Fibs and "Random Dice"
AJM
The claim is laid that Fibs' dice are random, but over the past
year and a half, I've seen far too many "player position" rolls
for its rolls to be entirely random.
I suppose backgammon would be a rather boring straight-
forward game without -something- to "spice" up the games.
Since position checking goes on in order to play forced
moves, what would it take to add player position rolling to
all the other stuff Fibs does?
Anyone else feel this same way or am I alone?
Patti Beadles
In article <Dy4G...@news2.new-york.net>, AJM <wi...@carroll.com> wrote:
>Since position checking goes on in order to play forced
>moves, what would it take to add player position rolling to
>all the other stuff Fibs does?
Only the "trivial" matter of position evaluation. Finding all of the
legal plays for a position is a simple algorithm; evaluating two
positions to see which is stronger is probably algorithmically
impossible. Extending that to find "good" and "bad" dice rolls is too
silly to contemplate.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles | Knowing how to play well doesn't
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com | win-- you have to actually do it.
http://www.gammon.com/ |
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | No longer pa...@velo.com
Michael Haney
In article <pattibDy...@netcom.com>, pat...@netcom.com says...
In article <Dy4G...@news2.new-york.net>, AJM <wi...@carroll.com> wrote:
Since position checking goes on in order to play forced
moves, what would it take to add player position rolling to
all the other stuff Fibs does?
Only the "trivial" matter of position evaluation. Finding all of the
legal plays for a position is a simple algorithm; evaluating two
positions to see which is stronger is probably algorithmically
impossible. Extending that to find "good" and "bad" dice rolls is too
silly to contemplate.
-Patti
Bravo! And again I must make the point: What is the motivation? The object
of FIBS is simply to let players play. Fickle dice are part of the game.
Those thinking FIBS is fixed should concentrate on finding something more
plausible - like a live Elvis!
John S Mamoun
AJM (wi...@carroll.com) wrote:
: The claim is laid that Fibs' dice are random, but over the past
: year and a half, I've seen far too many "player position" rolls
: for its rolls to be entirely random.
: I suppose backgammon would be a rather boring straight-
: forward game without -something- to "spice" up the games.
: moves, what would it take to add player position rolling to
: all the other stuff Fibs does?
: Anyone else feel this same way or am I alone?
I agree. It is easily possible for a computer to rapidly generate a dice
roll that will accomplish two great things in a roll, such as complete a
point and hit a blot. It can instantly generate a dice roll that avoids
hitting or leaving any blots. No fancy programming required. I only
played two fibs games, but my opponents got some pretty low-down dice
rolls, in my opinion.
Perhaps having miracle dice is the programmer's way of spicing up the
game. Maybe he thinks it is fun to frustrate people. If I were the
programmer, I would think it pretty entertaining to put freak dice in the
games. It would be funny to visualize an expert playing the game
beautifully, only to have his artistic manipulation of position collapse
because of some absurd one-time permutation. When I play TD-Gammon at
the expert level, I never sense that the program is excessively
miraculous. But I get some pretty strange results on the net bg interfaces.
Joe Terrasi
AJM (wi...@carroll.com) wrote:
: The claim is laid that Fibs' dice are random, but over the past
: year and a half, I've seen far too many "player position" rolls
: for its rolls to be entirely random.
It's true. I was a sceptic (I was also aseptic, but that's beside the
point), but now just COLOR ME A BELIEVER!
I was playing a heated game on FIBS the other day when the die hopped off
the board, shattered my skull, ricocheted through my arm, and lodged in my
opponent's wrist. Random dice? I think not!
ken tarver
John S Mamoun wrote:
>
> AJM (wi...@carroll.com) wrote:
> : The claim is laid that Fibs' dice are random, but over the past
> : year and a half, I've seen far too many "player position" rolls
> : for its rolls to be entirely random.
> : forward game without -something- to "spice" up the games.
> : Since position checking goes on in order to play forced
> : moves, what would it take to add player position rolling to
> : all the other stuff Fibs does?
>
> : Anyone else feel this same way or am I alone?
>
> I agree. It is easily possible for a computer to rapidly generate a dice
> roll that will accomplish two great things in a roll, such as complete a
> point and hit a blot. It can instantly generate a dice roll that avoids
> hitting or leaving any blots. No fancy programming required. I only
> played two fibs games, but my opponents got some pretty low-down dice
> rolls, in my opinion.
> Perhaps having miracle dice is the programmer's way of spicing up the
> game. Maybe he thinks it is fun to frustrate people. If I were the
> programmer, I would think it pretty entertaining to put freak dice in the
> games. It would be funny to visualize an expert playing the game
> beautifully, only to have his artistic manipulation of position collapse
> because of some absurd one-time permutation. When I play TD-Gammon at
> the expert level, I never sense that the program is excessively
> miraculous. But I get some pretty strange results on the net bg interfaces.
What is this ? A voice of reason crying out from the wilderness ?
The arguments that we have heard so far from the establishment (read
players above 1600) is that there is NO evidence of dice tamperimg on
FIBS.
Now here is someone from the other side of the coin venturing forth the
opinion that some of us hold that FIBS is indeed DOING SOMETHING with
the dice.
I have long held the thought that FIBS is designed to keep the better
players from running over the top of the lesser skilled players. The
only justification I have been able to arrive at is that the Author
feels that the less qualified players need the boost to keep them
interested in the game. Look at it like this , If you were a poor player
and never were able to beat anyone then what is your incentive to remain
involved with FIBS ???
I for one have seen too many MIRACLES on FIBS for me to support the
theory that the dice are not rigged.
I use this forum to appeal to the powers that be (Marvin/Kit/Patti/et
al) to release us from this mistaken judgement and allow the dice to be
truly controlled more or less by the whims of whatever random generator
that they have elected to utilize.
jag
In article <3248F3...@sat.net>,
ken tarver <ken...@sat.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I for one have seen too many MIRACLES on FIBS for me to support the
>theory that the dice are not rigged.
>
I too am a believer! I have seen many miracles on FIBS.
Only the other night, I witnessed the parting of the board, the contents of
my dice cup turned to whine, my opponent came back from the dead and I was
turned into a pig! (gammoned I think is the technical term).
I shall now reveal the long hidden secret of how to control the dice on
FIBS, only a few players know this but now, you too can win on FIBS! Yes,
everyone can, all the time, by following these simple steps:
Buy a goat and a copy of Paul Magriel's book "Backgammon and goat
sacrificing"
Read the book, following all the instructions therein, especially the bits
about sacrifing goats at full moon.
Play on FIBS and see how your 'luck' improves.
Get hold of a virgin and buy Bill Robertie's 'Advanced Backgammon and
sacrificial virgins'.
Read this book, again following the instructions most carefully, especially
the bits about sacrificing virgins.
Play on FIBS and notice how the dice now favour you even more!
Buy and read Kit Woolsey's "How to Sacrifice your first born and play
Tournament Backgammon", again following everything he says (although some
of us think actually going as far as to sacrifice your first born is a bit
of a high price to pay for having a rating over 1700).
Play on FIBS.
jag
James Grenier
Print Production Manager, HLT Publications & The HLT Group Ltd
http://www.hltpublications.co.uk
http://www.holborncollege.ac.uk
Charles Sumner Zack
More FIBS conspiracy theorists ...
In article <529fgh$9...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
John S Mamoun <js...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>AJM (wi...@carroll.com) wrote:
>: The claim is laid that Fibs' dice are random, but over the past
>: year and a half, I've seen far too many "player position" rolls
>: for its rolls to be entirely random.
[snip]
>: moves, what would it take to add player position rolling to
>: all the other stuff Fibs does?
Not much. What would be difficult to program, though, is *how* FIBS would
decide which people it should piss off.
>
>: Anyone else feel this same way or am I alone?
>
>I agree. It is easily possible for a computer to rapidly generate a dice
>roll that will accomplish two great things in a roll, such as complete a
>point and hit a blot. It can instantly generate a dice roll that avoids
>hitting or leaving any blots. No fancy programming required. I only
>played two fibs games, but my opponents got some pretty low-down dice
>rolls, in my opinion.
And why do you suppose this happened to *you*, and not your opponent?
Was it some sort of FIBS initiation? <sarcasm mode off>
Seriously, the number of times your opponent gets the "crusher" roll looks
magnified, simply because the strange games are easier to remember than all
the boring ones. FIBS is not playing "mind games" with you.
Charley (cszack on FIBS),
wondering if I've just become a statistic in the "psychology experiment"
that is FIBS
bj...@lehigh.edu
In article <529fgh$9...@netnews.upenn.edu>, js...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (John S Mam
oun) writes:
>AJM (wi...@carroll.com) wrote:
>: The claim is laid that Fibs' dice are random, but over the past
>: year and a half, I've seen far too many "player position" rolls
>: for its rolls to be entirely random.
>: forward game without -something- to "spice" up the games.
>: Since position checking goes on in order to play forced
>: all the other stuff Fibs does?
>
>
>I agree. It is easily possible for a computer to rapidly generate a dice
>roll that will accomplish two great things in a roll, such as complete a
>point and hit a blot. It can instantly generate a dice roll that avoids
>hitting or leaving any blots. No fancy programming required. I only
>played two fibs games, but my opponents got some pretty low-down dice
>rolls, in my opinion.
>game. Maybe he thinks it is fun to frustrate people. If I were the
>programmer, I would think it pretty entertaining to put freak dice in the
>games. It would be funny to visualize an expert playing the game
>beautifully, only to have his artistic manipulation of position collapse
>because of some absurd one-time permutation. When I play TD-Gammon at
>the expert level, I never sense that the program is excessively
>miraculous. But I get some pretty strange results on the net bg interfaces.
>
>
>
Points to come out from the bar on --
1) 11 in 36
2) 20 in 36
3) 27 in 36
4) 32 in 36
5) 35 in 36
6) 36 in 36
So when superstitious newbies start pointing fingers at marvin because they
threw 6-6 when on the bar early, you can tell them "dice happens".
Any double: 1 in 6
Any specific double: 1 in 36
Any non-double: 5 in 6
Any specific non-double: 1 in 18
So when a 1300 player says, "Those dice are programmed for ACTION" when two
blots were hit with one particular roll, tell him, "I had about a 5% chance."
Odds of throwing a 4-4, 5-5, 6-6 at any time: 1 in 12
Odds of throwing two in a row: 1 in 144
Odds of throwing three in a row: 1 in 1728
So next time someone blames your "miraculous" comeback in a racing game, tell
him, "You'll see that happen once in a while."
What's my point, you pagan dice-cursers say?
It's not luck.
Guess what? It's still numerically possible to throw 6 consecutive 2-1's. It's
unlucky, but it's possible.
And FIBS is not rigged. Let's all do our part to stop this ridiculous
ignorance against the "rigging" of something we all take for granted.
Next time, why don't *you* count the "lucky" rolls you get in a game. Chances
are, they'll be just as many as your opponent.
Brad Mampe
bj...@lehigh.edu
KilTrout on FIBS
Michael Haney
In article <3248F3...@sat.net>, ken...@sat.net says...
#I have long held the thought that FIBS is designed to keep the better
#players from running over the top of the lesser skilled players. The
#only justification I have been able to arrive at is that the Author
#feels that the less qualified players need the boost to keep them
#interested in the game. Look at it like this , If you were a poor player
#and never were able to beat anyone then what is your incentive to remain
#involved with FIBS ???
#
#
#I for one have seen too many MIRACLES on FIBS for me to support the
#theory that the dice are not rigged.
#
#I use this forum to appeal to the powers that be (Marvin/Kit/Patti/et
#al) to release us from this mistaken judgement and allow the dice to be
#truly controlled more or less by the whims of whatever random generator
#that they have elected to utilize.
It's time we gave this disease a name : FIBS-ophobia - the abnormal fear of
fixed dice on FIBS. Sufferers of this disease should stick to "live" games
where they can rest assured that they will never be victimized by miracle
rolls, and only ONE person has to listen to them complain when they are!
I have been the victim and the benefactor of the dice on FIBS. One of the
first rules I learned about BG is that 1/3 of the time the dice are even,
1/3 they are good, and 1/3 they are bad. You lose with bad dice, win with
good dice, and the other 1/3 determines the champions. FIBS-ophobics are
just tired of losing two-thirds of the time!
Michael Haney (Mathman@FIBS)
Jeff Roy
> Seriously, the number of times your opponent gets the "crusher" roll looks
> magnified, simply because the strange games are easier to remember than all
> the boring ones. FIBS is not playing "mind games" with you.
>
Exactly!
Seems, every remembers that "we used get dumped on by snow when I was a
kid, remember...."
Every one forgets staring out hte window at some lame dusting of snow,
wishing they could go sledding. No one forgets the 8 foot drifts of a
blizzard. Does any one rember all the routine ground-outs from a playoff
game? All the 15 car pile ups that didn't happen? All the times your
drive went 180 yds and landed in the rough?
the really odd thing is that we never realize just how lucky some of our
rolls on FIBS (again my theory is we all assume we are brilliant) are.
royboy
John S Mamoun
: Not much. What would be difficult to program, though, is *how* FIBS would
: decide which people it should piss off.
Not really. It can easily differentiate between players just by looking
at the elo ratings, as well as the proportion of games won to games
played for a particular player.
ken tarver
I still maintain that Fibs diddles the dice to favor the underdog.
Your style of play and your early position are easily detectable , and
the appropriate responses easy to code.
Look at it like this , Fibs is not necessarily deciding who to piss off
, but what class of player to hold back .......
levendis
Personally, my own rating has been on the rise -- from about 1450 to its
current value of about 1540.
I could be blaming this on some dice conspiracy, but I have a big ego...
I'd much rather say that the reason behind it is that I've been paying
attention to problems posted to the newsgroup, I've been watching mloner
and jellyfish, and I've been making better cube decisions.
Maybe there should be less time spent complaining, and more time learning.
Oh, and FWIW, my rating was once below 1200. Not because I had bad dice,
but because I was a bad player.
--levendis
"In fact, [good players] DO get more good | E-Mail:
rolls than the rest of us: it's because | dsta...@the.link.ca
they play in such a way to make more of |
their rolls good, not because they can |
control the dice." | Web:
-- Ron Karr on backgammon, in r.g.b | http://www.link.ca/~dstaffen/
Stephen Turner
ken tarver wrote:
>
> I still maintain that Fibs diddles the dice to favor the underdog.
>
Maybe you missed my earlier post offering to pay anyone who could prove that
FIBS dice are unfair in any way, if they would give me a small stake to begin
with. If you want me to send you the conditions of the wager, just let me know.
If you're going to make such accusations, I think you should be prepared to
put your money where your mouth is.
--
Stephen Turner sr...@cam.ac.uk http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory,
16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, England Tel.: +44 1223 337955
"Collection of rent is subject to Compulsive Competitive Tendering" Cam. City