for those willing to be open-minded about bots cheating...
mathpolymath
Kalinyaprak's views concerning bots cheating are also being rather
close-minded. Why couldn't Jellyfish cheat? Or even gnubg for that
matter? And if years from now we did find that they cheated, it would
hardly be the most amazing event in history. Even though gnubg is
open source, it would also not be the first time that an "easter egg"
has appeared in widely-reviewed code.
Frankly, for the truly open-minded, Øystein Johansen's present
external DLL just doesn't cut it from the perspective of the
scientific method. There are just too many possible backdoors for
Jellyfish (and it's programmer) to exploit or to have anticipated.
In the interest of real scientific inquiry, instead of the back-biting
that seems to leap around this topic, I propose that those who are
interested in really investigating this topic and trying to settle
these questions work to devise an experiment where we can show that
either Jellyfish (and/or gnubg) is fair or that it's not. I will
offer a beginning using Jellyfish (interested parties can help to tune
this scenario):
We start by assuming that Jellyfish, is a program that runs on the
computer as other programs, limited by the resources of the computer,
without any extra-sensory-perceptions (such as precognition or the
ability to predict the behavior of the user). As such there are only
two possible ways which Jellyfish could cheat:
(1) Jellyfish manipulates dice rolls (including by limiting the
pseudo-random number generator seed to reduce randomness, etc.)
(2) Jellyfish uses the pseudo-random number generator to predict
future dice rolls and thereby adjusting it's present behavior based on
it's knowledge of future events
Only for the purposes of the basis of an experiment to either prove or
disprove the two propositions above, I propose an external
pseudo-random number generator DLL with the following properties:
(1) a well publicly-reviewed generator algorithm (perhaps Mersenne
Twister would suit) but arithmetically transformed in a way which is
unlikely to be anticipated (for example, reversal of all of the digits
of the random number).
(2) simple code (for easy public review)
(3) reviewed not by the author or anyone associated with Jellyfish,
including any existing customers
(4) which does not use the seed to create a random number, but instead
uses current time in microseconds from some constant absolute
reference time as the seed every time the random number DLL is used
(5) which immediately writes the dice rolls to a file which it
immediately closes and then reopens either before *OR* after sending
anything to Jellyfish (depending on a user preset)
(6) which when writing dice rolls to the file before sending to
Jellyfish, also allows a user preset delay (perhaps from 0-10 seconds)
after writing the dice rolls and before sending them to Jellyfish
(7) that the file to which the DLL will write or read dice-rolls is
named by the user and can be put on any device (disk drive, etc.)
(8) that every time a dice roll is written to the file, also is
written the time seed that was used to generate it both in the form
used as a seed and also in a human readable time.
(9) A separate (non-DLL) program using the same algorithm should be
able to check the file and compare seed to dice roll to verify
integrity
Such a pseudo-random number generator which re-seeds the generator for
every roll based on time is hardly one that a programmer would
normally use. Not only is it time-consuming in terms of processor
time, it also does not have mathematical properties that are easily
classified. However, the point is not to create a new standard for
randomness (or pseudo-random number generator speed), but only to test
for determinism. Since we have started with assuming that Jellyfish
as a blackbox is unaware of events outside the computer, a random
number generator based on the user himself is reasonable.
Furthermore, while it is based on the user, the user can not
consciously control it and thereby subconsciously effect the results
(humans lack microsecond control of their nerves). Allowing the user
to preset the DLL to write out dice rolls to the file after sending
them to Jellyfish should completely eliminates the unlikely
possibility that as a blackbox, Jellyfish has already been programmed
to scan the harddrives for datafiles that appear to be dice roll
files. Allowing them to be written out beforehand with a delay,
allows for the possibility that Jellyfish has already been programmed
to detect such external DLL's and modify their behavior, and allows
the user to spot check the roll *before* Jellyfish get's it and moves.
I think it should be obvious to those of skeptical mindset why I've
included the other properties I listed above.
All of this should be quite doable and not very hard, perhaps even
based on Øystein Johansen's Jellyfish external DLL. Will anyone
volunteer to work on this? I could probably volunteer, but wouldn't
like to do it all myself.
Obviously, what I have left out is how to actually compare the results
of such a DLL with native Jellyfish to detect cheating in native
Jellyfish. But the true skeptic will have no problems devising the
actual experiment in which to use such a tool as I have outline above.
Now for those of you who read so far to see whether I believe
Jellyfish or gnubg are cheating... well, I won't tell you. It's not
relevant to such an open inquiry as I have discussed.
And I for one will thank Murat Kalinyaprak for having been so feisty
in attacking establishmentarian views against such opposition as we
have seen it in this group. More people should stand up so strongly
for what they believe in, whether they are ultimately shown to be
right or wrong. I think too many believe that "the meek will inherit
the earth" means they should silently follow along with the majority
opinions. I hope that not only more people will speak out to defend
him, but also step forward to help with this simple experiment I am
proposing to settle this question.
Michael Crane
to cheat? What's in it for them?
If players truly thought they cheated then they wouldn't buy them - which
cannot be good for sales ;-)
Michael
"mathpolymath" <math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98c3bc67.02052...@posting.google.com...
Steve Pickard
thus disabling the power of the BG community, their way is paved clear for
world domination - I have that on good authority from Elvis.
Open minded - I should think so!!
Steve (from somewhere behind a grassy knoll)
"Michael Crane" <michael.a.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:PqGI8.160$g63....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
jthyssen
> It seems to me that some of those who disagree with Murat
> Kalinyaprak's views concerning bots cheating are also being rather
> close-minded. Why couldn't Jellyfish cheat?
Because it's quite easy to convince yourself that it doesn't. For
example, using the tests described in
http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+528.
> Or even gnubg for that
> matter? And if years from now we did find that they cheated, it would
> hardly be the most amazing event in history.
> Even though gnubg is
> open source, it would also not be the first time that an "easter egg"
> has appeared in widely-reviewed code.
Since gnubg is open source it's quite easy to convince yourself that
it
doesn't cheat by carful inspection of the source. I would be happy to
demonstrate how this could be done.
>
> Frankly, for the truly open-minded, Øystein Johansen's present
> external DLL just doesn't cut it from the perspective of the
> scientific method. There are just too many possible backdoors for
> Jellyfish (and it's programmer) to exploit or to have anticipated.
[snip lengthy experiment]
I don't think you need this experiment. The two experiments suggested
in http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+528 should be sufficient.
I've never seen anybody accusing the bots of cheating putting forward
any scientific evidence that support their claim.
Jørn
Ric
the programmers at JF and Snowie and GNUBg would want to cheat? Test that
against reality, and then you have a reason to proceed or not proceed with
all this other stuff you propose. I think I can say with a reasonable
certainty that you are on your own, stranger, except of course for whatever
help MK might want to offer you.
As a practical matter, using an rng will never satisfy the wingnuts like MK.
In fact, you could roll 50,000 games using real dice through a baffle box,
rolling for you and JF et al, and then roll 50,000 games using JF's rng,
compare the results, and when you see there's no significant difference, the
wingnuts will still say it must cheat. In fact, why don't you go ahead and
do that, and report back in a year or so (and of course you'll explain why
anyone should believe that you didn't cheat and fudge the results, right?)
Spare the world your indignation and huffy righteousness, because in case
you missed it, MK has never come up with any proof of anything other than
that he is four dice, a cube, and fifteen checkers short of a backgammon
set.
Ric
"mathpolymath" <math...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98c3bc67.02052...@posting.google.com...
Derek Ray
math...@yahoo.com (mathpolymath) mumbled something about:
>either Jellyfish (and/or gnubg) is fair or that it's not. I will
>offer a beginning using Jellyfish (interested parties can help to tune
>this scenario):
Here's all the tuning your experiment needs.
Buy you a pair of dice. ($0.20)
Set Jellyfish to "manual dice". Note that in this mode, you are
expected to roll the dice yourself and enter in the results of the rolls
by selecting a button prior to each move. Jellyfish will obediently
play every single roll you tell it to, and it will expect you to do the
same.
Note that it is now 100% impossible for Jellyfish to cheat, as it has no
way to affect the rolls and no way to predict any future rolls. It's
very possible for YOU to cheat, so resist the urge to change any rolls,
no matter how badly you're being spanked, as this will completely
invalidate the experiment.
Compare Jellyfish's performance "before" manual dice to "after" manual
dice. Play, oh, ten 7-point matches with each, or any sufficiently
large number.
After you've done that, THEN come back and suggest that someone should
go nuts and waste their time writing a high-tech solution to a low-tech
problem.
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
Nobody
> Only for the purposes of the basis of an experiment to either prove or
> disprove the two propositions above, I propose an external
> pseudo-random number generator DLL with the following properties:
> (1) a well publicly-reviewed generator algorithm (perhaps Mersenne
> Twister would suit) but arithmetically transformed in a way which is
> unlikely to be anticipated (for example, reversal of all of the digits
> of the random number).
Despite calling yourself a "polymath", your ideas of randomness (such as
"reversal of all of the digits of the random number") reveal you to be
completely naive about the science of random number generation. And
this is the fundamental problem most proponents of these tiresome
arguments exhibit.
> (2) simple code (for easy public review)
Which is EXACTLY what gnubg provides.
> (3) reviewed not by the author or anyone associated with Jellyfish,
> including any existing customers
Yet, as the example of gnubg shows, even with complete source code
available to everyone, some people STILL refuse to change their beliefs.
> (4) which does not use the seed to create a random number, but instead
> uses current time in microseconds from some constant absolute
> reference time as the seed every time the random number DLL is used
Huh? This statement makes absolutely no sense. Reseeding a random
number generator from a timesource on every call yields MUCH poorer
results. Again, it shows that you know little about the science of
random number generators.
> (5) which immediately writes the dice rolls to a file which it
> immediately closes and then reopens either before *OR* after sending
> anything to Jellyfish (depending on a user preset)
> (6) which when writing dice rolls to the file before sending to
> Jellyfish, also allows a user preset delay (perhaps from 0-10 seconds)
> after writing the dice rolls and before sending them to Jellyfish
> (7) that the file to which the DLL will write or read dice-rolls is
> named by the user and can be put on any device (disk drive, etc.)
> (8) that every time a dice roll is written to the file, also is
> written the time seed that was used to generate it both in the form
> used as a seed and also in a human readable time.
> (9) A separate (non-DLL) program using the same algorithm should be
> able to check the file and compare seed to dice roll to verify
> integrity
>
And all this nonsense does what, exactly?
> Such a pseudo-random number generator which re-seeds the generator for
> every roll based on time is hardly one that a programmer would
> normally use.
Of course not, because it's an idiotic approach with well known flaws.
> Not only is it time-consuming in terms of processor
> time, it also does not have mathematical properties that are easily
> classified. However, the point is not to create a new standard for
> randomness (or pseudo-random number generator speed), but only to test
> for determinism. Since we have started with assuming that Jellyfish
> as a blackbox is unaware of events outside the computer, a random
> number generator based on the user himself is reasonable.
> Furthermore, while it is based on the user, the user can not
> consciously control it and thereby subconsciously effect the results
> (humans lack microsecond control of their nerves). Allowing the user
> to preset the DLL to write out dice rolls to the file after sending
> them to Jellyfish should completely eliminates the unlikely
> possibility that as a blackbox, Jellyfish has already been programmed
> to scan the harddrives for datafiles that appear to be dice roll
> files. Allowing them to be written out beforehand with a delay,
> allows for the possibility that Jellyfish has already been programmed
> to detect such external DLL's and modify their behavior, and allows
> the user to spot check the roll *before* Jellyfish get's it and moves.
> I think it should be obvious to those of skeptical mindset why I've
> included the other properties I listed above.
>
> All of this should be quite doable and not very hard, perhaps even
> based on Àystein Johansen's Jellyfish external DLL. Will anyone
> volunteer to work on this? I could probably volunteer, but wouldn't
> like to do it all myself.
>
> Obviously, what I have left out is how to actually compare the results
> of such a DLL with native Jellyfish to detect cheating in native
> Jellyfish. But the true skeptic will have no problems devising the
> actual experiment in which to use such a tool as I have outline above.
>
> Now for those of you who read so far to see whether I believe
> Jellyfish or gnubg are cheating... well, I won't tell you. It's not
> relevant to such an open inquiry as I have discussed.
>
Really? It appears you clearly state your belief in the extreme
contortions you go through trying to prove some sort of point.
> And I for one will thank Murat Kalinyaprak for having been so feisty
> in attacking establishmentarian views against such opposition as we
> have seen it in this group. More people should stand up so strongly
> for what they believe in, whether they are ultimately shown to be
> right or wrong. I think too many believe that "the meek will inherit
> the earth" means they should silently follow along with the majority
> opinions. I hope that not only more people will speak out to defend
> him, but also step forward to help with this simple experiment I am
> proposing to settle this question.
>
Meekness has nothing to do with it. The reason the "establishmentarian
views" exist is because many people have put considerable intellectual
effort into the creation of the mathematics and computer science behind
random number generation. When someone comes along who clearly doesn't
grasp even the most basic concepts, yet tries to challenge those who do,
the response is hardly surprising.
The title of this thread, "for those willing to be open-minded about
bots cheating..." is ironic, because the programmers who create these
programs are being open minded by providing ways for users to add
external RNGs or allow manual rolling (or in the case of gnubg, complete
open source code). Unfortunately, close-minded people like MK will
likely never be able to escape their unwavering (if unfounded) belief
systems.
It never fails to amaze me that with all the applications of random
number generators across every field of engineering and science, some
people stubbornly refuse to believe it is possible to accurately
simulate two little six-sided dice. Or that programmers cannot resist
developing subtle but effective cheats so that the dice favor the bots.
It reveals far more about the disbeliever than about the subject matter.
Michael Crane
If the sceptics did that they'd have nothing to say. As far as I am aware
no-one has bothered to do this yet for the following reasons:
a) For those that believe the bots cheat it would prove them wrong
b) For those they don't believe the bots cheat it isn't necessary
c) What else would we do without the endless "yes it - no in doesn't"
debate?
For the record I am in category b).
Michael
"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v827fusmt27d5gmnp...@4ax.com...
gammonus
Let me first say that I don't believe that the bots cheat. But let me
play devil's advocate for a second. In order to get people to
purchase a program like Snowie or Jellyfish, you have to convince them
that it plays well. One way to provide a bot that seemingly plays
well is to have it cheat. The trick would be convincing everyone that
it does not cheat.
The question is, do we believe that these bots do not cheat until
someone proves to us that they do? Or do we believe that they cheat,
and do so until someone proves that they do not?
My take on it is this. If you believe that they cheat, roll the dice
manually. If the bot still beats you, then you get something from
playing it, do you not?
Regards,
Scott
"Michael Crane" <michael.a.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<PqGI8.160$g63....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
Frank Mazza
The tedium of rolling dice manually and plugging em into to Jellyfish
just see it plays just as well....I'd rather strip bark from trees.
Frank Mazza
Frank Berger
a bot can cheat two ways
- get the numbers he wants to
- know the following numbers to avoid jokers etc.
(may be in subtle ways, only cheating every 5th move or so.)
On the Jellyfish website they shown ways to check whether either of
both cases is true. Those procedures are much simpler than the stuff
outlined above.
Especially with GNU-BG it's easy to prove it doesn't cheat and the
structure of a bot is not so complicated, that you can hide an
"easter-egg" so that no one should have found it.
ciao
frank
math...@yahoo.com (mathpolymath) wrote in message news:<98c3bc67.02052...@posting.google.com>...
> It seems to me that some of those who disagree with Murat
> Kalinyaprak's views concerning bots cheating are also being rather
-------cut-----
Back4U2 BBL
"Frank Berger" <fr...@bgblitz.com> wrote in message
news:aab8a7e5.02052...@posting.google.com...
> Funny that this cheating stuff dicussion goes on and on...
>
> a bot can cheat two ways
> - get the numbers he wants to
> - know the following numbers to avoid jokers etc.
>
> (may be in subtle ways, only cheating every 5th move or so.)
>
> On the Jellyfish website they shown ways to check whether either of
> both cases is true. Those procedures are much simpler than the stuff
> outlined above.
this is the URL:
http://jelly.effect.no/dice.htm
Ric
playing against a bot that plays well, and since the object of most bots is
to provide an opponent from which you can learn, you're better off if it
cheats, thus challenging you with a stronger opposition.
Therefore a cheating bot is a good thing. And since Snowie and JF and GNUBG
play as strongly as the top humans in most instances, they must cheat and
are therefore great programs. Cheating in a bot is thus desirable.
So it doesn't matter if the bot cheats or plays honestly, as long as it
plays well. Unless you play bots for money, which indicates that there are
more severe problems involved.
;-)
Ric
"gammonus" <gammon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:68f59752.02052...@posting.google.com...
Hank Youngerman
question.
Some bridge programs cheat. They do this because they are simply not
strong enough to give a user a competitive game. I don't want to play
a program that is too weak to give me a good game. Imagine for a
moment that before making my opening lead, I could see the highest
card in my partner's hand. My opening leads would improve
dramatically. More importantly, my opponents could not get away with
overbidding, even if the rest of my defensive skills were weak.
Likewise, if the weak computer program routinely bids to hopeless
contracts, what is the challenge in defending them?
Of course, JF and Snowie are strong enough that they don't need to do
this. The creators of bridge programs that cheat admit the cheating.
If they actually were caught cheating it would destroy their
credibility. But there CAN be reasons to have a program cheat.
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that math...@yahoo.com (mathpolymath) wrote:
>It seems to me that some of those who disagree with Murat
>Kalinyaprak's views concerning bots cheating are also being rather
>close-minded. Why couldn't Jellyfish cheat? Or even gnubg for that
>matter? And if years from now we did find that they cheated, it would
>hardly be the most amazing event in history. Even though gnubg is
>open source, it would also not be the first time that an "easter egg"
>has appeared in widely-reviewed code.
AFAIK there is evidence that the bots (or at least some of them) don't
cheat -- the fact that they play just as well with manual dice.
--------
Greycat Sharpclaw
- does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that "Ric" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>On the other hand, if the bot cheats to appear to play well, then you're
>playing against a bot that plays well, and since the object of most bots is
>to provide an opponent from which you can learn, you're better off if it
>cheats, thus challenging you with a stronger opposition.
This does not follow. If the bots *do* cheat, then the rolls in
critical circunstances will be non-random, with the result that you
learn the wrong lessons.
Not that I think they cheat, but if they did...
--------
Greycat Sharpclaw
Cats of the world unite; all you have to lose is your collars!
Remove the "nospam" in my address to e-mail me
kinston
There is a simple solution to all this.
Just play chess.
"Greycat Sharpclaw" <theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cf440ed....@news.earthlink.net...
Stig Eide
away from r.g.b. for some time. ;)
It is also very interesting to observe that a lot of people would
never change their opinion on a matter. Actually, a lot of people
thinks that it is a sign of weakness to change their opinion.
Anyway, I also find it interesting to learn that using a constant seed
is better than using the system time, as I do.
Could you please explain why this is so?
Thank you,
Stig Eide
Nobody <nob...@home.com> wrote in message news:<20020528082...@netnews.attbi.com>...
Murat Kalinyaprak
Michael Crane wrote PqGI8.160$g63....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net
> Can anyone one tell me WHY the programmers of Jelly and Snowie
> would want it to cheat? What's in it for them?
Michael, I had started a "creativity contest", asking the same question
but none of you guys had the guts or the sense of humor to participate.
There is got to be at least ten reasons for it, if not twenty or more...(??)
Some people are capable of doing things that other people can't even
imagine doing or find reasons for doing...
Why would some people create and send computer viruses around the
world...? Perhaps the bastards are sick...???
Why would some people build bombs and put them in the mail-boxes
of innocent/unsuspecting folks...? Perhaps the bastards are sick...???
Don't think that I'm trying to draw parallels here. I certainly wouldn't
dare
to insinuate in this group that some bg robot developers may be sick
bastards :) but I may be able to come up with ten noble :)) reasons why
some people would send viruses around or plant mail-bombs...
It may be harder to come up with noble reasons for bg robots cheating
but I had even dared suggest some noble reasons for this, many years
ago in this newsgroup... Why can't you at least try (i.e. "Try!") doing the
same...?? I'm sure you have the brains for it. So, what is it...? You don't
have the guts...??
> If players truly thought they cheated then they wouldn't buy them -
> which cannot be good for sales ;-)
Bill cheated on Hillary but Hillary didn't divorce Bill, did she...?? It's
never too late to go back to school and take a logic lesson or two...
In this group, many many times in the past, some people had already
argued that they wouldn't care if the bots cheated as long as they did
help them become better players... (Would you prefer me to say: "Just
like Hillary" or "Ass-kissers"...??)
If you don't want to go back to school, at least please try to read and
remember what's already arguead for in this "incestuous" newsgroup...
MK
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Michael Crane
"Murat Kalinyaprak" <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote in message
news:3cf4...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Michael Crane wrote PqGI8.160$g63....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net
>
> > Can anyone one tell me WHY the programmers of Jelly and Snowie
> > would want it to cheat? What's in it for them?
>
> Michael, I had started a "creativity contest", asking the same question
> but none of you guys had the guts or the sense of humor to participate.
MC: The threads went on for so long and got longer and longer that I
eventually lost the will to live!
> There is got to be at least ten reasons for it, if not twenty or
more...(??)
>
> Some people are capable of doing things that other people can't even
> imagine doing or find reasons for doing...
>
> Why would some people create and send computer viruses around the
> world...? Perhaps the bastards are sick...???
>
> Why would some people build bombs and put them in the mail-boxes
> of innocent/unsuspecting folks...? Perhaps the bastards are sick...???
>
> Don't think that I'm trying to draw parallels here. I certainly wouldn't
> dare
> to insinuate in this group that some bg robot developers may be sick
> bastards :) but I may be able to come up with ten noble :)) reasons why
> some people would send viruses around or plant mail-bombs...
>
> It may be harder to come up with noble reasons for bg robots cheating
> but I had even dared suggest some noble reasons for this, many years
> ago in this newsgroup... Why can't you at least try (i.e. "Try!") doing
the
> same...?? I'm sure you have the brains for it. So, what is it...? You
don't
> have the guts...??
MC: I don't need to come up for any reasons, noble or otherwise. I am
convinced that JF doesn't cheat. I am equally convinced it is a better
player than I am - that is why I keep getting beaten by it. OK, it does have
some good luck, but so do I. I have played it using the same seed for each
of us and it made not a jot of difference to the outcome. I haven't archived
your comments over the years but I think I am correct that you, nor anyone
else, have come up with proof of the cheating. It has all been opinion; as
it is my opinion that JF doesn't cheat - and I admit I cannot prove it :-)
> > If players truly thought they cheated then they wouldn't buy them -
> > which cannot be good for sales ;-)
>
> Bill cheated on Hillary but Hillary didn't divorce Bill, did she...?? It's
> never too late to go back to school and take a logic lesson or two...
MC: More fool Hilary. I wish my wife was so 'understanding'!!! Perhaps being
the most powerful man on earth might have been a consideration.
> In this group, many many times in the past, some people had already
> argued that they wouldn't care if the bots cheated as long as they did
> help them become better players... (Would you prefer me to say: "Just
> like Hillary" or "Ass-kissers"...??)
MC: If the bots do in fact cheat then we will need to rewrite the old adage,
"Cheats never prosper!"
> If you don't want to go back to school, at least please try to read and
> remember what's already arguead for in this "incestuous" newsgroup...
MC: Who are you calling incestuous? Anyway, it was just the once so it
doesn't count :-)))
Michael
Ric
Ric
"kinston" <elep...@doodle.net> wrote in message
news:2QYI8.192537$o66.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ric
pro-cheating faction puts forth.
Ric
P.S. Do you have any cats?
"Greycat Sharpclaw" <theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cf44154....@news.earthlink.net...
Nobody
> It is also very interesting to observe that a lot of people would
> never change their opinion on a matter. Actually, a lot of people
> thinks that it is a sign of weakness to change their opinion.
Sad but true...
> Anyway, I also find it interesting to learn that using a constant seed
> is better than using the system time, as I do.
> Could you please explain why this is so?
I didn't say that. What mpm seemed to propose was reseeding the RNG from
a timestamp every time it was called, thinking it would create "better"
random numbers. It doesn't, in fact, it may create much worse sequences.
For most applications seeding an RNG (once) from the system time or
other time source is a perfectly adequate approach, which is why the
technique is so commonly used.
Murat Kalinyaprak
jthyssen wrote 36775ed0.02052...@posting.google.com
> mathpolymath wrote <98c3bc67.02052...@posting.google.com>
>> It seems to me that some of those who disagree with Murat
>> Kalinyaprak's views concerning bots cheating are also being
>> rather close-minded. Why couldn't Jellyfish cheat?
> Because it's quite easy to convince yourself that it doesn't. For
> example, using the tests described in
> http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+528.
Time and again it has been successfully argued that them so-called
"step-by-step" instructions only prove that JF doesn't cheat with the
dice in certain ways but not in every possible way...
So, why do we have still people bringing up the same stale shit as
conclusive evidence...?? I'll let some "ass-kisser" answer this one...
> Since gnubg is open source it's quite easy to convince yourself
> that it doesn't cheat by carful inspection of the source. I would be
> happy to demonstrate how this could be done.
Yes, please do so... We are waiting...
> I've never seen anybody accusing the bots of cheating putting
> forward any scientific evidence that support their claim.
For one thing, it would be illegal and/or unethical to provide such
an evidence when the source code wasn't published, etc...
And for another, what would anybody gain from doing that...?? If
someone had "evidence", why couldn't he try to capitalize on it
(by inviting "ass-kissers of the bg world" to bet against him on
unlikely odds instead of just giving it all away)...?
I, for one, have been begging this group to give me a chance to
take a shot at it but so far apparently in vain... :((
I have even tried to bet money against non-money values, such
as betting $10.00 in money if I lose, against the right to call my
opponent "You dumb ass!" to his face and in front of cameras...
Why hasn't any world-class players good enough to vouch for JF
ever taken me up on this...??
Your choices are clear... Either think about what I'm saying/asking
and seek an answer to it, or go buy some more books of theirs...
This makes one more thing that I would bet money on. That is, not
one world-class-player, book-publishing-guru will dare dabate with
me openly in this forum... Anybody wants to bet on this...? And for
how much...??
Murat Kalinyaprak
Derek Ray wrote v827fusmt27d5gmnp...@4ax.com
> Here's all the tuning your experiment needs.
> Buy you a pair of dice. ($0.20)
And stick them up your ass...
Elementary logic and minimal independent-thinking
tells that a bot's playing a strong game with manual
dice can not be offered as an evidence for its not
cheating in other ways (like with its own dice, etc.)...
Dumb ass-kissing tourists from the planet Moro will,
of course, never undertsand this and, in my opinion,
can never be/become good backgammon players...
I think that a $9.95 book about the art of bonsai tree
training will help their backgammon game just as
much as Robertie's and/or whomever's $29.95 book
about cube skill, etc...
No need to go into why cube skill books sell for more
than bonsai tree training books, but I do belive that if
Robertie, et. al. wrote books on bonsai tree training,
I bet they could sell it to you for $29.95 anyway...
Murat Kalinyaprak
Nobody wrote 20020528082...@netnews.attbi.com
>> And I for one will thank Murat Kalinyaprak for having been so
>> feisty in attacking establishmentarian views against such
>> opposition as we have seen it in this group. More people
>> should stand up so strongly for what they believe in, whether
>> they are ultimately shown to be right or wrong. I think too
>> many believe that "the meek will inherit the earth" means
>> they should silently follow along with the majority opinions.
>> I hope that not only more people will speak out to defend
>> him, but also step forward to help with this simple experiment
>> I am proposing to settle this question.
> Meekness has nothing to do with it.
I think he was too meek to call it meekness. I myself prefer to
call it "ass-kissing"...
> The reason the "establishmentarian views" exist is because
> many people have put considerable intellectual effort into the
> creation of the mathematics and computer science behind
> random number generation. When someone comes along who
> clearly doesn't grasp even the most basic concepts, yet tries
> to challenge those who do, the response is hardly surprising.
First of all, there is no need or use to dwell on RNG's alone as
they are not the ultimate focus of this debate...
And secondly, history is full of countless examples of how the
"establishment" can end up drowning itself in its own bullshit...
> The title of this thread, "for those willing to be open-minded
> about bots cheating..." is ironic, because the programmers
> who create these programs are being open minded by
> providing ways for users to add external RNGs or allow
> manual rolling (or in the case of gnubg, complete open source
> code). Unfortunately, close-minded people like MK will likely
> never be able to escape their unwavering (if unfounded) belief
> systems.
A - Manual dice arguments are irrelevant to the issue. If you are
incapable of grasping this, as most of the herd apparently can't
do so in this group, then obviously there is no need to discuss
this any further with you...
B - A bot can cheat using external DLL's, text files of dice rolls,
etc... If you are incapable of grasping this, as most of the herd
apparently can't do so in this group, then obviously there is no
need to discuss this any further with you...
C - Since you and your likes now offer gnudung's open source
code as evidence, where were you when I/we were asking JF
to cut the bulshit and just publish the source code...??
D - And where do you stand now on this very same issue about
JF's source code...? It looks like JF has been discontinued and
pretty much obsolete by now... What do you say about pushing
for a campaign to get the JF's source code published...?? You,
can run but you can't hide... Ten years from now JF will be really
realy obsolete and I/we will still be asking this same question...
E - Once we get the above issues out of the way, I would be glad
to move forward with you onto new subjects like gnudun's open
source code, etc...
Derek Ray
"Murat Kalinyaprak" <mu...@compuplus.net> mumbled something about:
>jthyssen wrote 36775ed0.02052...@posting.google.com
>
>> Because it's quite easy to convince yourself that it doesn't. For
>> example, using the tests described in
>> http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+528.
>
>Time and again it has been successfully argued that them so-called
>"step-by-step" instructions only prove that JF doesn't cheat with the
>dice in certain ways but not in every possible way...
Nobody has EVER successfully argued it. You think you have, but you're
wrong. You claim that JF may just be programmed not to cheat with
manual dice. If it doesn't cheat with manual dice, but DOES cheat with
its own dice, its performance would be noticeably different. This would
be revealed in the experiment above. Simple fact.
Game. Set. Match. And now, if I wanted, I could call YOU a dumb
ass-kisser in front of cameras; because this is actual factual 100%
truth, baby. GG $$ EZ.
Derek Ray
>Derek Ray wrote v827fusmt27d5gmnp...@4ax.com
>
>> Here's all the tuning your experiment needs.
>> Buy you a pair of dice. ($0.20)
>
>Elementary logic and minimal independent-thinking
>tells that a bot's playing a strong game with manual
>dice can not be offered as an evidence for its not
>cheating in other ways (like with its own dice, etc.)...
Unfortunately for you AND your kook ego, yes, it can. I already 0wned
you in a previous message with regard to this; please return to your
prior kneeling position and continue kissing my feet.
Nobody
> And secondly, history is full of countless examples
> of how the "establishment" can end up drowning
> itself in its own bullshit...
Thanks for the news flash, Copernicus. History is also full of
countless examples of individuals who talk to chickens.
> [...]
> E - Once we get the above issues out of the way,
> I would be glad to move forward with you onto new
> subjects like gnudun's open source code, etc...
"Move forward", got a good chuckle from that--especially considering the
statement immediately before it:
Daniel Hollis
> If the sceptics did that they'd have nothing to say. As far as I am aware
> no-one has bothered to do this yet for the following reasons:
>
> a) For those that believe the bots cheat it would prove them wrong
>
> b) For those they don't believe the bots cheat it isn't necessary
>
> c) What else would we do without the endless "yes it - no in doesn't"
> debate?
Or d) They couldn't argue that there is other mysterious unexplained
cheating going on under the hood.
An example conversation:
A: "Jellyfish cheats! But I don't know how it cheats; it just wins
too much."
B: "okay, here's how you show it doesn't cheat by doing X (e.g. its
roll isn't based on position):"
A: "Not good enough! Maybe it cheats some other way. I don't know
how, but prove it doesn't cheat any other way! Prove it doesn't cheat
in a way we don't understand!"
And Repeat. Because the program is a black box to us users, they can
always argue there's cheating that no one can see.
Compare that to physical dice, where you can't get very far by saying
"Fairly rolled dice aren't good enough! Prove to me that there isn't
some dice manipulation doing on that we don't understand." Okay, we
can measure the statistical deviation of a player's rolls. "Not good
enough! Maybe a player is manipulating dice in such a way that the
statistical distribution looks fair but still gives him an advantage!"
There's nothing to do but throw your hands up. I say sure, let's
admit that the bots could cheat in way which is totally unmeasurable
to humans in any way, except it makes them win. The bots could win by
magic.
Dan
Back4U2 BBL
"Daniel Hollis" <dan.h...@alum.dartmouth.org> wrote in message
news:ad369a45.02053...@posting.google.com...
:-)
And you _have_ to believe in magic, otherwise there isn't magic....
Nardy
>
> Dan
Douglas Zare
Daniel Hollis wrote:
> [...]
> Compare that to physical dice, where you can't get very far by saying
> "Fairly rolled dice aren't good enough! Prove to me that there isn't
> some dice manipulation doing on that we don't understand." Okay, we
> can measure the statistical deviation of a player's rolls. "Not good
> enough! Maybe a player is manipulating dice in such a way that the
> statistical distribution looks fair but still gives him an advantage!"
Actually, that can be tested, too, as I explained in an article in GammonVillage.com:
http://www.gammonvillage.com/backgammon/news/article_display.cfm?resourceid=411
> There's nothing to do but throw your hands up. I say sure, let's
> admit that the bots could cheat in way which is totally unmeasurable
> to humans in any way, except it makes them win. The bots could win by
> magic.
I'm willing to back Jellyfish level 7 (3-ply) against Jellyfish level 5 (1-ply) with Jellyfish level 5 rolling the dice. For those
who think the bots cheat in order to beat them by 1/3 of a point per game or more, ask yourselves whether you really believe JF
cheats enough to gain ~0.1 points per game in order to reverse the small but noticeable difference in playing strength between
these levels. If you don't believe it, don't try to convince others of it. It's clear that JF plays very well, and that this
explains why it wins, not any cheating.
Douglas Zare
Kees van den Doel
Douglas Zare <za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
>Actually, that can be tested, too, as I explained in an article in
>GammonVillage.com:
>http://www.gammonvillage.com/backgammon/news/article_display.cfm?resourceid=411
Um, I have to PAY to read this explanation of yours?
I thought advertizing on USENET was frowned upon, to say the least.
Kees (No, with Element 115, and abuse page:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvandoel/bg Kees Mr.)
Douglas Zare
> In article <3CF69465...@math.columbia.edu>,
> Douglas Zare <za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >Actually, that can be tested, too, as I explained in an article in
> >GammonVillage.com:
> >http://www.gammonvillage.com/backgammon/news/article_display.cfm?resourceid=411
>
> Um, I have to PAY to read this explanation of yours?
That's certainly what it looks like, though of course I receive no fraction of your
subscription fee. Would you complain if I cited a book with a nonzero cover price
not included in all libraries, or an article in an academic journal costing
$1000/year?
You might be able to piece together the ideas with a lot of time spent with
Google.com, as I have posted most of the relevant ideas here and in other backgammon
discussion forums, though I warn you that you will be exposed to ads along the way.
> I thought advertizing on USENET was frowned upon, to say the least.
Lots of things are frowned on that are perfectly reasonable. Some forms of
advertising are explicitly on topic and welcomed throughout much of usenet, and
several posts which are plainly advertising are in the rgb archive of "best" posts.
Irrelevant or repeated ads are a different matter. See the difference between the
above information and a pyramid scheme?
1) Would you rather that I said nothing, or mentioned that an article exists? I
think it is clearly more informative if I mention that the article exists.
2) Given that I mention that I have written an article covering a topic, would you
prefer that I give the URL or not? Even for those who subscribe to GV, and even for
me, it takes a bit of work to find which of my dozen+ articles in GammonVillage is
the right one, and to locate it.
Douglas Zare
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that "Ric" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Joke, Grey, joke! Makes as much sense as some of the arguments the
>pro-cheating faction puts forth.
>
>Ric
Having seen such nonsensical comments made in pure seriousness, I was
predisposed to consider your admited nonsensical statement as being
another case. I am sorry if I misunderstood, but smilies go a long
way to preventing such misunderstandings.
>P.S. Do you have any cats?
I live with 5 other cats, 4 of them grey! And, of course, my human
Robin.
Mogath3
>thus disabling the power of the BG community, their way is paved clear for
>world domination - I have that on good authority from Elvis.
>
>Open minded - I should think so!!
>
>Steve (from somewhere behind a grassy knoll)
And I thought all along that Jim Morrison and John Lennon were behind all this
stuff secretly from Roswell New Mexico, while discussing it with the the people
in Atlantis, who have it on first hand knowledge from The Bermuda Triangle.
Wow, I guess I was wrong.
Regards,
Jeff
Ric
Ric
"Greycat Sharpclaw" <theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cf82af7...@news.earthlink.net...
Kees van den Doel
Douglas Zare <za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
>> >Actually, that can be tested, too, as I explained in an article in
>> >GammonVillage.com:
>>http://www.gammonvillage.com/backgammon/news/article_display.cfm?resourceid=411
>> Um, I have to PAY to read this explanation of yours?
>That's certainly what it looks like, though of course I receive no
>fraction of your subscription fee. Would you complain if I cited a book
>with a nonzero cover price not included in all libraries, or an article
>in an academic journal costing $1000/year?
That would also be in rather poor taste on usenet, unless it is really
really not possible to discuss the issue het on usenet instead of
pointing to this or that article where it is all explained. At least
most authors of articles published in academic journals make a version
available for download on their homepage, or if all else fails one can
go to he library.
These reference to gammonvillage articles are much worse however because
it is clearly impossible to access them unless you subscribe to the
whole website and PAY personally.
I am certainly very annoyed to follow a link to information on free
usenet which turns out to be after my wallet after all.
>You might be able to piece together the ideas with a lot of time spent
>with Google.com, as I have posted most of the relevant ideas here and
>in other backgammon discussion forums, though I warn you that you will
>be exposed to ads along the way.
So why don't you provide pointers to freely available information
instead of those to the money makers?
>> I thought advertizing on USENET was frowned upon, to say the least.
>Lots of things are frowned on that are perfectly reasonable. Some forms
>of advertising are explicitly on topic and welcomed throughout much of
>usenet, and several posts which are plainly advertising are in the rgb
>archive of "best" posts. Irrelevant or repeated ads are a different
>matter. See the difference between the above information and a pyramid
>scheme?
>1) Would you rather that I said nothing, or mentioned that an article
>exists? I think it is clearly more informative if I mention that the
>article exists.
>2) Given that I mention that I have written an article covering a
>topic, would you prefer that I give the URL or not? Even for those who
>subscribe to GV, and even for me, it takes a bit of work to find which
>of my dozen+ articles in GammonVillage is the right one, and to locate
>it.
Like I said before, you have more choices than those. I'd rather you
point to freely available information or discuss the point here.
This gammonvillage.com seems like a virus. Many times when I search for
information on backgammon related topics I end up following a link which
has been "taken over" by gammonvillage.com and am asked to pull out my
wallet.
Kees (Money Fast Cash?, I meane, Any opinions about nothing.)
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that stig...@yahoo.com (Stig Eide) wrote:
>Anyway, I also find it interesting to learn that using a constant seed
>is better than using the system time, as I do.
>Could you please explain why this is so?
>Thank you,
>Stig Eide
Using a time-based seed for the *first* run of your RNG is good for
making the performance unpredictable.
But most RNGs are designed to work best if the output from the last
time becomes the seed the next time. Any seed with a detectable
pattern (such as the time, which (1) always goes up, and (2) is about
the same for the duration of the game) is inferior.
Douglas Zare
Kees van den Doel wrote:
> In article <3CF763F0...@math.columbia.edu>,
> Douglas Zare <za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >Actually, that can be tested, too, as I explained in an article in
> >> >GammonVillage.com:
>
> >>http://www.gammonvillage.com/backgammon/news/article_display.cfm?resourceid=411
>
> >> Um, I have to PAY to read this explanation of yours?
>
> >That's certainly what it looks like, though of course I receive no
> >fraction of your subscription fee. Would you complain if I cited a book
> >with a nonzero cover price not included in all libraries, or an article
> >in an academic journal costing $1000/year?
>
> That would also be in rather poor taste on usenet,
I strongly disagree, and I think most of usenet is on my side. Do you subscribe to
the notion that others should work to make information free to you? Most people at
least accept the idea of books, and references to books. Do you think it is in poor
taste to recommend that an "advanced" player who wants to learn more about backgammon
read Magriel's _Backgammon_? What about _Inside Backgammon_, a magazine for which
I've paid $40/year for back issues partially in order to write my articles?
> unless it is really
> really not possible to discuss the issue het on usenet instead of
> pointing to this or that article where it is all explained.
It is possible. I don't feel like repeating myself and using text rather than html.
Do you think your accusations encourage me to make more information freely available?
Hint: No.
I will continue to refer to my articles whereever they appear. I may recap an
argument here, but if you really want to read the best exposition, grit your teeth
and pay the publisher.
Douglas Zare
Nis Jorgensen
(Greycat Sharpclaw) wrote:
>Having seen such nonsensical comments made in pure seriousness, I was
>predisposed to consider your admited nonsensical statement as being
>another case.
Well, having seen so many serious replies made to pure nonsense, it is
sometimes interesting to see whether people are able to distinguish
artifical nonsense from the real thing.
>I am sorry if I misunderstood, but smilies go a long
>way to preventing such misunderstandings.
But why would we?
--
Nis Jorgensen
Amsterdam
Nis Jorgensen
<za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>I strongly disagree, and I think most of usenet is on my side.
Well, will you organize the vote, or should I?
>Do you subscribe to the notion that others should work to make information free to you?
I subscribe to the FACT that others ARE making information available
to me. I think it is a good idea, and try to do the same to otheres
myself.
--
Nis Jorgensen
Amsterdam
Frank Mazza
your Gammonvillage articles that the service is a pay site it might
prevent somone from following the link and then getting upset that you
have to subscribe to read the article.
I know the availability of large amounts of free information on the
Internet has lead some people to feel everything should be free, but
I'm not one of them.
It takes time, money and a lot of effort to run a site like
Gammonvillage. Just like it takes time and effort on your part and
the part of the other columnists to write the articles.
I don't feel I'm entitled to get all that for free, and hence I'm a
subcriber. Same with Kit's Gammonline.
As to the guy's strange notion that Gammonvillage is some kind of
"virus" because a lot of links and searches lead there...that's silly.
Gammonvillage is the major backgammon portal so it is no surprise that
when searching for all things backgammon you often get directed there.
Frank Mazza
On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 19:13:07 -0400, Douglas Zare
<za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
Paul Tanenbaum
news:2QYI8.192537$o66.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> You're all missing the point.
> There is a simple solution to all this.
> Just play chess.
But when you lose to a program in chess, you can't salve your ego by
invoking conspiracy theories about its cheating ways. And you can't
saturate the chess newsgroups with your paranoia -
What chess really needs is an infusion of dice - to achieve at last its
destiny as a truly great game -
> > There is an allegation that math...@yahoo.com (mathpolymath) wrote:
> > >It seems to me that some of those who disagree with Murat
> > >Kalinyaprak's views concerning bots cheating are also being rather
> > >close-minded...
---
Paul T.
Murat Kalinyaprak
Derek Ray wrote coccfuogjmeig9hto...@4ax.com
> In 3cf5...@post.newsfeed.com Murat mumbled something about:
>>> Because it's quite easy to convince yourself that it doesn't. For
>>> example, using the tests described in
>>> http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+528.
>>Time and again it has been successfully argued that them so-called
>>"step-by-step" instructions only prove that JF doesn't cheat with the
>>dice in certain ways but not in every possible way...
> Nobody has EVER successfully argued it.
Listen, "Bozo(?)"... Some people did but nobody even ever had to
argue so because the article you had referred to starts with this:
"Section A
"This is for those of a seriously pedantic disposition
"You cannot *prove* that JF *never* manipulates the dice (at least
"not in any feasible time span).
"You cannot prove absolutely, that JF did not manipulate the dice
"for a certain game, because there is an absurdly small possibility
"that it is designed to win some specific games.
Do you know what you are talking about...? If you don't understand
English at "English as a second language" level, why do you waste
all these peoples' time by posting garbage here...?
It looks like some tourists from planet Moro would benefit better from
taking some Englisg classes before taking some logic classes...
> You think you have, but you're wrong.
Forget about what I or anybody else had argued against it... What
about the above words from the author that you cited yourself...?
Hables Ingles amigo...?
> You claim that JF may just be programmed not to cheat with
> manual dice.
Huh...? I admit that I had at times proposed some possibilities that
could blow some peoples' minds but I don't think I could ever claim
something as logical as this... :))
> If it doesn't cheat with manual dice, but DOES cheat with its own
> dice, its performance would be noticeably different. This would
> be revealed in the experiment above. Simple fact.
What experiment...? Who has ever bothered to do en experiment
on this...?? All we have heard on this so far go nothing beyond some
baseless deductions by some assuming-ass-kissers...
On the other hand, we all heard plenty about how such experiments
would be a waste of time. Maybe a waste of assuming-ass-kissers'
time but never a waste of my own worthless time... :))
> Game. Set. Match. And now, if I wanted, I could call YOU a dumb
> ass-kisser in front of cameras; because this is actual factual 100%
> truth, baby. GG $$ EZ.
Thanks for making me smile... :)) And I mean this... :))) Can you at
least say "Cheese!" for me also...?
Murat Kalinyaprak
Douglas Zare wrote 3CF69465...@math.columbia.edu
> I'm willing to back Jellyfish level 7 (3-ply) against Jellyfish level 5
> (1-ply) with Jellyfish level 5 rolling the dice. For those who think
> the bots cheat in order to beat them by 1/3 of a point per game
> or more, ask yourselves whether you really believe JF cheats
> enough to gain ~0.1 points per game in order to reverse the
> small but noticeable difference in playing strength between
> these levels. If you don't believe it, don't try to convince others
> of it. It's clear that JF plays very well, and that this explains why
> it wins, not any cheating.
Let me start by apologizing for not understanding this bullshit... :((
When you chose to play against JF level 5, you are asking *it* to
play at "level 5" against you... You may be a player at JF's level
1, or 6, or 14, or 57...
Let's say that JF can play at its own highest level of 8... When you
select level 5, it gives you a pre-calculated slack...
So, JF level 5 doesn't need to care if its opponent is another JF
level 7, or 17, or 77...
The issue really arises when one claims that he can play at JF's
level 8 or higher... (Just to be sure, let's "ass-ume" that JF can
play at level 8).
Otherwise, why would JF level 7 cheat against JF level 7...? Or
even a lower JF level...?
The question that really matters here is this: "If you played at
JF level 8 against JF level 7, what would happen"...??
Perhaps, of course :), very few "humans" could attain JF level
8 but I had tipped you in the past that you could "cheat" just
for the sake of experimenting... :))
Has even any human-ass-kissing-moron ever tried playing at
level 8 against JF level 7 by cheating...???
If not, why are you still here trying to debate with me to waste
my time and the time of this group's readership...??
Will the dumb-asses in this group ever fuck-off and leave the
grounds for more intelligent and productive debates (between
me and the resident rocket scientists of this group:))...??
Murat Kalinyaprak
Nis Jorgensen wrote 9ndmfugo61qmk5e31...@4ax.com
> Well, having seen so many serious replies made to pure nonsense,
> it is sometimes interesting to see whether people are able to
> distinguish artifical nonsense from the real thing.
"Scum sucking gods" bless your heart for making me smile my friend...
I'm sure it must be very interesting for people like you to distinguish
between the "artificial nonsense" and the "real thing" (i.e. the "real
nonsende"... :))
Murat Kalinyaprak
Paul Tanenbaum wrote adhk8t$11fplu$1...@ID-82218.news.dfncis.de
> But when you lose to a program in chess, you can't salve your ego
> by invoking conspiracy theories about its cheating ways. And you
> can't saturate the chess newsgroups with your paranoia -
"Paranoia"...? At least a remote possibility...
"Salving one's ego"...? Certainly not...!
I, myself, and a few others have both claimed to beat certain robots and
expressed their opinions about the same robots cheating...
I wish you were a brick-layer who goes to bed with sand in his ass; then
"burying your head in sand" would acquire a whole new meaning without
me actually having to say the word. Snort, snort.. :)) Gosh, after all those
years, I can still "be light hearted" and "have fun" in this newsgroup...
:)))
> What chess really needs is an infusion of dice - to achieve at last its
> destiny as a truly great game -
But what made backgammon "a truly great game" wasn't the dice that
was used in that game since it's inception thousands of years ago...
It was rather "the cube" that was **infused** into bacgammon by those
"world-class-gamblers-anonymous" that made backgammon "a truly
great game" in their own eyes...
I don't think chess-playing people have anything to worry about... But
if those "sick" gamblers-anonymous-people had their way; they could
molest kids in as bad ways as those catholic priests, by the "infusion
of dice into games like hopscotch, hide-and-seek, etc."...
After reading this, if you still can have a nice day; then you know what
you are...
Derek Ray
>After reading this, if you still can have a nice day; then you know what
>you are...
Wow, you really ARE a conspiracy-theory kook. You're just a
backgammon-conspiracy kook, instead of the normal run-of-the-mill kook.
What happened, Murat? Did someone rob you of your rent money one night
over the backgammon table, and now you're out to vilify the whole game
as a result?
Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting for those dozen+ match logs you
claimed to have posted. A link to the posting on Google would suffice;
I'm afraid that my news server that has received every other post in
this NG over the past year has, for some reason, not received your
dozen+ match logs yet.
This is, of course, assuming that you actually posted them.
Which I doubt.