Let me warn you that this will be necessarily a long article but if
you take time to read it, you probably will learn something from it.
The reason I am being humble enough to say "probably" instead of
saying "for sure", is that I have no idea about the brain capacity of
all who will be reading it.
But don't you worry. I will try to spell it all out for you as much as
I can. So, let's get started by looking at a position.
GNU Backgammon Position ID: u3PDAADvtgHAAA
Match ID : MIHxAAAAAAAE
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: gnubg
| O O O O O | | | 0 points
| O O O O O | | | Rolled 34
| O O | | |
| O | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |^ 7 point match (Cube:
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X X | | O X |
| X X X X X | | O X | 0 points
+24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: Murat7F01
In this positin gnugb played 18/11 which raised my eyebrow. This is
the kind of position that I have been talking about when claiming that
I can predict future dice rolls playing against gnubg and other bots.
At this point let's tie a couple of loose ends so that you can focus
better. Whether admitted or not, all bg bots today are mutated
offsprings of jellyfish.
Jellyfish was cheating. When I reported in this forum that it was
rolling 77's, the dice rolling bug was fixed but at the same time
jellyfish started to play differently. Thus, the link between how
jellyfish rolled dice and how it played was established. After that,
the guy who was peddling jellyfish disappeared from the face of the
planet and jellyfish has been flushed down into the backgammon septic
And you may be wondering why I wanted to play cubeless 7-point matches
to begin with? Well, I was not only just upset but also curious about
not being able to play cubeless backgammon (i.e. "the real thing"
before it was bastardized by sick gambler Americans) using commercial
bots like extereme gammon. So, I decided to see if I could find any
answers by playing cubeless 7-point matches against gnubg.
I downloaded 10x10,000 rolls from the random.org
, saved them in 10
different files, poured myself a cup of tea, got comfortable in my
chair and started to play, intending to play 10 matches using each
file, for a total of 100 matches, to observe what would happen.
The above position arose at the 14th move, of the first game, of the
first match. An unfortunately early lucky strike, you may say... :(
After gnubg played 18/11, I rolled 32 and the correct play for me was
to hit, after which gnubg would roll a decisive joker 64!
Now, after rasining my eyebrow about gnubg playing 18/11, I would have
done one or both of two things.
If I had bet money on winning the game/match, I would play my 32
"incorrectly" (i.e. make an inferior move, just like gnubg has made)
in order to avoid gnubg's following 64 joker.
If I was betting money to predict future rolls, I would bet a
reasonable amount that I could afford to lose, let's say $100, on the
2 in 36 odds that it would get a 64... That is your $1,700 against my
$100. After I hit you with a few of these, you all would start to shit
your pants... ;)
All a person needs to predict future dice rolls playing against bots
is to be a good enough backgammon player to detect such subtle
irregularities be able to ask oneself "why has the bot played like
this" in any similar position.
According to the hint, 18/11 is the right move with 46.91% vs. the
second best move 5/2 5/1 with 46.86%. A mere 0.05% difference. And if
you roll out, the difference shrinks to 0.03%, between 46.85% and
But I am still not convinced. So, I take a closer look at the default
grandmaster settings. Under the advanced options, there is a box
checked, that says "for cubeful evaluations, use cubeful checker
Because I am playing cubeless 7-point matches, it sounds like an
irrelevant setting in this case but I check it off in both the payer
and the analysis and then roll out again, just to see.
Holy macaroney! The formerly second best move 5/2 5/1 is now superior
to 18/11 by 46.78% vs. 46.71%, by 0.07% which is a bigger difference
than any of the above.
Okay, well, let's leave these settings alone and start replaying from
the beginning. Curiously, on its 12th move, (one before the above
position), gnubg plays 18/7 instead of 7/1 6/1.
The hint says it's the right move with 50.08% vs. 50.01%. Although by
a smaller margin, the roll outs validate it with 50.18% vs. 50.14%.
Now, lets revert that one settings and roll out again. Sure enough,
the second best move reverts to being the best move with 50.06% vs.
So, what can we conclude from all this?
First, the bots don't seem to know how to play without the cube. My
personal observation is that the dice seems more realistic playing
without the cube, which may just be my biased impression. But I do
better against gnubg without the cube, which is a tangible evidence.
And, come to think of it, bots like "extreme garbage" seem to not even
offer the option of cubeless play because they probably don't know how
to handle the above discrepancy in their colorful pie chart rendition
of meaningless analyses...
Which leads to my second conclusion, that it doesn't matter to me
either way, simply because I look at the cube as a tool for impatient
sick gamblers to raise the stakes and expedite their wins or losses...
Consequently, any analysis that is based on the so-called cube skill
is nothing more than plain bullshit. In fact, a pile of bullshit that
one can use to his advantage when playing against these bots and/or
betting money on predicting future dice rolls (regardless of how the
dice is rolled).
In the past, I had proposed that the "doubling window" gave the bots
the wiggle room they needed to cheat (as I define "cheat"). Now, I
have the proof.
From now on, in any betting on predicting future dice rolls, I will
insists that we use the default settings (i.e. leave the box "for
cubeful evaluations, use cubeful checker evaluation" checked even when
playing cubeless matches.
I suppose I should uncheck it if I want to play truly cubeless matches
against gnubg but even then, who knows what other bullshit settings
effect its other bullshit anayses...? It may be just best to ignore
My advice to people who are just learning backgammon is to learn to
play it without the cube first. Learn the real game first and then if
you want to become a sick gambler, you can always use the cube to jack
up the stakes, in order to win or lose faster...! :)) But, learn to
have to patiently play out a game to the end without the cube, and
thus improve your staying power.
Playing backgammon as it has been for millenia without the cube is
like making slow love to your wife.
Playing backgammon with the cube is like fast fucking a whore, with
much of what you pay going to the book publishing, bot peddling,
tournament organizing pimps of backgammon gambling......