MOTIF BG question
Rick Kiesau
now and after exhausting ALL benefit of the doubt, I have concluded that
it cheats. I can guess with pretty good accuracy what dice it will roll
(mostly when it's in trouble). If it needs an 6-1, then double sixes,
then another double to make an amazing comeback, more times than not, it
will do just that. Has anyone else had this experience, and which other
sites have compareble graphics and features? (except for the cheating
feature) I appreciate any input
Rick.
Frank Berger
Dear Rick,
what kind of motivation should Tom Keith have to let Motif cheat?
Here in r.g.b. every fortnight one claims that x, y, or z cheats,
especially bots. But till now, no one has ever come with an evidence.
Even GNU-BG, where you can look at the source, is sometimes called to
be a cheater.
I have made a lot bot-to-bot comparisons and bots of equal strength
have sometimes very strange results (e.g. laying in front with 0,4
points per game on 1000 cubeless games. If that happens to one on the
loosing side, he/she stops playing BG alltogether probably). So BG is
very much influenced by luck.
Further it is related to human perception. Everytime Motif rolls a
joker your impression is reinforced, but if *you* roll a joker this
didn't make the same impression (you will often not regard this as
joker). And when Motif plays stronger than you (and AFAIK Motif plays
pretty well) there are more perceived lucky rolls on Motifs side......
ALternatives for you are
- Fibs to play against Humans
- or BGBLitz, GNU-BG if you want to play against bots.
ciao
Frank
Rick Kiesau
for Tom's game to cheat, and like I said I gave the game four months to
prove me wrong, and I fully understand that luck is a big component of
the game, as I have been playing for twenty four years. But when the
game consistently and regularly rolls mind boggling combinations of dice
to come back from huge defecits and win, the law of averages doesn't
permit it. For example; at the end of the game, when I am on the bar
or in Motif's backboard waiting for a shot, I have on many occasions
missed more than fifteen times in a row, often while having two or even
three shots per roll, but when he is in the same position, I will get
hit almost every time, and after thousands of games of that happening
and me often guessing what his rolls will be, I have given up on the
idea that the game is fair. When I play with another person, there are
bizarre streaks, but nothing even close to that magnitude. Who knows,
maybe I am just having the worst streak of luck in history. Thanks.
Rick
Tom Keith
You've just been unlucky. The dice in Motif are random and fair.
This is a common complaint of all backgammon programs.
As far as I know, no major backgammon game cheats with its dice.
See http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?menu+computerdice
If you would like to try out other backgammon programs and
other sites, here are some lists:
http://www.bkgm.com/software.html
http://www.bkgm.com/servers.html
Tom Keith
Author of Motif Backgammon
"Rick Kiesau" <rki...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14615-405...@storefull-3272.bay.webtv.net...
Gregg Cattanach
You need to arrange the game so 6-1 plays crappy instead of being a joker...
simple.
Bob Newell
>I have been playing on the Motif backgammon site for about four month
>now and after exhausting ALL benefit of the doubt, I have concluded that
>it cheats. I can guess with pretty good accuracy what dice it will roll
I can't comment on your direct experience, but I do know that one tends to
forget one's own good luck or the opponent's bad luck, but to remember one's
own bad luck or the opponent's good luck. Human nature.
Couldn't all of the cheating business be resolved by recording a few
thousand games and doing a statistical distribution on the dice rolls?
--
Tom Keith
>
> Couldn't all of the cheating business be resolved by recording a few
> thousand games and doing a statistical distribution on the dice rolls?
Yes and no. In the case of Motif, I recorded 100,000 games and
published statistics of the most commonly proposed ways the dice
might be biased. See http://www.bkgm.com/motif/stats.html
This reduced the number of complaints I got, but didn't eliminate them.
People would now write to say that it's not the *total* number of doubles
that mattered but the *timing* of the doubles. (Players presumably get
their doubles when on the bar and can't use them.)
I can do an analysis to test that theory, but then somebody else would
come along with a more sophisticated theory. It's a never-ending cycle.
There is no way to test every possible way the dice might be biased.
Tom
Bob Newell
Tom Keith wrote:
>> Couldn't all of the cheating business be resolved by recording a few
>> thousand games and doing a statistical distribution on the dice rolls?
>
>Yes and no. In the case of Motif, I recorded 100,000 games and
>published statistics of the most commonly proposed ways the dice
>might be biased. See http://www.bkgm.com/motif/stats.html
I went and looked at your stats and they are exactly what would be
expected from unbiased dice, but that of course is no surprise. I'll just
refer again to my previous post about psychology. When you get your double
sixers with a man on the bar and the opposing 6-point made, you tend to
remember it. When it happens to your opponent, no big deal. And on an on.
You are right. You could now do additional statistical tests for groupings,
etc. I would offer a double on the idea that it will be statistically just
about normal, and you could offer a redouble on the idea that this still
won't be good enough for everyone.
--
Michael Sullivan
Assuming that Motif is very strong, on the order of gnubg or snowie,
etc. -- unless you are a quite advanced player, this is just what it
feels like to play a world class player. They will consistently
3dfibster
>>..been playing Motif for 4 months..
If you "enjoyed" playing Motif then you probably would also enjoy
playing on www.fibs.com. There are plenty of bots there and even a
stronger version of Motif is sometimes present. There are also regular
people playing there with skill levels to match your experience.
Michael Sullivan
> You are right. You could now do additional statistical tests for groupings,
> etc. I would offer a double on the idea that it will be statistically just
> about normal, and you could offer a redouble on the idea that this still
> won't be good enough for everyone.
Those are both such huge drops that they might by play-ons.
Derek Ray
"Tom Keith" <t...@bkgm.com> mumbled something about:
>I can do an analysis to test that theory, but then somebody else would
>come along with a more sophisticated theory. It's a never-ending cycle.
>There is no way to test every possible way the dice might be biased.
Of course there is, and you don't even need to play games to do it.
Use a double-blind. The random number generator runs as a totally
separate process, and provides a "die roll" to the main process whenever
asked, say, through a registered Windows message. Since the processes
are separate, the question of the main process interfering with the
output of the RNG becomes moot. In fact, you can publish the interface
of how the RNG should respond, thus allowing others to distribute their
OWN RNG programs which respond to your program's requests -- eliminating
the possibility of any backdoors. Random.org works this way, I believe?
Now, make 1,000,000 requests to the random number generator. Record the
number of times each result comes up (be sure to distinguish between 1/3
and 3/1 for easy viewing). All the numbers should approximate 1/36, and
should get closer and closer as you increase the number of requests
made. By the time you hit 1,000,000 the variance away from 1/36 should
be ridiculously small. By the time you hit 1,000,000,000,000... you get
the idea.
This wouldn't silence the fools who'd say "it just rolls the dice in
advance and then predicts the rest!" ... but THIS modification would.
Have the RNG display a window as part of its process detailing the last
10 die-roll requests, the number rolled, and the exact time of each
roll. This would prevent the main program from rolling the dice in
advance, as the window could be easily checked.
Super-easy.
I'm sure you wouldn't ever convince 100% of the people, but really,
nothing will ever convince Murat; he'll always think everything and
everyone that beats him must cheat somehow.
-- Derek
a host is a host from coast to coast
and no one will talk to a host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead
Rick Kiesau
writing this message from webtv, but I play on my computer. Here is
something interesting, however... Last night after I posted a message
in this NG, I went back to playing on Motif, and here is what happenen.
You tell me if you think this is fishy: Near the end of the game, I had
three of his men buried behind a five point prime and I had a man on the
bar. He, at first had two spaces opened. I predicted it would take me
seven rolls just to get my man out, as that is normal. I missed four
times in a row, then he had three space open, and I missed three times,
then amazingly, he had four spaced open and I missed twice! From what I
can tell, the odds of that happening are around 1 in 94,000. While I
was on the bar, he had to move three men up two spaces and then jump
over my five point prime, which of course he did, then rolled perfectly
so as not to leave himself open. If that was a one-time occurence, I
would of course think nothing of it, as that is bound to happen
eventually, but it is not out of the ordinary (although I have not seen
anything quite to that extreme, that I can remember, but pretty close).
I would like to keep stats of rolls, but I don't know how. Thanks,
Rick
Pip
I hate it when that happens. It does though. I've done it to others about as
often as I've had it done to me. I suggest you just blow it off and try not
to end up in that situation as often. Dice are dice... fickle and sometimes
downright demon possessed! Ever thought about a career as a bar dancer?
Rick Kiesau
jthyssen
> "Bob Newell" wrote:
> >
> > Couldn't all of the cheating business be resolved by recording a few
> > thousand games and doing a statistical distribution on the dice rolls?
>
> Yes and no. In the case of Motif, I recorded 100,000 games and
> published statistics of the most commonly proposed ways the dice
> might be biased. See http://www.bkgm.com/motif/stats.html
>
> This reduced the number of complaints I got, but didn't eliminate them.
> People would now write to say that it's not the *total* number of doubles
> that mattered but the *timing* of the doubles. (Players presumably get
> their doubles when on the bar and can't use them.)
A "simple" solution would be to do luck analysis of the 100,000 games.
The average luck should essentially by zero (i.e., 0.000 +/- 0.005 for
1pt matches).
Jørn
Bob Newell
correctly: the odds of having a man on the bar, dancing 4 times against
a 4-point board, 3 times against a 3-point board, and 2 times against a
2-point board, all in a row, are .00000752 or 1 in 132978.72, if I
understood the posting correctly and did the math correctly. Such an
event would be memorable indeed but not impossible.
--
Rick Kiesau
calculator. I believe that has happened before, either as badly or very
close to it more than once, and you're right; it's not impossible, but
if it happened three or four times in two months, something is amiss.
Rick
Bob Newell
>that the bot rolled a 43 because it needed it after the fact
>but who are saying before hand that the bot needs a 43 and
>that it will roll a 43 at a given position...!!!
>
>This is what you hords of morons can't seem to comprehend
>even after years and years of us repeting it... :((
You have such an engaging way of expressing yourself! It all seems to
boil down to a simple rule:
IF Murat loses THEN dice are rigged;
ELSE no problem.
--
Bucko
"Murat Kalinyaprak" <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote in message
news:2831c30c.04032...@posting.google.com...
> Derek Ray wrote <qgnh50tai4kvk2ru3...@4ax.com>
>
> > I'm sure you wouldn't ever convince 100% of the people, but
> > really, nothing will ever convince Murat; he'll always think
> > everything and everyone that beats him must cheat somehow.
>
> of you ass kissing brainless morons give me another example of
> the Mersenne Twister dice roller implementation so that I can
> compare it with Gnudung's implementation...??
>
> Second, I have been only complaining that a certain rigged bg
> server and a bot won't let me win as much I think I should be
> winning... Above 50% that is...! And this is what you brainless
> monkeys can't seem to understand somehow... :(( Is it a language
> barrier? Should I speak "Anatolian" for you...?? :))
>
> MK
How do you do against a certain bot when you manually roll the dice?
s.w.a....@hccnet.nl
wrote:
Should I speak "Anatolian" for you...?? :))
>>
>>
But that's all you do here, dahlink...
P.
Paul Epstein
> I don't know about Motif, but I have offered time and again to bet
> my sweet money on predicting FIBS' and GNUDUNG's future dice rolls
Despite some of the abuse, this is an excellent suggestion (provided,
of course, that payment can be guaranteed). Those that are unhappy
about dice rolls can pretend they're in a casino, and give themselves
fair odds on any roll or set of rolls that they predict. Avoid
self-deception about the prediction by writing it down in advance (and
specify your stake in advance, too). With non-randomness, you could
make a nice profit that way. My opinion is that all of the well-known
programs use genuine random numbers.
Unfortunately, my opinion is that Motif is much weaker than myself,
and that I am much weaker than Jellyfish. Sorry to bring this up, but
others have referred to Motif as being a strong player ("just what
you'd expect from playing a strong player"), and I wanted to register
my disagreement. However, Motif does have some very impressive
features which, in some contexts, matter at least as much as strength.
For example, in contrast to my freeware JF, Motif lets you play the
dice in any order without additional clicking if you play the lower
die first.
I stopped playing Motif a few months ago, so I apologise if it has
improved recently.
Paul Epstein
jthyssen
What about this amazing sequence which happened to me yesterday
playing online: I opened with 62, followed by the truly unbelievable
sequence 21, 63, 65 and 54. The odds that a game starts with this
sequence is less than 1 to 50,000,000. The dice must clearly be biased
for this sequence to occur!!!
Jørn
Bob Newell
>What about this amazing sequence which happened to me yesterday
>playing online: I opened with 62, followed by the truly unbelievable
>sequence 21, 63, 65 and 54. The odds that a game starts with this
>sequence is less than 1 to 50,000,000. The dice must clearly be biased
>for this sequence to occur!!!
This looks to be 1 in 18^5 or 1 in 1,889,568. (I think you did it as
one in 36^5 which would not be correct.) Again, low odds but it can
happen.
But generalize this. These rolls could be anything at all, and, if there
were no doubles, the odds against ANY five roll opening sequence is
exactly the same. Probability is not selective. It doesn't care about
"good" or "bad" rolls. The human mind, however, is most selective.
Jørn Thyssen
> In article <36775ed0.04032...@posting.google.com>, jthyssen wrote:
>
>>What about this amazing sequence which happened to me yesterday
>>playing online: I opened with 62, followed by the truly unbelievable
>>sequence 21, 63, 65 and 54. The odds that a game starts with this
>>sequence is less than 1 to 50,000,000. The dice must clearly be biased
>>for this sequence to occur!!!
>
>
> This looks to be 1 in 18^5 or 1 in 1,889,568. (I think you did it as
> one in 36^5 which would not be correct.)
Whoops ***blush***, actually it's 1,574,640 (15*18^4), since the first
roll can't be a double.
> Again, low odds but it can happen.
>
> But generalize this. These rolls could be anything at all, and, if there
> were no doubles, the odds against ANY five roll opening sequence is
> exactly the same. Probability is not selective. It doesn't care about
> "good" or "bad" rolls. The human mind, however, is most selective.
Yup, that's was my point :-) This is exactly why we need some unbiased
estimate of the luck, not yet another personal anecdote: "I'm been
playing for so long, and something similar has never happened before
blah blah blah".
Jørn
Nobody
>that the bot rolled a 43 because it needed it after the fact
>but who are saying before hand that the bot needs a 43 and
>that it will roll a 43 at a given position...!!!
>
>This is what you hords of morons can't seem to comprehend
>even after years and years of us repeting it... :((
These "hords (sic) of morons" then have the audacity to say "Here's the
source code to gnubg. Show us where it is doing this."
Just "repeting" (sic) something doesn't make it true, except in the
feeble minds of dimwits like Murat...
Bucko
"Murat Kalinyaprak" <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote in message
news:2831c30c.04032...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Murat wrote news:2831c30c.04032...@posting.google.com
>
> >> Second, I have been only complaining that a certain rigged bg
> >> server and a bot won't let me win as much I think I should be
> >> winning... Above 50% that is...! And this is what you brainless
> >> monkeys can't seem to understand somehow... :(( Is it a language
> >> barrier? Should I speak "Anatolian" for you...?? :))
>
>
>
> I don't play against the bots using manual dice very often (perhaps
> at a ratio lower than 1 in 1,000) simply because I like to play very
> very very fast, "a la Turkish coffee-house style"...
>
> My impression is that I don't do nearly as well against bots using
> manual dice. But that may be due to the fact that I can't adjust my
> play to random dice in between so many games against rigged dice...
Let me see if I understand this: Are you saying that you don't play better
than the bots, but are successful against them because you outcheat them, so
to speak. That is, you can predict how they are going to roll
in an attempt to cheat you and you exploit that?
>
> To further bolster my point, I will dare claim that not only will I
> beat the rigged piece of gnudung more than 50+X% at its highest
> settings, but I will beat it against the clock on a 2.4mhz Celeron
> with 512mb as well...
>
> Did my answers help any...??
>
> MK
s.w.a....@hccnet.nl
wrote:
>Have any ancestry from "Anatolia" by chance...?
>>
>>
No idea....should it bother me if I had ?
P.
Gabriel Velasco
file (Message -> Block Sender... for most people) or he is truly ignorant.
If he is truly ignorant, he's obviously chosen not to listen to anyone, so
he will continue in his ignorance and frustration for the rest of his life.
Either way, he's shown himself to be quite rude, so my recommendation is for
everyone to put him in their kill file for this group as I have to reduce
the noise. There are few things so annoying (or pathetic) as ignorance and
arrogance at the same time.
-=Gabriel=-
Rick Kiesau
CHEATS, so don't feel bad if you get destroyed whenever you play. I
think the guy who made the site is either playing a joke on everyone, or
someone else messed with it. Don't ask me why I have continued to play
this long, but no more!
RobAdams
> Just so everyone who plays Motif knows... without a single doubt, IT
> CHEATS
Hi Rick. I realize this last post was a statement not a question, but
in case you are still interested in other's opinions or for others who
may be in your situation:
One of the posters here seemed to call you "ignorant". This doesn't
have to be a put-down... it isn't the same as "stupid" for instance.
It just means that you don't have some knowledge that others do have.
In this case the knowledge that motif does not cheat.
It is however understandable that you feel this way. As others
mentioned, many, many posts get made about various backgammon programs
or servers cheating with the dice. It is just part of the nature of
probability that some people will receive patterns of dice that seem
very un-random. So your feelings are not at all unusual and are very
understandable.
Still, to progress as a successful backgammon player you will need to
get over these irrational thoughts. You don't have to play motif if
you don't want to, but wherever you play online or against programs or
in real life, the dice will occasionally seem very un-random. If that
is going to put you on tilt, your play may suffer.
So let us help you... there are many people here who will respond to
polite questions... the author of motif even responded to you despite
your insulting him by suggesting he would mess with your mind in some
way. In one post you mentioned not knowing how to statistically test
the dice... that is understandable as unless you've studied statistics
you probably wouldn't. But many people here do... so if you ask
politely they may help.
I'll start. To begin with you need to rationally decide exactly how
you think motif cheats. Does it roll too many doubles? Does it roll
too many 1,6's to escape a prime? Does it give you 6,6 from the bar
when it has just a 1pt board too often? You have some experience with
the program now and have some strong feelings that it cheats, but to
progress you need to decide HOW it cheats. Come up with a good thesis
and write it down. An example would be "When I'm on the bar against a
3pt board I dance at least 2/3 of the time" If this were true then
the dice would be clearly unfair since you should only dance 1/4 of
the time.
Ok, then you need to examine and clarify your statement. For example,
do you mean only when you have 1 checker on the bar not 2 or more? Do
you mean only a 3pt board, not a 2 or 1 pt board? Does any other
aspect of the position matter? Do you really mean at least 1/2 the
time or maybe 40%? Clarify exactly what you mean before you proceed.
Ok, then re-write your statement exactly... something like "When I'm
on the bar with one checker against a 3pt board, I dance at least 40%
of the time" Ok, this is a little less serious as you might expect to
dance 40% of the time occasionally, but still if that's true, the dice
would be improper since you "should" only dance 25% of the time.
Ok, only at this point should you begin to gather evidence. It is
very important that you first identify the problem, then state a
thesis, and then gather evidence. So... play some games! Every time
you are on the bar against a 3pt board, see if you dance or not. Do
this for say 1000 examples. If you dance less than 250 times, I think
you should be able to see that your thesis was off. If you dance more
than 400, then you have some good evidence that maybe you are on to
something and the dice may be somewhat un-random. If it is somewhere
in the middle, then you probably can't reject the notion that the dice
are random, but neither can you reject your idea that you may dance a
little too much.
Statistics can help to give stronger meaning to exactly the numbers
you find, and I'm sure someone here could help you at that point. But
it is most important that you follow these first steps clearly...
First state exactly what you think is wrong and then clarify exactly
what you mean, and then gather evidence. Analyzing that evidence may
be difficult, but it isn't impossible and likely will be self-evident
anyway.
Bucko
can choose to manually roll the dice. If that is the case, then my
suggestion is to do so; be sure you accurately see the the resultant roll
and accurately and honestly enter it each time. Play several matches this
way. Still think it's cheating?
"RobAdams" <georgeha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf147be3.04032...@posting.google.com...
Rick Kiesau
Thanks for the response. I don't have enough computer knowledge to
gather data or keep track of the games I play. While I am playing, I
always wish someone was sitting there who knew something about the game,
so I could show them what is going on, because it is quite amazing on an
on-going and consistent basis, and even if I had kept track of all the
rolls that have come up in the last five months of playing Motif, it
wouldn't illustrate my point because it is the the context of the rolls.
For example; very often I will get almost no doubles during a game, but
when I am trapped behind a prime, waiting to get out, I will more often
than not get two or three doubles in a row (usually threes, fours and
fives) thereby ruining my prime. So, just by examining stats, you could
say I got some doubles, but they were at the most inopportune time.
This happens more often than not. I know it's hard to believe until you
see it, but it happens all the time. Motif will also, get a 63 if it's
the only roll he can use to jump my prime. That should only happen 1
out of 21 rolls, but if he needs it, he'll get it at least 1 out of 3
times. I can honestly predict what Motif is going to roll when he is in
danger on a consistent basis. I sit there after having guessed the roll
wishing someone had seen it, all the time. I play at a coffee shop in
Hollywood a lot, and these things just don't happen on anything close to
the scale of Motif. Not even close. I'm not some BG newbie. I have
been playing for 24 years, and I know there are mind-blowing streaks in
the game, but if someone has one for five months straight, they're
cheating.
I didn't mean to offend Tom, and the site is free, and it's very well
put together, but something is wrong with the dice. I have tried to
play on other sites, and I am embarassed to say I can't figure out how
to set it up. I would like to play with live players. If you have any
advice of other sites, I would apprecitate it. Maybe you and I can play
sometime. Thanks,
Rick
RobAdams
"I don't have enough computer knowledge to gather data "
Yes, you do. Or if you don't, let me help you there. Keep a pencil
and paper with you while you play motif. When a situation where you
wish to keep data comes up, write it down. That's all there is to it.
"This happens more often than not. I know it's hard to believe until
you
see it, but it happens all the time. "
I'll assume by "more often than not" you don't mean greater than 50%
and "all the time" you don't mean 100% as that would be extremely easy
to disprove... as it is I think it's fairly meaningless. But that's
ok... it's still a good start.
"Motif will also, get a 63 if it's the only roll he can use to jump my
prime."
Excellent! This is a theory that you can try to either prove or
disprove. A good start.
"That should only happen 1 out of 21 rolls"
Well, that's close. It should happen 2/36 or 1 out of 18, but you are
in the ball park.
" but if he needs it, he'll get it at least 1 out of 3
> times."
Excellent! Now you have a theory you can try to prove... namely that
when motif has just a 3,6 to hop a prime, it will roll it greater than
1/3 of the time... as it should get a 3,6 only 1/18 of the time, this
would indeed show that the dice were biased.
Ok, so now what? First make sure the thesis is stated exactly as you
mean. This really won't come up a whole lot... only when you have a
5-prime and motif has checkers ideally placed to hop with that roll
and that roll only. For instance if you have the 5,6,bar,8,9pts and
motif has its back checkers on the 24pt I suppose this would apply,
but what if they have their back checkers split on the 24 and 23pts.
Then either a 3,6 or 2,6 would work, so it wouldn't apply. And do you
mean no matter how many checkers are back or only when it is the last
checker? And you are including when motif is on the bar and you have
the 4,5,6,bar, and 8pts right? This part is up to you. Make sure to
state precisely what you mean. Then write it down before you start
gathering evidence.
Then, assuming you stick with something like this... gather evidence.
Play motif and each time you have such a 5 prime and motif needs
exactly a 3,6 to hop the prime make a note of it as well as of the
roll motif gets. After say 1,000 such times, see how many 3,6's motif
rolled. If the number is greater than 333, then you have some good
evidence that the dice may not be random. If it is less than say 60
then that would be good evidence that your thesis is wrong and the
dice are quite random. If it is in between, then you may need some
help with the math... feel free to post your results here and I'll try
to help... but generally if it is very close to 333 then there would
be some evidence for your theory, if closer to 60 or so, then poor
evidence for your theory. I suppose I could do this for you, but then
how would you ever believe my numbers? You really need to do this
yourself. Have fun!