Davids Backgammon
Joseph B. Calderone
I would appreciate anyones thoughts on Davids Backgammon from Wingammon.
I have had several discussions with the Author who states that the dice
are random, but I find that hard to believe. It will keep me on the back
for 4 to 5 throws with 4 points open. I will have 5 points blocked and
he will enter in 1 maybe 2 throws. Consistantly every blot of mine is
taken while his blots are rarely taken.
However I do not always lose. recent stats:
computer Me
points 44 125
games won 22 84
Anyone your views please.
--
Joe Calderone <joe...@roanoke.infi.net>
"Don't force it, Use a bigger Hammer"
DJWhitfill
I would imagine that the quality of any backgammon program depends heavily on
the random number generator chosen that determines the dice throws. It would
take some time, but keep track of the different dice combinations as you play
and see if you are matching the probability distribution for the diffeent
combinations possible.
Shai
In article <199806172234...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
djwhi...@aol.com (DJWhitfill) wrote:
I would suggest to all developers of Backgammon software to add the option
of reading the throws from an external file.
As a programmer I know such feature easy to implement.
Each player could then produce such file by any means: manual or
automatic, and there will be no more arguments about the legality of the
dice.
And if all developers of Backgammon software could agree on a single file
format it would be even super-cool.
--
Shai Spharim
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
- Pablo Picasso.
Ed Mooney
People would really accuse the program of cheating if you gave a list of all
the rolls to the program. The program could look ahead as far as it wanted
to. There would have to be an independent program that fed the backgammon
program one roll at a time when needed.
EdM
Shai wrote in message ...
John Goodwin
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 11:24:44 -0400, "Ed Mooney" <edmo...@rust.net>
wrote:
>People would really accuse the program of cheating if you gave a list of all
>the rolls to the program. The program could look ahead as far as it wanted
>to. There would have to be an independent program that fed the backgammon
>program one roll at a time when needed.
>EdM
I did write such a program for JF, just so that the moaners and
groaners would shut up.
Only about a dozen asked for it, and not one of them had the courtesy
to let me know how they got on with it.
JG
Rodrigo Andrade
Send me a copy of it, and I'll tell you what I think after testing it!!!
I'm quite skeptical about JF dice too...
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
: Author who states that the dice
: are random, but I find that hard to believe.
Now tell me... how many software developers would *EVER* admit that their
software is flawed???
I'm yet to hear a story about a backgammon software whose author admitted
that the dice generator is fixed... This will never happen.
Rodrigo
bj...@lehigh.edu
In article <01bd9b98$e86c7c40$28998bce@candrade>, "Rodrigo Andrade" <candrade@_R
_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> writes:
>: Author who states that the dice
>: are random, but I find that hard to believe.
>
>Now tell me... how many software developers would *EVER* admit that their
>software is flawed???
>
None. Hence the arguments you've continually heard defending the software
makers. The experts and those with experience might possibly have a point. But
why adhere to convention?
>I'm yet to hear a story about a backgammon software whose author admitted
>that the dice generator is fixed... This will never happen.
>
And I've yet to see a month go by without someone complaining of skewed dice
(or some similar vein).
I have no problem with you (or anyone else, for that matter) asserting your
opinion. However, if you're going to take shot after shot at the pricing or
equity of some of these games, please start saying something new. The
arguments presented for skewed dice are repetitive enough.
If the prices are outlandish, don't buy it. If the dice are fixed, roll 'em
yourself. If the people are cheating, find new opponents. If you're
complaining all the time, find a new game. There are plenty of players who are
willing to pay and play, with a firm belief that their own skills will hold
true in the long run.
And if you're still waiting for the experts to speak up, don't. They've
learned to ignore these types of posts (and yes, I am fully aware of the irony
of this statement -- I'm no expert, just fed up).
Brad Mampe
KilTrout on FIBS
bj...@lehigh.edu
>Rodrigo
>
Richard E. Warnk
Here! Here!
I will repeat my recent post:
I have been reading and occasionally participating in
this news group for over a year and I really
think that the "Bots Cheat" theme has been beaten to death!
Enough Already!!!
This issue is both Moot and Mute:
Moot:
It is arguable from a thousand different directions and the
litany of "Proof" is endless. You can pursue this
ad infinitum, ad absurdum and apparently, from what I have seen,
Ad Nauseum!!!!!!!!!
Mute:
You can spin this one around a million ways and it
still comes to the same place:
The authors aren't talkin' while the flavor lasts
and the users will never know!!!
I thought the function of these programs was to educate
and challenge. On that premise, I am not sure that
winning is the only issue as it appears from all the
posts I have read that relate to this theme.
Yes, I know that some consistent positive reinforcement
is the finest learning tool!!! However,
Cheat or
Set up situations where the Bot can pull its digital butt
out of the fire or
Getting the "Perfect Roll at the Perfect Time"
t'ain't the issue.
God knows, I have seen and played enough games to know
that, in person or on the net, real human beans have done
the same thing to me or I to them.
Watch and Learn. Question, not the integrity, but the
motivation of a particular move. In other words,
constantly ask "Why'd it do that in this position?"
In this fashion, when that position, or one of its
sisters or brothers, appears in a match, you can use
your evaluation of its motivation to your advantage.
Posting particularly perplexing positions and plays
to this board and getting some more advanced or diverse
evaluation of the Bot's motivation certainly seems
very much more constructive than the endless rounds of
"It Cheats" discussions.
Ergo, my fellow BG aficiandos,
Enough Already!!!!!!
Have a Happy Day,
Richard
The Last Word: If it cheats, roll your own damned dice!!!!
Chuck Bower
In article <01bd9b98$e86c7c40$28998bce@candrade>,
Rodrigo Andrade <candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> wrote:
>: Author who states that the dice
>: are random, but I find that hard to believe.
>
>Now tell me... how many software developers would *EVER* admit that their
>software is flawed???
>
>I'm yet to hear a story about a backgammon software whose author admitted
>that the dice generator is fixed... This will never happen.
And I've yet to hear an astronaut (or cosmonaut) admit that their
space capsule has been visited by little green men. I can either conclude
that they haven't been visited, or that they have, but are hiding this
fact from me. Which one should I conclude?
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Rodrigo Andrade
Hope you got my e-mail already.
Had you lost more games than won, I'd be skeptical of YOU. But since that's
not the case, I believe you.
I especially agree w/ the part when you say that it has no problem coming
off the bar against a pretty solid board (I mean, close to being closed).
Rodrigo
Rodrigo Andrade
: And I've yet to hear an astronaut (or cosmonaut) admit that their
: space capsule has been visited by little green men. I can either
conclude
: that they haven't been visited, or that they have, but are hiding this
: fact from me. Which one should I conclude?
First of all, let's not compare apples to oranges. An astronaut being
visited by little green men is considerably less likely to happen (hey, my
great grand mother didn't believe when Neil Armstrong landed on the
moon...) than a backgammon program having fixed dice. In fact, I don't
think I quite follow you on this one...
You mean that I could either conclude that no author has ever written a
program whose dice are flawed OR such programs are in fact written, but the
authors simply hide it from people?? The second option sounds very
plausible to me.
RODRIGO
Claes Thornberg
"Rodrigo Andrade" <candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> writes:
It looks like someone knows he's on thin ice here. In two earlier
posts Mr. Andrade has talked about "fixed dice", now he have changed
to "flawed dice". To me there is quite a big difference between fixed
dice and flawed dice. If they are fixed, there must have been with
intent to cheat (read win). If they are flawed, it means there is no
intent to cheat but the author of the program is ignorant of the
weakness of the random number generating scheme being used. That
noone has admitted the dice of their program are flawed is quite
obvious. They are (too) ignorant to bother or they don't know how to
test their dice generator. There might be other reasons as well.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Claes Thornberg Internet: cla...@it.kth.se
Dept. of Teleinformatics URL: NO WAY!
KTH/Electrum 204 Voice: +46 8 752 1377
164 40 Kista Fax: +46 8 751 1793
Sweden
Rodrigo Andrade
: In two earlier
: posts Mr. Andrade has talked about "fixed dice", now he have changed
: to "flawed dice".
I am aware of the difference, I was just tired of saying "cheating" but I
DID MEAN cheat, fixed, rigged... you name it.
RODRIGO
Rodrigo Andrade
Back to the classroom:
our verb today is: to have (notice that the writer has used the auxiliary
form of the verb, but the tenses remain the same nevertheless)
present past past
tense tense participle
I have had had
You (sing.) have had had
He has had had
She has had had
It has had had
We have had had
You (pl.) have had had
They have had had
Hope that will help in future posts.
Rodrigo