2:
>> Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.
> Would you bet on that under controlled conditions?
A better bet on predicting rolls would be whether
a specific roll will happen or not, i.e. "yes or no",
with the amount won or lost being based on the
actual odds of that roll happening.
For example, if he predicts that the next roll will be
61 (or 16) and bets $1 on it, he should win $17 if it
happens and lose $1 if it doesn't happen. Or on the
opposite, if he predicts that the next roll will not be
61 (and 16) and bets $1 on it, he should only win $1
if it happens and lose $17 if it doesn't happen.
Similarly, for predicting a double the odds should be
1 to 35; for predicting only one number odds should
be 1 to 5; etc.
In fact compound bets can be made, such as "I will
not roll a 5 or 6, (i.e. to escape a blot), and then my
opponent will roll a 2 or double 1's, (to hit me)", etc.
and the amounts won or lost will be based on the
actual compounded odds.
If you offer this to me under controlled conditions,
let's say against the "rigged" Gnu-Dung ;), I'll take it.
>> I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin
>> bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a
>> double 6 for "catch up".
> O.k. that convices me. I never heard that happened
> in real life.
You keep making this "never in real life" comment all
the time, even when people don't necessarily imply it,
in order to score points against your own strawman
that you create by exaggerating.
A better argument would be "how often" in "real life"
vs on "online servers" or "bots".
You guys seem to have amassed huge amounts of
games of each kind to be able to look at them and
find the answers for all kinds of similar questions,
such as "how often does a human vs a bot rolls an
anti-joker immediately after a cube action", etc. but
instead of doing the work to put an end to it, you all
prefer to just blabber nonsense about it forever... :(
MK
> glen moulder schrieb am 18. August 2023 um 21:20:48 UTC+2:
>> Can almost predict the next throw by the computer.
> Would you bet on that under controlled conditions?
> win if you predict 5 out of 10 and loose otherwise?
What kind of stupid bet is this..?
A better bet on predicting rolls would be whether
a specific roll will happen or not, i.e. "yes or no",
with the amount won or lost being based on the
actual odds of that roll happening.
For example, if he predicts that the next roll will be
61 (or 16) and bets $1 on it, he should win $17 if it
happens and lose $1 if it doesn't happen. Or on the
opposite, if he predicts that the next roll will not be
61 (and 16) and bets $1 on it, he should only win $1
if it happens and lose $17 if it doesn't happen.
Similarly, for predicting a double the odds should be
1 to 35; for predicting only one number odds should
be 1 to 5; etc.
In fact compound bets can be made, such as "I will
not roll a 5 or 6, (i.e. to escape a blot), and then my
opponent will roll a 2 or double 1's, (to hit me)", etc.
and the amounts won or lost will be based on the
actual compounded odds.
If you offer this to me under controlled conditions,
let's say against the "rigged" Gnu-Dung ;), I'll take it.
>> I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin
>> bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a
>> double 6 for "catch up".
> O.k. that convices me. I never heard that happened
> in real life.
the time, even when people don't necessarily imply it,
in order to score points against your own strawman
that you create by exaggerating.
A better argument would be "how often" in "real life"
vs on "online servers" or "bots".
You guys seem to have amassed huge amounts of
games of each kind to be able to look at them and
find the answers for all kinds of similar questions,
such as "how often does a human vs a bot rolls an
anti-joker immediately after a cube action", etc. but
instead of doing the work to put an end to it, you all
prefer to just blabber nonsense about it forever... :(
MK
peps...@gmail.com
Aug 19, 2023, 4:00:27 AM8/19/23
to
1. I do believe MK makes some reasonable points, but
the argument is very well-worn.
2. I do believe the dice are random. For open-source
code, this can be checked. Random-number generation
is very well-known, and I don't see any motivation to
introduce non-random dice, and I don't see any evidence
of non-randomness.
3. The "never in real life" comment was sarcastic, as I read it.
Paul
Tony The Welsh Twat
Aug 19, 2023, 12:06:57 PM8/19/23
to
So, for the (real) app in question, it has a nasty habit of rolling lots of 6-5s in the end race where the user gets a lot of 2-1, 3-1, 1-1, 3-2 rolls.
Repeatedly.
I suspect he hasn't quite got the noise right in his cheaty bit of code (i.e only call it if a number between 1 and 10 is higher than 7).
If you can prove definitively that your app isn't cheating, why wouldn't you?
Frank Berger
Aug 19, 2023, 3:51:48 PM8/19/23
to
Tony The Welsh Twat schrieb am Samstag, 19. August 2023 um 18:06:57 UTC+2:
> So, for the (real) app in question, it has a nasty habit of rolling lots of 6-5s in the end race where the user gets a lot of 2-1, 3-1, 1-1, 3-2 rolls.
could you provide some data that can be analyzed, e.g. the bots average in running games is 8.7 compared to 7.2 in 473 rolls? Even better if you have recorded all rolls. Than one could do e.g. a phi-square test and get some data to talk about. Nasty habit isn't something one can judge.
> So, for the (real) app in question, it has a nasty habit of rolling lots of 6-5s in the end race where the user gets a lot of 2-1, 3-1, 1-1, 3-2 rolls.
> If you can prove definitively that your app isn't cheating, why wouldn't you?
But in most complains one never sees relevant data.....
MK
Aug 19, 2023, 8:28:25 PM8/19/23
to
On August 19, 2023 at 2:00:27 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just a few remarks.
> 1. I do believe MK makes some reasonable
> points, but the argument is very well-worn.
Yes, unfortunately way too "well-worn" because
> Just a few remarks.
> 1. I do believe MK makes some reasonable
> points, but the argument is very well-worn.
server operators and bot developers refuse to
implement just one or two simple features that
could finally satisfy the old-timer complainers
and quickly convince new-comer complainers.
> 2. I do believe the dice are random.
out arguments that had already been rebutted,
by offering nothing more than your "beliefs"...
> For open-source code, this can be checked.
open-source. And even that by itself isn't enough
as a definitively convincing proof, because there
remain arguments such as that one's inability to
find the cheating code doesn't prove that it's not
there, that the code one is looking at may not be
the one used to compile the EXE, etc. What I mean
is that overwhelming majority of users out there
aren't programmers who have to take the word of
someone else whom they may not trust.
> Random-number generation is very well-known,
algorithms used by servers and bots aren't known.
> and I don't see any motivation to introduce non-
> random dice,
> and I don't see any evidence of non-randomness.
that it doesn't exist.
Also, definition of randomness varies, especially if
coupled with the concept of fairness.
Another thing I often wonder is how the distribution
and much more importantly the dispersion of rolls
may be affected by the way numbers are generated
individually and then grouped by twos, threes, etc.
depending on how many dice need to be rolled, and
also dealt to each player in alternating order...? Can
a well dispersed series of single numbers become
badly clustered when paired alternatingly..?? (Many
times I suspected that dice rolls from random.org
may be suffering from this or something similar.)
> 3. The "never in real life" comment was sarcastic,
> as I read it.
for me to emend my comments? I admitted at times
that I have difficulty understanding Frank. What you
would say could help me with that. Exaggerating is a
common element of sarcasm but couldn't I talk about
it without worrying and/or saying something about if
he may have said it with sarcasm or not..? (Actually,
feel free to not elaborate on this if you don't want to.
Who gives a shit, really..?)
MK
MK
Aug 19, 2023, 8:43:28 PM8/19/23
to
On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
> I genuinely wonder what your view is of a developer
> of a backgammon app who is challenged (and refuses
> to acquiesce) to (a) display the RNG seed in use for
> any given game
This is a valid argument that has been made many
> I genuinely wonder what your view is of a developer
> of a backgammon app who is challenged (and refuses
> to acquiesce) to (a) display the RNG seed in use for
> any given game
times over the years. Servers should use separate
instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
that was used for each game after it's completed.
The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
> and (b) give the user the option of playing a new game
> using that seed.
may be able to remember some recent sequences
of dice rolls and play differently the second time
around, which would amount to cheating...
MK
MK
Aug 19, 2023, 10:15:44 PM8/19/23
to
On August 19, 2023 at 1:51:48 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> Tony The Welsh Twat schrieb am 19. August 2023 um 18:06:57 UTC+2:
>> If you can prove definitively that your
>> app isn't cheating, why wouldn't you?
> Maybe .....
I think this is a good opportunity to give
Frank and his BG-Bzzt the due credit for
implementing the complete suite of all
possible dice rolling methods, (including
the desirable features for each of them),
that no other bot comes close to offering.
His bot includes:
1 - Several built-in RNG's which allow the
selecting of the initial seed (although I'm
not sure how the "counter" works).
2 - Getting dice from random.org
3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
4 - Reading dice from a file
5 - Manual dice input using the mouse
and/or the keyboard.
Manual dice is really the only way a bot
can't look at the upcoming dice rolls and
feeding a bot dice rolls from an external
process should be just as good, (unless a
bot can be so sophisticated to intercept
even those, which is virtually impossible).
With all this said and for all the hard time
I've been giving Frank, I wanted to make a
gesture to him by providing below, a very
simple sample code for an external utility
to feed manual dice to his bot. You can,
of course, improve it to use a better RNG
algorithm, to read dice from a file or even
fetch dice from random.org, which all will
look like manual dice to the bot. Enjoy... :)
MK
==================================
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <windows.h>
int seed, die1, die2;
byte keyp;
HWND xgdd;
int main() {
printf ("Enter seed: ");
scanf ("%d", &seed);
srand (seed);
while (seed > 0) {
while ((xgdd = FindWindow (NULL, "Get Dice")) == 0) {
sleep(1);
}
die1 = rand() % 6 + 1;
die2 = rand() % 6 + 1;
SetForegroundWindow (xgdd);
keyp = die1 + 48;
keybd_event (keyp, 0, 0, 0);
keybd_event (keyp, 0, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
keyp = die2 + 48;
keybd_event (keyp, 0, 0, 0);
keybd_event (keyp, 0, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
keybd_event (VK_RETURN, 0, 0, 0);
keybd_event (VK_RETURN, 0, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
printf ("Rolled: %d %d \n", die1, die2);
sleep(1);
xgdd = 0;
}
exit(0);
}
==================================
(The above code should compile okay using
even the most limited, portable C compilers.)
> Tony The Welsh Twat schrieb am 19. August 2023 um 18:06:57 UTC+2:
>> If you can prove definitively that your
>> app isn't cheating, why wouldn't you?
I think this is a good opportunity to give
Frank and his BG-Bzzt the due credit for
implementing the complete suite of all
possible dice rolling methods, (including
the desirable features for each of them),
that no other bot comes close to offering.
His bot includes:
1 - Several built-in RNG's which allow the
selecting of the initial seed (although I'm
not sure how the "counter" works).
2 - Getting dice from random.org
3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
4 - Reading dice from a file
5 - Manual dice input using the mouse
and/or the keyboard.
Manual dice is really the only way a bot
can't look at the upcoming dice rolls and
feeding a bot dice rolls from an external
process should be just as good, (unless a
bot can be so sophisticated to intercept
even those, which is virtually impossible).
With all this said and for all the hard time
I've been giving Frank, I wanted to make a
gesture to him by providing below, a very
simple sample code for an external utility
to feed manual dice to his bot. You can,
of course, improve it to use a better RNG
algorithm, to read dice from a file or even
fetch dice from random.org, which all will
look like manual dice to the bot. Enjoy... :)
MK
==================================
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <windows.h>
int seed, die1, die2;
byte keyp;
HWND xgdd;
int main() {
printf ("Enter seed: ");
scanf ("%d", &seed);
srand (seed);
while (seed > 0) {
while ((xgdd = FindWindow (NULL, "Get Dice")) == 0) {
sleep(1);
}
die1 = rand() % 6 + 1;
die2 = rand() % 6 + 1;
SetForegroundWindow (xgdd);
keyp = die1 + 48;
keybd_event (keyp, 0, 0, 0);
keybd_event (keyp, 0, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
keyp = die2 + 48;
keybd_event (keyp, 0, 0, 0);
keybd_event (keyp, 0, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
keybd_event (VK_RETURN, 0, 0, 0);
keybd_event (VK_RETURN, 0, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
printf ("Rolled: %d %d \n", die1, die2);
sleep(1);
xgdd = 0;
}
exit(0);
}
==================================
(The above code should compile okay using
even the most limited, portable C compilers.)
Timothy Chow
Aug 20, 2023, 8:58:30 AM8/20/23
to
On 8/19/2023 8:43 PM, MK wrote:
> On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>
>> I genuinely wonder what your view is of a developer
>> of a backgammon app who is challenged (and refuses
>> to acquiesce) to (a) display the RNG seed in use for
>> any given game
>
> This is a valid argument that has been made many
> times over the years. Servers should use separate
> instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
> that was used for each game after it's completed.
> The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
It's a valid argument, but it still wouldn't prevent someone from
> On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>
>> I genuinely wonder what your view is of a developer
>> of a backgammon app who is challenged (and refuses
>> to acquiesce) to (a) display the RNG seed in use for
>> any given game
>
> This is a valid argument that has been made many
> times over the years. Servers should use separate
> instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
> that was used for each game after it's completed.
> The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
claiming that the seed was calculated after the fact in order to
retrofit the dishonest sequence.
>> and (b) give the user the option of playing a new game
>> using that seed.
>
> I don't see how would this help anything..? People
> may be able to remember some recent sequences
> of dice rolls and play differently the second time
> around, which would amount to cheating...
Mersenne Twister) would no longer be suitable, because the seed
could be deduced after some number of rolls, especially if (as seems
to be commonly the case) people don't use the maximum possible seed
size.
---
Tim Chow
Tony The Welsh Twat
Aug 20, 2023, 10:25:42 AM8/20/23
to
On Sunday, 20 August 2023 at 01:43:28 UTC+1, MK wrote:
> I don't see how would this help anything..? People
> may be able to remember some recent sequences
> of dice rolls and play differently the second time
> around, which would amount to cheating...
>
> MK
Well the app in question is almost certainly injecting iffy dice at various points (particularly during the end game).
> I don't see how would this help anything..? People
> may be able to remember some recent sequences
> of dice rolls and play differently the second time
> around, which would amount to cheating...
>
> MK
By noting the dice generated by a given seed and then replaying the second game differently, those injections would occur at different times and therefore prove beyond all doubt that cheating was occurring.
Just to amuse you, the developer has responded to my latest request by calling it "dumb" :-)
Yeah, of course, proving beyond all doubt that your app isn't cheating sure is "dumb".
Frank Berger
Aug 20, 2023, 5:11:23 PM8/20/23
to
MK schrieb am Sonntag, 20. August 2023 um 04:15:44 UTC+2:
> 3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
just nitpicking: it's Groovy source code, no dll
> 3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
>(although I'm not sure how the "counter" works).
I further have implemented a live preview for the dice for the user recently ( http://bgblitz.com/images/HUD_t.png ) so *he* can see what dice will come and they not changed after a move. Naturally the user could cheat now, but the AI doesn't care ;) In fact complains have decreased since then, but I have no idea whether there is a correlation or it is only by accident.
ah...Clem
Aug 20, 2023, 6:21:04 PM8/20/23
to
On 8/18/2023 3:20 PM, glen moulder wrote:
> The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer. I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up". I can have my opponent on the bar with only one opening and way to hit me, and think, " the only way out is for the roll to be a 6 - 1" and that's what happens. Wish I could stop being seduced into playing. Wish, and would pay subscription money, to play in an "honest" game.
Yes, this is a problem that has been recognized for over 25 years.
> The only people who say that backgammon sites are not rigged are employees of 247, BG and VIP. It is soooo obvious. Can almost predict the next throw by the computer. I can be 25 pips ahead and almost ready to begin bearing off, and the opponent will suddenly roll a double 6 for "catch up". I can have my opponent on the bar with only one opening and way to hit me, and think, " the only way out is for the roll to be a 6 - 1" and that's what happens. Wish I could stop being seduced into playing. Wish, and would pay subscription money, to play in an "honest" game.
Fortunately, we have a solution in the Official Complaint Form, which I
encourage you to download, fill out, and post the completed form here.
We have operators standing by to diagnose and address your problem.
See https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+546
HTH. HAND.
MK
Aug 20, 2023, 10:14:44 PM8/20/23
to
On August 20, 2023 at 6:58:30 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/19/2023 8:43 PM, MK wrote:
>> On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>>> display the RNG seed in use for any given game
>> This is a valid argument that has been made many
>> times over the years. Servers should use separate
>> instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
>> that was used for each game after it's completed.
>> The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
> On 8/19/2023 8:43 PM, MK wrote:
>> On August 19, 2023 at 10:06:57 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>>> display the RNG seed in use for any given game
>> This is a valid argument that has been made many
>> times over the years. Servers should use separate
>> instances of RNG's for users and disclose the seed
>> that was used for each game after it's completed.
>> The same applies to bots like Ex-Gee.
> it still wouldn't prevent someone from claiming
> that the seed was calculated after the fact in
> order to retrofit the dishonest sequence.
Yes and as I thought more about it, I realized that
> that the seed was calculated after the fact in
> order to retrofit the dishonest sequence.
actually it's much worse than that.
You were one of the people who have put a lot of
thought, if not any research, into this. I was going
to ask your opinion about emailing the encrypted
seed before the game and then emailing the key
after the game, similar to what you had proposed
in the past, like this about cryptographic protocols:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/u1npu-1FR9U/m/NphoLCBXj8AJ
But I quickly realized that if a server wants to make
a player win, it can pick one of thousands of seeds
that will give him a winning sequence of rolls, with
no need for retrofitting afterwards.
I wonder how many seed would start with a 52, 55,
dance, double, drop sequence? In fact, such similar
sequences may raise so much more suspicion that
I also wonder if servers may actually suppress them?
When we were talking about me playing online with
bets gainst bots, (or humans), I had said that being
disclosed the seed after each game would be good
enough for me to trust the server's dice. Thinking
back, I'm glad that no such bets took place because
I could have been made to loose bad... :(
>>> give the user the option of playing a new game
>>> using that seed.
>> I don't see how would this help anything..? People
>> may be able to remember some recent sequences
>> of dice rolls and play differently the second time
>> around, which would amount to cheating...
> If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
> used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
> longer be suitable, because the seed could be
> deduced after some number of rolls,
in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
anyone here has an educated guess?
It was often said that the average number of rolls
in a game is about 54. If the seed can be deduced
in fewer than 54 rolls, it can give a huge anvantage
even if rarely and/or towards the end of the game.
If this is possible at all, some players can use it to
cheat their opponents even on most honest servers.
MK
MK
Aug 20, 2023, 10:47:37 PM8/20/23
to
On August 20, 2023 at 8:25:42 AM UTC-6, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
> On 20 August 2023 at 01:43:28 UTC+1, MK wrote:
>> I don't see how would this help anything..?
to let players know the seed and replay using the
same seed, a less laborious solution would be:
1 - For the owners to provide a stand-alone utility
version of their RNG, so that users can enter the
same seed and see if it rolls the same sequences.
2 - For the owners to at least publish the algorithm
for their RNG, so that users can compile it to create
their own stand-alone utility that I mentioned above.
I had proposed this on many occasions, in the past,
regarding Ex-Gee for example, because even hough
"a source code" allegedly for its internal RNG, there
is no way to verify if it really is, (and thus, of course,
if the dice are random), because the seeds are not
shown nor allowed to be selected by the user. For
as long as owners refuse to offer such simple ways
to appease users, users will continue to justifiably
not trust them... :(
MK
> On 20 August 2023 at 01:43:28 UTC+1, MK wrote:
>> I don't see how would this help anything..?
> By noting the dice generated by a given seed and
> then replaying the second game differently, those
> injections would occur at different times
If the app/server owner would already cooperate
> then replaying the second game differently, those
> injections would occur at different times
to let players know the seed and replay using the
same seed, a less laborious solution would be:
1 - For the owners to provide a stand-alone utility
version of their RNG, so that users can enter the
same seed and see if it rolls the same sequences.
2 - For the owners to at least publish the algorithm
for their RNG, so that users can compile it to create
their own stand-alone utility that I mentioned above.
I had proposed this on many occasions, in the past,
regarding Ex-Gee for example, because even hough
"a source code" allegedly for its internal RNG, there
is no way to verify if it really is, (and thus, of course,
if the dice are random), because the seeds are not
shown nor allowed to be selected by the user. For
as long as owners refuse to offer such simple ways
to appease users, users will continue to justifiably
not trust them... :(
MK
MK
Aug 20, 2023, 11:23:44 PM8/20/23
to
On August 20, 2023 at 3:11:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> MK schrieb am 20. August 2023 um 04:15:44 UTC+2:
>> 3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
> just nitpicking: it's Groovy source code, no dll
Ah, okay. That must be Java equivalent of DLL?
>> (although I'm not sure how the "counter" works).
chose a big number, you would sit there and wait
for it to internally go through all those rolls before
the game would start...
I wasn't sure if yours was the same because unlike
Jellyfish, BG-Bzzt doesn't increment and display it
if you look at it during the game.
> I further have implemented a live preview for the
> dice for the user recently
I saw that but didn't mention for not wanting to talk
about to many things at once. The semi-transparent
background was on both sides but for me numbers
appeared always on the right side (perhaps a bug?).
> In fact complains have decreased since then, but
> I have no idea whether there is a correlation
Maybe. Users can look for suspicious past moves
by scrolling the game record up and down, in other
bots. Volunteering it may have a preemptive effect.
MK
> MK schrieb am 20. August 2023 um 04:15:44 UTC+2:
>> 3 - Getting dice from an external DLL
> just nitpicking: it's Groovy source code, no dll
>> (although I'm not sure how the "counter" works).
> The counter simply skips the first N numbers,
Jellyfish had this feature way back when. :) If you
chose a big number, you would sit there and wait
for it to internally go through all those rolls before
the game would start...
I wasn't sure if yours was the same because unlike
Jellyfish, BG-Bzzt doesn't increment and display it
if you look at it during the game.
> I further have implemented a live preview for the
> dice for the user recently
about to many things at once. The semi-transparent
background was on both sides but for me numbers
appeared always on the right side (perhaps a bug?).
> In fact complains have decreased since then, but
> I have no idea whether there is a correlation
by scrolling the game record up and down, in other
bots. Volunteering it may have a preemptive effect.
MK
MK
Aug 20, 2023, 11:52:20 PM8/20/23
to
On August 20, 2023 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-6, ah...Clem wrote:
> On 8/18/2023 3:20 PM, glen moulder wrote:
>> The only people who say that backgammon
>> sites are not rigged are employees of 247...
> On 8/18/2023 3:20 PM, glen moulder wrote:
>> The only people who say that backgammon
> Fortunately, we have a solution in the Official
> Complaint Form, which I encourage you to
> download, fill out, and post the completed
> form here.
https://images.albertsons-media.com/is/image/ABS/184360005?$ng-ecom-pdp-desktop$
from you local market, go use it to satisfy your
spite somewhere else and then come back to
post here to tell us if it helped.
> We have operators standing by to diagnose
> and address your problem.
that my presription cured your problem.
Next time, grab one for Wong also and tell him
to thank me :)
> HTH. HAND.
Looks like you forgot to sign your name, AH. Clem.
Get it..? A? H?
RSVP. ;)
MK
Timothy Chow
Aug 21, 2023, 7:51:25 AM8/21/23
to
On 8/20/2023 10:14 PM, MK wrote:
> On August 20, 2023 at 6:58:30 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
>> used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
>> longer be suitable, because the seed could be
>> deduced after some number of rolls,
>
> Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
> in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
> anyone here has an educated guess?
This is easy to estimate.
> On August 20, 2023 at 6:58:30 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> If this is a concern, then many of the commonly
>> used RNGs (e.g., Mersenne Twister) would no
>> longer be suitable, because the seed could be
>> deduced after some number of rolls,
>
> Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
> in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
> anyone here has an educated guess?
Let's say the seed is 32 bits. That means that there are 2^32
possible seeds.
There are 21 possible rolls. They're not all equally likely, but
we're just trying to estimate, so let's ignore that nuance. Now
21^7 < 2^32 < 21^8
So you should be able to infer a 32-bit seed after 8 rolls.
Now, if you were able to use the full 19937 bits available for the
Mersenne Twister, then this same calculation would say that you
would need over 4500 rolls to determine the seed. That sounds good,
until you realize that it also means that you could retrofit over
4500 rolls with such a large seed.
---
Tim Chow
MK
Aug 23, 2023, 6:08:41 PM8/23/23
to
On August 21, 2023 at 5:51:25 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/20/2023 10:14 PM, MK wrote:
>> Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
>> in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
>> anyone here has an educated guess?
> This is easy to estimate.
> Let's say the seed is 32 bits. That means that
> there are 2^32 possible seeds.
> There are 21 possible rolls. They're not all equally
> likely, but we're just trying to estimate, so let's
> ignore that nuance. Now
> 21^7 < 2^32 < 21^8
> So you should be able to infer a 32-bit seed after
> 8 rolls.
I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> On 8/20/2023 10:14 PM, MK wrote:
>> Has this been ever tried to find out approximately
>> in how few rolls could it be done? If not, do you or
>> anyone here has an educated guess?
> This is easy to estimate.
> Let's say the seed is 32 bits. That means that
> there are 2^32 possible seeds.
> There are 21 possible rolls. They're not all equally
> likely, but we're just trying to estimate, so let's
> ignore that nuance. Now
> 21^7 < 2^32 < 21^8
> So you should be able to infer a 32-bit seed after
> 8 rolls.
using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
You may want to read what you had said on this
in a thread titled "Re: How fast can you cheat??"
that I had started in 2009, which included some
long discussions about Noo-BG and Mersenne
Twister:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/-Y9AWXOFwrc/m/3OUC6_UoWyUJ
In one post, when I had asked you:
>> What do you say to that, "Moses"...??? :)))
You had answered:
> ..... The Mersenne Twister algorithm becomes
> predictable after a while, but this loophole can
> again be plugged if we simply agree to refresh
> the seed after a certain period of time. We'd
> have to check the details of the generator to be
> certain, but the number of dice rolls in a 31-point
> match is probably small enough that refreshing
> the seed after each match is good enough.
> Wikipedia says that 624 observations of MY19937
> is enough to recover the seed, but I think this
> assumes that you see the full 32-bit word each
> time, so it probably translates into more than 624
> dice rolls.
This was so easy to find by just searching for 624
in the RGB... :)
About your last sentence above, I think Ex-Gee and
Noo-BGt derive dice numbers simply from modulo
6 of those 624 numbers in the array. So, one would
need to know all 624, (i.e. at least 312 dice pairs),
in order to know the following roll in line.
We were also talking about long 31-point matches
which would have fewer than 53*31=1,674 rolls on
the average, since we now know that the effective
match lengths decrease increasingly. But even so,
surely they wouldn't be shorter than 312 rolls. See
this recent post about average rolls in matches of
13 and 19 points in gamblegammon:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/fpTQofI7-Hk/m/ZYV5kPt3BwAJ
Yet, you had said "number of dice rolls in a 31-point
match is probably small enough that refreshing the
seed after each match is good enough".
And now you are saying "you should be able to infer
a 32-bit seed after 8 rolls".
Can you stand behind either of these contradicting
statements..?
MK
Timothy Chow
Aug 24, 2023, 8:18:41 AM8/24/23
to
On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything short of working code,
> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
and I'm not going to produce working code, because someone might
actually use it to cheat.
In any case, while I'm happy to point you in the right direction,
I'm not going to try to overcome your skepticism. If you're too
lazy to learn the math, or prefer to sting like a scorpion because
that's your nature, then that's your problem.
>> ..... The Mersenne Twister algorithm becomes
>> predictable after a while, but this loophole can
>> again be plugged if we simply agree to refresh
>> the seed after a certain period of time. We'd
>> have to check the details of the generator to be
>> certain, but the number of dice rolls in a 31-point
>> match is probably small enough that refreshing
>> the seed after each match is good enough.
>
>> Wikipedia says that 624 observations of MY19937
>> is enough to recover the seed, but I think this
>> assumes that you see the full 32-bit word each
>> time, so it probably translates into more than 624
>> dice rolls.
used, not just 32 bits of it.
> About your last sentence above, I think Ex-Gee and
> Noo-BGt derive dice numbers simply from modulo
> 6 of those 624 numbers in the array. So, one would
> need to know all 624, (i.e. at least 312 dice pairs),
> in order to know the following roll in line.
> Can you stand behind either of these contradicting
> statements..?
---
Tim Chow
Timothy Chow
Aug 24, 2023, 8:24:04 AM8/24/23
to
On 8/24/2023 8:18 AM, I wrote:
> On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
>> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
>> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
>> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
>
> I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything short of working code,
> and I'm not going to produce working code, because someone might
> actually use it to cheat.
If you want to try it yourself, here's a sketch of how to write some
> On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
>> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
>> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
>> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
>
> I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything short of working code,
> and I'm not going to produce working code, because someone might
> actually use it to cheat.
code. It's not the most efficient algorithm (it would be more efficient
to solve a system of linear equations over a finite field), but it
should work.
Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible 32-bit seeds to see if you
can match the given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky, only one of the
32-bit seeds will give you a match. You can then confirm that it gives
the same remaining dice rolls.
---
Tim Chow
Philippe Michel
Aug 24, 2023, 9:14:51 AM8/24/23
to
On 2023-08-23, MK <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
In GNUbg the seed for Mersenne twister is not limited to 32 bits. The
> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
way to set it from the GUI had a bug but this was fixed in 2019 after a
vigilant user reported the problem:
"Allow RNG seeds up to 2^53 in the GUI (when built with libgmp) instead
of truncating them at 2^32. This prevents an issue reported by Murat in
rec.games.backgammon when using a timestamp in yyyymmddHHMM format as
seed."
2^53 shoud be more than enough to make the brute-force sifting described
by Tim in another post impossible *if* the seed is really not guessable.
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 3:56:11 AM8/25/23
to
On August 24, 2023 at 6:18:41 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
> > I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> > using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
> > Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
> I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything
> short of working code,
I wasn't thinking anything of no such things
> On 8/23/2023 6:08 PM, MK wrote:
> > I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
> > using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
> > Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
> I doubt that you'd be convinced by anything
> short of working code,
at all. I'll be satisfied if I give you 8 rolls and
you tell me what was the seed I used.
> I'm not going to produce working code, because
> someone might actually use it to cheat.
had said it but his reason for refusing a similar
request was exactly the same. In this case, I'm
not even asking for it.
> If you're too lazy to learn the math,
to learn the maths but I wouldn't want to learn
the wrong math/s.
> or prefer to sting like a scorpion because
> that's your nature, then that's your problem.
scorpions (not yet anyway ;)
>>> The Mersenne Twister algorithm becomes
>>> predictable after a while, but this loophole
>>> can again be plugged if we simply agree to
>>> refresh the seed after a certain period of time.
>>> We'd have to check the details of the generator
>>> to be certain, but the number of dice rolls in a
>>> 31-point match is probably small enough that
>>> refreshing the seed after each match is good
>>> enough.
>>> Wikipedia says that 624 observations of
>>> MY19937 is enough to recover the seed, but I
>>> think this assumes that you see the full 32-bit
>>> word each time, so it probably translates into
>>> more than 624 dice rolls.
> Here I was assuming that the full 19937 bits of
> the seed were being used, not just 32 bits of it.
>> About your last sentence above, I think Ex-Gee
>> and Noo-BGt derive dice numbers simply from
>> modulo 6 of those 624 numbers in the array.
>> So, one would need to know all 624, (i.e. at least
>> 312 dice pairs), in order to know the following
>> roll in line.
> Again, this would only be if the full seed were
> being used.
what I write, what's the point of discussing..? I'm
not going to repead what I had written after what
you quoted from my post. You can go back and
read it again. But I'll add a few lines quoting from
myself in the link I had given, (which apparently
you didn't bother to read either):
"Lo and behold! Your total moves for a 5-point
"cubeless gamblegammon match is 324, for a
"13-point cubeful gamblegammon match is 351.
"Similarly, for a 7-point cubeless gamblegammon
"match is 465, for a 19-point gamblegammon
"match is 530.
Thus, a 31-point gamblegammon match is likely to
last about 700 some moves/rolls. And even using
the full 19937 bits of the seed, if you can deduce it
only after 624 numbers, i.e. 312 dice rolls, then you
you will start knowing the upcoming numbers only
halfway through a 31-point gamblegammon match.
When I asked: "Can you stand behind either of these
contradicting statements..?", I was asking if you can
stand behind your statement that "refreshing the seed
after each match is good enough in 31-point matches".
If I have to explain what I write like to a 5-year-old kid
too often, I may grow tired of it... :(
> There is no contradiction.
Well, maybe not literally but I was trying to contrast
your claim to deduce a 32-bit seed after only 8 rolls,
(which I believe are too few), against to not deduce a
19937 bit seed even after 312 rolls, (which I believe
are too many).
So, let me ask again trying to be clearer this time:
1- Do you accept that you were overestimating the
dice rolls needed to deduce a 19937 bit seed? (No
additional arguments needed).
2- Do you accept that you were underestimating the
dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If not, I'd
like you to demonstrate that your math is correct for
me to learn the math correctly).
MK
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 4:08:28 AM8/25/23
to
On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
> 32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
> given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
> only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
> a match.
And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
> Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
> 32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
> given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
> only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
> a match.
a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)
MK
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 4:26:36 AM8/25/23
to
On August 24, 2023 at 7:14:51 AM UTC-6, Philippe Michel wrote:
> On 2023-08-23, MK <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
>> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
>> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
> In GNUbg the seed for Mersenne twister is
> not limited to 32 bits. The way to set it from
> the GUI had a bug but this was fixed in 2019
> after a vigilant user reported the problem:
> "Allow RNG seeds up to 2^53 in the GUI (when
> built with libgmp) instead of truncating them
> at 2^32. This prevents an issue reported by
> Murat in rec.games.backgammon when using a
> timestamp in yyyymmddHHMM format as seed."
Thanks for reminding. :) I couldn't remember
> On 2023-08-23, MK <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
>> I don't believe you :) Can you demonstrate this
>> using Noo-BG, for example, which has a 32-bit
>> Mersenne Twister and allows setting the seed?
> In GNUbg the seed for Mersenne twister is
> not limited to 32 bits. The way to set it from
> the GUI had a bug but this was fixed in 2019
> after a vigilant user reported the problem:
> "Allow RNG seeds up to 2^53 in the GUI (when
> built with libgmp) instead of truncating them
> at 2^32. This prevents an issue reported by
> Murat in rec.games.backgammon when using a
> timestamp in yyyymmddHHMM format as seed."
which was which and how they were fixed. :(
Jellyfish and Snowie had the same problem.
Talk about "bott fucking"... ;) In fact, Snowie's
was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
even though in all three bots you cound enter
numbers larger than 32-bits. I think it was a
problem with Jellyfish itself going from 16 to
32 bits. I think in one or two bots it was fixed
by simple range check during input but I wasn't
sure if/how it was fixed in all bots.
Can you folks imagine all those extraterrestrial
bots not being able to get something so fucking
simple as seeding their RNG's right... And then
they feel offended when we piss on then and ask
what else more important things may be wrong
with their pieces of shit so-called AI bots... :(
> 2^53 shoud be more than enough to make the
> brute-force sifting described by Tim in another
> post impossible *if* the seed is really not
> guessable.
Tim is up to demonstrating his math, we can
just use one of those...
MK
Frank Berger
Aug 25, 2023, 5:43:02 AM8/25/23
to
MK schrieb am Freitag, 25. August 2023 um 10:26:36 UTC+2:
> In fact, Snowie's
> was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
I think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign
> In fact, Snowie's
> was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 6:08:34 AM8/25/23
to
On August 25, 2023 at 3:43:02 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 10:26:36 UTC+2:
>> In fact, Snowie's
>> was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
> I think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign
Oh, dang, how could I not figure that out... :(
So, then, how do you cast a 31-bit variable in
any computer language? Except your Java, of
course... :)
And this moron is a AI bot developer with fancy
names like TachiAI or whatever the shit... :((
MK
> MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 10:26:36 UTC+2:
>> In fact, Snowie's
>> was signed 32-bit, so you really had 16-bits,
> I think it's 31-Bit if one can't enter a sign
So, then, how do you cast a 31-bit variable in
any computer language? Except your Java, of
course... :)
And this moron is a AI bot developer with fancy
names like TachiAI or whatever the shit... :((
MK
Timothy Chow
Aug 25, 2023, 8:11:44 AM8/25/23
to
On 8/25/2023 3:56 AM, MK wrote:
> 2- Do you accept that you were underestimating the
> dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If not, I'd
> like you to demonstrate that your math is correct for
> me to learn the math correctly).
I gave all the math already.
> 2- Do you accept that you were underestimating the
> dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If not, I'd
> like you to demonstrate that your math is correct for
> me to learn the math correctly).
Just code up what I told you. Try all 2^32 seeds.
---
Tim Chow
Timothy Chow
Aug 25, 2023, 8:28:54 AM8/25/23
to
But without analyzing the specific details of how the program converts
RNG output into dice rolls, I can't be sure that it would be impossible
to get more than one match after 8 rolls. In any case, if you run into
such a rare situation, a 9th roll will disambiguate between them.
---
Tim Chow
Tony The Welsh Twat
Aug 25, 2023, 11:19:40 AM8/25/23
to
I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
Frank Berger
Aug 25, 2023, 11:32:48 AM8/25/23
to
MK schrieb am Freitag, 25. August 2023 um 12:08:34 UTC+2:
I could argue that in all programming languages I know (other than Cobol) for integer numbers, the two's complement is used (and that uses 1 bit for the sign. To calculate 32 - 1 is left to the reader) or that for the evaluation of a cast, source and target types are important or to show how trivial it would be to cast in C for example. But I don't do that, because it's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't care about the matter at hand, but only about somehow being right in the end in his twisted logic.
Me as a poor moron would love to see full of admiration what a true stable genius is capable of, but unfortunately that won't happen. To bad that bragging is no programming language
I could argue that in all programming languages I know (other than Cobol) for integer numbers, the two's complement is used (and that uses 1 bit for the sign. To calculate 32 - 1 is left to the reader) or that for the evaluation of a cast, source and target types are important or to show how trivial it would be to cast in C for example. But I don't do that, because it's a waste of time to argue with someone who doesn't care about the matter at hand, but only about somehow being right in the end in his twisted logic.
Me as a poor moron would love to see full of admiration what a true stable genius is capable of, but unfortunately that won't happen. To bad that bragging is no programming language
Frank Berger
Aug 25, 2023, 11:42:03 AM8/25/23
to
Tony The Welsh Twat schrieb am Freitag, 25. August 2023 um 17:19:40 UTC+2:
> So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
>
> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
>
> Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
LCG is a whole family of generators so you need not only the seed but some more stuff. Although BG needs not much from an RNG I would probably choose something better e.g. Mersenne Twister (fast and good enough) . And the programmer could have made an error.
> So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
>
> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
>
> Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
Two things come to my mind:
- record a longer sequence of dice rolls and make some tests
- ask the author for the code og the RNG.
Axel Reichert
Aug 25, 2023, 5:49:26 PM8/25/23
to
But Brainfuck is.
Best regards
Axel
Best regards
Axel
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 7:26:12 PM8/25/23
to
On August 25, 2023 at 9:32:48 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:
> MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 12:08:34 UTC+2:
> it's a waste of time to argue with someone
> who doesn't care about the matter at hand,
> but only about somehow being right in the
> end in his twisted logic.
It's ironic for you to say this. I'm not going to
try being right but I'm not going to apologize
either.
It's more than clear who cares more about the
matter at hand. Here I am, thinking I hooked a
big fish and trying to reel him in, there you are,
instead of fetching a net to help me scoop him
up, nitpicking on my misspeaking 16 bits and
thus distracting from the main issue at hand,
when my miswording didn't negate nor even
changed the meaning of the ntirety of what I
had said... :(
Many of you guys do this often enough that I
wonder if you are doing it on purpose, even if
subconsciously. It makes me so resentful and
angry that I react by lashing back, sometimes
without much thinking.
Since you're suggesting that you cae about the
matter at hand, let's hear what you have to say
about Tim's math/s on predicting RNG's...?
MK
> MK schrieb am 25. August 2023 um 12:08:34 UTC+2:
> it's a waste of time to argue with someone
> who doesn't care about the matter at hand,
> but only about somehow being right in the
> end in his twisted logic.
try being right but I'm not going to apologize
either.
It's more than clear who cares more about the
matter at hand. Here I am, thinking I hooked a
big fish and trying to reel him in, there you are,
instead of fetching a net to help me scoop him
up, nitpicking on my misspeaking 16 bits and
thus distracting from the main issue at hand,
when my miswording didn't negate nor even
changed the meaning of the ntirety of what I
had said... :(
Many of you guys do this often enough that I
wonder if you are doing it on purpose, even if
subconsciously. It makes me so resentful and
angry that I react by lashing back, sometimes
without much thinking.
Since you're suggesting that you cae about the
matter at hand, let's hear what you have to say
about Tim's math/s on predicting RNG's...?
MK
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 7:35:35 PM8/25/23
to
On August 25, 2023 at 3:49:26 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Frank Berger <bgbl...@googlemail.com> writes:
>> bragging is no programming language
> But Brainfuck is.
Hey! Another mathematician enter the stage
> Frank Berger <bgbl...@googlemail.com> writes:
>> bragging is no programming language
> But Brainfuck is.
with a line very relevant to the matter at hand.
He looks familiar. Hmm? Ah, yes, he was one
of the extras in "Silence of the dogs"... ;)
MK
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 7:50:57 PM8/25/23
to
On August 25, 2023 at 6:11:44 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 3:56 AM, MK wrote:
Since you skipped my first question, I assume
> On 8/25/2023 3:56 AM, MK wrote:
the answer was "yes", (i.e. you overestimated
dice rolls needed to deduce a 19937 bit seed).
>> 2- Do you accept that you were underestimating
>> the dice rolls needed to deduce a 32 bit seed? (If
>> not, I'd like you to demonstrate that your math is
>> correct for me to learn the math correctly).
> I gave all the math already.
> Just code up what I told you. Try all 2^32 seeds.
either. I wouldn't have underlined this nor hold it
against you that you aren't a programmer except
that you said: "I'm not going to produce working
code", as if you could.
No big deal. I don't know how to code either. ;) All
I can do is give you 8 rolls from a 32-bit Mersenne
Twister, along with the specific code and ask you
to deduce the seed. Maybe your colleague who is
good at programming can produce the code for
you so that you can come up with the answer...? :)
MK
MK
Aug 25, 2023, 8:05:01 PM8/25/23
to
On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 4:08 AM, MK wrote:
>> On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>>> Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
>>> 32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
>>> given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
>>> only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
>>> a match.
>> And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
>> a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)
> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
> this would ever happen.
Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
> On 8/25/2023 4:08 AM, MK wrote:
>> On August 24, 2023 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>>> Obtain 8 rolls. Then try all 2^32 possible
>>> 32-bit seeds to see if you can match the
>>> given rolls. Unless you're very unlucky,
>>> only one of the 32-bit seeds will give you
>>> a match.
>> And how many 32-bit seeds will give me
>> a match, if I'm indeed very unlucky..." :)
> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
> this would ever happen.
or playing guessing games..?
> But without analyzing the specific details of
> how the program converts RNG output into
> dice rolls,
rolls by taking modulo 6 of the RNG numbers.
Dice code of Noo-BG is open source. Although
we can use Ex-Gee for this purpose, its external
Mersenne Twister DLL's code is public also. You
don't need to take my word for it since you can
look yourself at how they do it.
> I can't be sure that it would be impossible
> to get more than one match after 8 rolls.
can you be sure of it now..?
> In any case, if you run into such a rare situation,
> a 9th roll will disambiguate between them.
But you know what, you shouldn't feel bad. All the
other mathematicians of RGB are scared shitless
to even open their mouths on the subject... ;)
MK
Timothy Chow
Aug 26, 2023, 9:13:08 AM8/26/23
to
On 8/25/2023 11:19 AM, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
> So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
>
> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
>
> Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
As Frank says, there are many different LCG random number
> So the app I have a beef with uses something called a standard Linear Congruential Generator (LCG) RNG algorithm to generate dice rolls.
>
> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly from a very winning position.
>
> Could I search (somehow) that LCG to see if any of the seeds used ever rolled that sequence of dice?
generators. And even if you knew the specific one used by
the app, you'd also need to know how the app turns the output
of the random number generator into a dice roll---there are
several different ways to do this.
But more to the point, 7 consecutive rolls is probably not
going to be enough to prove anything, as far as an LCG seed
is concerned. The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
about 1 in 600 million, and while 600 million might sound like
a lot, a 32-bit seed (which is actually on the small side as
seeds go) gives you over 4 billion possibilities. So we'd
expect about 7 different seeds to give you 7 consecutive 2-1
rolls right off the bat. And if there's some flexibility
about when exactly the sequence starts (one or two rolls
earlier or later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
This is not to say that what you observed isn't suspicious,
just that you probably can't prove anything just by considering
the random number generator seeds.
---
Tim Chow
Timothy Chow
Aug 26, 2023, 9:14:54 AM8/26/23
to
On 8/25/2023 8:05 PM, MK wrote:
> On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
>> this would ever happen.
>
> Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
> or playing guessing games..?
I'm playing a guessing game, because like you, I'm too lazy to
> On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
>> this would ever happen.
>
> Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
> or playing guessing games..?
actually analyze the code. If you really want to know the answer,
you can figure it out yourself by running the code.
---
Tim Chow
Timothy Chow
Aug 26, 2023, 9:16:56 AM8/26/23
to
On 8/25/2023 7:50 PM, MK wrote:
> No big deal. I don't know how to code either.
Glad to see that you're finally admitting that all your past
> No big deal. I don't know how to code either.
bragging about your computer skills were blatant lies!
I had suspected as much, but since you can't even code up a
simple exhaust, that pretty much proves that you're incompetent.
---
Tim Chow
MK
Aug 26, 2023, 4:04:17 PM8/26/23
to
On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 11:19 AM, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1
>> rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly
>> from a very winning position.
> On 8/25/2023 11:19 AM, Tony The Welsh Twat wrote:
>> I have a video of me rolling 7 consecutive 2-1
>> rolls in the endgame to lose spectacularly
>> from a very winning position.
> As Frank says, there are many different LCG
> random number generators. And even if you
> knew the specific one used by the app,
Assume you know this.
> random number generators. And even if you
> knew the specific one used by the app,
> you'd also need to know how the app turns
> the output of the random number generator
> into a dice roll---there are several different
> ways to do this.
assume is used in your argument below?
> The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
> about 1 in 600 million,
> So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
> you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
> And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
> the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
> later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
Later, yes, "in the endgame" he said.
If we take 54 as the average number of rolls in a
game and take that the last of his 21's was also
one of the last rolls, his sequence would have to
start at around the 40th roll, i.e. counter "40". So,
now how many seeds you'd expect, being helped
with this additional info..?
But what is more important that this is the fact
that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.
(This is why I said around the 54-14=40th, not
54-7=47th roll of the game above). To make it
worse, we don't know his opponent's seven rolls
which could be anything since he didn't specify.
But let's give you a break and say that we know
what those seven rolls were also. So, how many
seeds you'd expect now, after I clarified things
for you..?
Obviously, you can't even "think" right before you
rush to calculate things with your faulty math. :(
I'll expose you so badly that you will be ashamed
to call yourself a mathematician around here...
MK
MK
Aug 26, 2023, 4:24:09 PM8/26/23
to
On August 26, 2023 at 7:14:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 8:05 PM, MK wrote:
>> On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>>> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
>>> this would ever happen.
>> Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
>> or playing guessing games..?
> I'm playing a guessing game, because like you,
Even that won't help you free yourseld from my
> On 8/25/2023 8:05 PM, MK wrote:
>> On August 25, 2023 at 6:28:54 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>>> I'd say at most two, and I doubt that even
>>> this would ever happen.
>> Wait a minute, now. Are we doing math here
>> or playing guessing games..?
> I'm playing a guessing game, because like you,
hook, as your guessing is off by a few miles also.
> I'm too lazy to actually analyze the code.
for it, you don't need to take even a simple "look"
at the code, let alone "analyse" it (which is clearly
a gross exaggeration of a minor effort).
> If you really want to know the answer, you can
> figure it out yourself by running the code.
you here. As I said, I won't hold it against you that
you can't produce a code that you pretended you
could and will let go of it as an unimportant detail.
But what will you do about your math being wrong?
I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
slap you silly with it...
MK
MK
Aug 26, 2023, 5:12:22 PM8/26/23
to
On August 26, 2023 at 7:16:56 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 7:50 PM, MK wrote:
>> No big deal. I don't know how to code either.
> Glad to see that you're finally admitting that
> all your past bragging about your computer
> skills were blatant lies!
I'll even change my name in order to shove
> On 8/25/2023 7:50 PM, MK wrote:
>> No big deal. I don't know how to code either.
> Glad to see that you're finally admitting that
> all your past bragging about your computer
> skills were blatant lies!
your bad math up your dumb ass... ;)
> I had suspected as much, but since you can't
> even code up a simple exhaust, that pretty
> much proves that you're incompetent.
questions by someone else who is honestly
unable to "code up a simple exhaust". Could
you give them the correct(ed) answers...?
How about your mathematician ilk among the
silent pack of dogs"..? I'm anxiously waiting to
see if anyone of them will be capable of and/or
dare to bite, err, correct your wrong math/s...?
I'll give them the same few days as you, to step
up to the plate...
PS: I omitted on purpose some details from my
reply to your post about LCG, in order to not tip
you off too much. ;) I'll disclose them later.
MK
Timothy Chow
Aug 27, 2023, 9:01:50 AM8/27/23
to
On 8/26/2023 4:04 PM, MK wrote:
> On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> you'd also need to know how the app turns
>> the output of the random number generator
>> into a dice roll---there are several different
>> ways to do this.
>
> Which of those "several different ways" do you
> assume is used in your argument below?
For the argument I gave, it doesn't matter. It's only if you
> On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>> you'd also need to know how the app turns
>> the output of the random number generator
>> into a dice roll---there are several different
>> ways to do this.
>
> Which of those "several different ways" do you
> assume is used in your argument below?
wanted to prove definitively that the particular app couldn't
have generated the rolls that you would need to pin down which
of these ways is used.
>> The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
>> about 1 in 600 million,
>
> This is not applicable in this case.
>> So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
>> you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
>
> By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)
>> And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
>> the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
>> later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
>
> Earlier!? Earlier than what?
during the game. That is, suppose that his 21 sequence
happened from rolls 41 through 47. "Earlier" would mean,
for example, that the 21 sequence occurred from rolls 40
through 46.
> If we take 54 as the average number of rolls in a
> game and take that the last of his 21's was also
> one of the last rolls, his sequence would have to
> start at around the 40th roll, i.e. counter "40". So,
> now how many seeds you'd expect, being helped
> with this additional info..?
then again we expect 7 out of 2^32 seeds. If the sequence
could start with the 40th roll or the 41st roll, then there
would be more seeds. Another way to put is that "losing the
game with a sequence of seven consecutive rolls of 21" might
have happened in two different ways, either starting with such
a sequence at roll 40 or at roll 41. We can't say for sure
without knowing what the position was, but I was just pointing
out that the number of seeds could be larger than 7 out of 2^32
if this were the case.
> But what is more important that this is the fact
> that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
> opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
> every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.
completely irrelevant. Since we don't care what the opponent's
rolls are, the calculation is exactly the same. It's still an
event with probability approximately 1 in 600 million, so the
number of seeds is going to be the same.
---
Tim Chow
Timothy Chow
Aug 27, 2023, 9:04:20 AM8/27/23
to
On 8/26/2023 4:24 PM, MK wrote:
> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
>
> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
> slap you silly with it...
There's no need to wait a few days. State your objections now.
> But what will you do about your math being wrong?
>
> I'll give you a few days to correct yourself before I
> slap you silly with it...
---
Tim Chow
Bradley K. Sherman
Aug 27, 2023, 9:14:59 AM8/27/23
to
possible results, but both end up with you slapping yourself.
--bks
Tony The Welsh Twat
Aug 27, 2023, 9:33:25 AM8/27/23
to
In the meantime, I have another video of me throwing 5 x 2-1 in the endgame (I told you this app has a nasty habit of rolling the user crap rolls during the endgame which probably explains why the developer refuses to publish the seed in use).
Me 2-2 Bot 6-4
Me 3-1 Bot 6-1
Me 3-2 Bot 4-1
Me 2-1 Bot 6-5
Me 2-1 Bot 4-4
Me 2-1 Bot 3-2
Me 2-1 Bot 3-2
Me 6-3 Bot 4-4 and wins from 43 pips behind at the start of the sequence
Timothy Chow
Aug 27, 2023, 9:45:20 AM8/27/23
to
I engage with Murat only when I find his rantings to be entertaining,
and/or if I think that my explanations might be instructive to other
r.g.b. readers. When I get bored with him, I stop.
---
Tim Chow
MK
Aug 28, 2023, 4:24:28 AM8/28/23
to
On August 27, 2023 at 7:01:50 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 8/26/2023 4:04 PM, MK wrote:
>> On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>>> you'd also need to know how the app turns
>>> the output of the random number generator
>>> into a dice roll---there are several different
>>> ways to do this.
>> Which of those "several different ways" do you
>> assume is used in your argument below?
> For the argument I gave, it doesn't matter.
Of course, it does matter! That's why immediately
> On 8/26/2023 4:04 PM, MK wrote:
>> On August 26, 2023 at 7:13:08 AM UTC-6, Timothy Chow wrote:
>>> you'd also need to know how the app turns
>>> the output of the random number generator
>>> into a dice roll---there are several different
>>> ways to do this.
>> Which of those "several different ways" do you
>> assume is used in your argument below?
> For the argument I gave, it doesn't matter.
before my above quote from you, you had said:
"even if you knew the specific one used by the app"
Clearly indicating that knowing more was needed,
"even if you knew the specific one used by the app"
i.e. it mattered:
"to know how the app turns the output of the
In fact, you knew it at least since 2009, as you had
said in the RGB post that I had previously linked to:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/-Y9AWXOFwrc/m/3OUC6_UoWyUJ
"Wikipedia says that 624 observations of MY19937
"is enough to recover the seed, but I think this
"assumes that you see the full 32-bit word each
"time, so it probably translates into more than 624
> It's only if you wanted to prove definitively that
> the particular app couldn't have generated the
> rolls that you would need to pin down which
> of these ways is used.
be careful with what you fabricate now to weasel
yourself out because I record everything you say
and I may slap you with this one later also... ;)
>>> The probability of 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls is
>>> about 1 in 600 million,
>> This is not applicable in this case.
> It is, as I explain below.
>>> So we'd expect about 7 different seeds to give
>>> you 7 consecutive 2-1 rolls right off the bat.
>> By this you must mean starting at counter "1"(?)
> I mean starting at a specified moment.
I'm trying to reel you in... ;)
>> Earlier!? Earlier than what?
> Earlier than the roll that the first 21 actually
> occurred during the game. That is, suppose
> that his 21 sequence happened from rolls 41
> through 47. "Earlier" would mean, for example,
> that the 21 sequence occurred from rolls 40
> through 46.
roll because we are basing our arguments on
an average game lasting 54 rolls, math prof...
> If you insist that the sequence starts with the 40th
> roll, then again we expect 7 out of 2^32 seeds.
> ..... "losing the game with a sequence of seven
> consecutive rolls of 21" might have happened
> in two different ways, either starting with such
> a sequence at roll 40 or at roll 41. We can't say
> for sure without knowing what the position was,
> but I was just pointing out that the number of
> seeds could be larger than 7 out of 2^32 if this
> were the case.
I introduced the idea of 40th roll trying to clarify.
> in two different ways, either starting with such
> a sequence at roll 40 or at roll 41. We can't say
> for sure without knowing what the position was,
> but I was just pointing out that the number of
> seeds could be larger than 7 out of 2^32 if this
> were the case.
Before that, you initially said someting difficult to
make a sense out of:
"And if there's some flexibility about when exactly
"the sequence starts (one or two rolls earlier or
"later, perhaps), then more seeds will fit the bill.
sequence starts unless it starts on the first roll,
i.e. "right of the bat" as you pharased it. But even
giving in to your slippering, how could more seeds
"fit the bill" both if the sequence starts *earlier* or
*later*? How can it be true both ways...?
>> But what is more important that this is the fact
>> that he is not the only player rolling the dice; his
>> opponent is also rolling. His seven 21's occur on
>> every other roll, i.e during 14 consecutive rolls.
> Here we reach the main point of your complaint.
on this is one alone. You all will have to wait a few
more days...
> completely irrelevant. Since we don't care what
> the opponent's rolls are, the calculation is exactly
> the same. It's still an event with probability
> approximately 1 in 600 million, so the number of
> seeds is going to be the same.
that aside for now, the remaining of your argument is
still wrong. I will explain and teach you soon... :)
MK
MK
Aug 28, 2023, 4:30:59 AM8/28/23
to
also your silent dogs, mathematician ilk of yours,
a fair chance to redeem yourselves by correcting
(assuming that you all could) yourselves and thus
show some virtue in you publicly...
No need to run, turtle. ;) Slow down and be patient...
MK
MK
Aug 28, 2023, 4:44:15 AM8/28/23
to
there comes this butt sniffing mutt, with nothing
to say about the matter at hand but an irrelevant
comments to give moral support to his peer...
Frank has been gone for a while... If he doesn't
come back with a net withing the next few days
to scoop up this big mouth ass, I mean, this big
mouth bass billie, I'll have to yank him up by the
hook, risking to rip his limp upper lip, which will
reduce his trophy value when I nail him on my wall.
Then you and the reast of the pack can come join
the chorus to sing:
"Take me to the river, drop me in the water
"Take me to the river, dip me in the water
"Washing me down, washing me down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJF2cCMXPKk
MK
MK
Aug 28, 2023, 5:40:12 AM8/28/23
to
On August 28, 2023 at 2:44:15 AM UTC-6, MK wrote:
> On August 27, 2023 at 7:14:59 AM UTC-6, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek
>> there are two possible results, but both end up
>> with you slapping yourself.
> While waiting for Frank to go fetch a fishing net,
> there comes this butt sniffing mutt, with nothing
> to say about the matter at hand but an irrelevant
> comments to give moral support to his peer...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJF2cCMXPKk
> On August 27, 2023 at 7:14:59 AM UTC-6, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> If you attempt to slap a mosquito on your cheek
>> there are two possible results, but both end up
>> with you slapping yourself.
> While waiting for Frank to go fetch a fishing net,
> there comes this butt sniffing mutt, with nothing
> to say about the matter at hand but an irrelevant
> comments to give moral support to his peer...
After I posted the above link, I saw this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkYQ72lGrew
You all sound just like those big mouth basses.
From now on, instead of calling you a pack of dogs,
I'll call you a school of big mouth bass holes... :)
Hey, Bradley, could you spot yourself on the video? ;)
MK
MK
Sep 1, 2023, 1:20:35 AM9/1/23
to
for people who read the group only once or twice
a week, to chime in if they anything to add. I had a
draft of what I wanted to say, which I will finalise
and post under a new thread shortly...
MK
0 new messages