Murat vs XG

[Dmitriy Obukhov]

I don't feel like looking for the old thread, so I started a new one. Basically, if there still is interest, I can set up him playing against XG on my computer remotely. Everything can be recorded. Watches are welcomed. Don't wait too long. I will check this thread again in couple days. if there is no interest by then, the case is closed.

[mu...@compuplus.net]

I am glad you haven't retracted your offer to facilitate this
experiment.

As I had indicated before, I am interested and willing to do
this experiment even if nobody else is interested in watching.

I would like to play 400-500 money games, over however a long
period of time it takes, which may be months.

Is this going to be a computer dedicated to this experiment,
always on, for me to connect to and play batches of games as
I can spare time?

If we need to keep making appointments that will suit us both,
it will take longer but I still will be willing to do it.

Once we figure out the procedure in detail, (XG settings, dice
roller, cube limit, etc.), I will publish two memorandums of
understanding, also to serve as a press release: one about how
the experiment will be conducted (to establish the credibility
of the experiment) and one about what will the results of the
mean (allowing and encouraging others to discuss and amend it,
hoping that it will become a "common understanding").

This should be enough from my end to keep the ball rolling...

MK

[Dmitriy Obukhov]

We are going to have to make appointments.

I suggest playing matches instead of money sessions. In money sessions, XG plays to maximize its equity. Your goal seems to be to beat the bot. In effect, you two are not playing the same game. Also, compared to unlimited sessions, match play reduces variance. This is only a suggestion.

I recommend playing against xgr+, built in dice generator. basically, the normal "out of the box" version.

[Michael]

I would be interested in watching only if they are going to be matches. I understand nothing about beavers and racoons...
Furthermore I have formulas for matches that we could use to see how well your winning ratio conforms.
If you are interested I will publish them here.
the results will be self explanatory imo and you should limit your matches to less than 50 for the time being. Memorandums of understanding/press releases etc should follow if something unexpected comes up from those results. In that case a new session of 100 matches would follow.

[Michael]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 11:57:56 AM UTC+3, Dmitriy Obukhov wrote:

> We are going to have to make appointments.
>

please keep us informed. i am +8 hours FROM US CENTRAL TIME, so if you make it in the early evening i won't be able to watch. British guys in here like BD are +6 i think.

[mu...@compuplus.net]

On July 20, 2017 at 2:57:56 AM UTC-6, Dmitriy Obukhov wrote:

> We are going to have to make appointments.

Okay.

> I recommend playing against xgr+, built in dice generator.
> basically, the normal "out of the box" version.

The question was whether I can duplicate my video recorded
results. So, I'll play against XGR++ Ironman using the same
dice generator.

What version of XG do you have? I'm wondering if we should
also be using the same trial version I had used previously.

MK

[mu...@compuplus.net]

On July 20, 2017 at 6:44:28 AM UTC-6, Michael wrote:

> I would be interested in watching only if they are
> going to be matches.

What the experiment was going to be had been discussed
before...

> I understand nothing about beavers and racoons...

Neither do I... :) Part of the experiment is to show
they can be defied.

> Memorandums of understanding/press releases etc
> should follow if something unexpected comes up
> from those results.

To the opposite, they need to be determined before
anything comes up. Otherwise, they will be dismissed
as retro comments.

> In that case a new session of 100 matches would follow.

I won't waste my time doing piecemeal/halfass stuff
that will end up being shrugged off.

I'm the one who will be doing the work, with Dmitriy
facilitating it. You can watch as few as you want...

MK

[Dmitriy Obukhov]

XG version is 2.10. If you need the rest of the numbers I can provide them later. A trial was already used on that computer, and I don't believe people get more than one trial per computer.

We can try it this weekend if you like. Let me know the convenient time and I will see what I can do.

If proving that your previous session can be duplicated is all you want to do, then I agree you want to keep the same settings. However, you had a goal while doing your previous session? What was it? Do you think you proved it? In any case, I think this experiment is interesting one way or another.

[mu...@compuplus.net]

On July 27, 2017 at 7:40:39 AM UTC-6, Dmitriy Obukhov wrote:

> On July 23, 2017 at 12:38:39 AM UTC-4, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:

>> The question was whether I can duplicate my video recorded
>> results. So, I'll play against XGR++ Ironman using the same
>> dice generator.

>> What version of XG do you have? I'm wondering if we should
>> also be using the same trial version I had used previously.

> XG version is 2.10. If you need the rest of the numbers I
> can provide them later.

What are those? Online updates without release notes?

I was more concerned about whether the trial and registered
versions play the same. I asked here more than once but "XG
team" never answered. Chow (an his ilk) suggested that I may
get an answer if I contact them directly but those idiots
don't realize the value of open/public communications vs.
private ones because they create a "public record"...

If I can play a few trial sessions againt the registered
version, there may not be a need to get an answer and I
may agree to proceed with a variation of the experiment.

> A trial was already used on that computer, and I don't
> believe people get more than one trial per computer.

I have posted here several times how to defeat the copy
protection and keep trying it for free forever. It's a
stolenware. It's an age old dilemma whether stealing from
the thief is still unethical. I feel like Robin Hood... ;)

> We can try it this weekend if you like. Let me know the
> convenient time and I will see what I can do.

Doing it this can take forever... I won't mind but maybe
you will? If I provide the computer equipment, can you or
some other person/entity provide the internet access, so
that I can connect and play whenever I can?

> If proving that your previous session can be duplicated
> is all you want to do, then I agree you want to keep the
> same settings.

Yes, that's why even using Michael's dice roller wouldn't
be "reproducing" my previous results.

> However, you had a goal while doing your previous session?
> What was it? Do you think you proved it?

Dmitriy, please visit my web site about all this and see if
I did achieve anything or not. And feel free to contribute
your take on it, which I will appreciate for sure.

http://www.montanaonline.net/backgammon/xg.php

Nobody argued that the videos were edited and such. The only
possibly valid argument was only one of many arguments that
Michael had offered, which was that I could have recorded
many more unsuccessful sessions but only recorded the one,
or the few, that I had won.

My counter argument, (counter offer to him or anyone else),
was to produce what they claimed in order to prove that it
can be done (withing a human life span, that is:)... And as
you may have guessed it, nobody has stepped forward yet!

So, yes, I did prove my point. But it's like proving to Ken
Hamm that god doesn't exists...

Do the believers of "BG bot/gambling religion" understand
the logic, the process and the meaning of "proof"?

But, still, it's okay. I will try to "show a miracle" or
whatever else it will take for them to become "BG bot
atheists", if they give me a fair opportunity to do so.

> In any case, I think this experiment is interesting one
> way or another.

What's mind boggling is that I offered to make money bets
to such large amounts to take a second mortgage on my house
but the "real trolls" always menaged to find a way to weasel
out at the last minute and disappear (i.e. "lose interest":)!

MK

[Michael]

You can play a predetermined number of matches with the bots at Fibs, at your leisure.
Just create a new account. All your games are saved on your computer.
Then publish your results.

[Dmitriy Obukhov]

> I was more concerned about whether the trial and registered
> versions play the same. I asked here more than once but "XG
> team" never answered. Chow (an his ilk) suggested that I may
> get an answer if I contact them directly but those idiots
> don't realize the value of open/public communications vs.
> private ones because they create a "public record"...
>
> If I can play a few trial sessions againt the registered
> version, there may not be a need to get an answer and I
> may agree to proceed with a variation of the experiment.

Could it be the reason you can't get an answer is you calling the creator an idiot?

> I have posted here several times how to defeat the copy
> protection and keep trying it for free forever. It's a
> stolenware. It's an age old dilemma whether stealing from
> the thief is still unethical. I feel like Robin Hood... ;)

I would still from Microsoft or Adobe because they are big and because their software is overpriced. XG is small and pretty cheap. Besides, stilling what I already own sounds silly to me. What you do is your business.

> Doing it this can take forever... I won't mind but maybe
> you will? If I provide the computer equipment, can you or
> some other person/entity provide the internet access, so
> that I can connect and play whenever I can?

I am in no rush. If you want to provide your computer it may work. However, the idea was also to record everything. How is that gonna work?

> > If proving that your previous session can be duplicated
> > is all you want to do, then I agree you want to keep the
> > same settings.
>
> Yes, that's why even using Michael's dice roller wouldn't
> be "reproducing" my previous results.

Hmm, shouldn't you be playing 100 games then? perhaps, several sessions of 100 games each?

> Dmitriy, please visit my web site about all this and see if
> I did achieve anything or not. And feel free to contribute
> your take on it, which I will appreciate for sure.
>
> http://www.montanaonline.net/backgammon/xg.php

If this was an experiment, I would expect you to state your prediction/goal before it. Did you do it? I wasn't following and can't tell. Without the prediction/goal I can't really tell.

> Nobody argued that the videos were edited and such. The only
> possibly valid argument was only one of many arguments that
> Michael had offered, which was that I could have recorded
> many more unsuccessful sessions but only recorded the one,
> or the few, that I had won.

> My counter argument, (counter offer to him or anyone else),
> was to produce what they claimed in order to prove that it
> can be done (withing a human life span, that is:)... And as
> you may have guessed it, nobody has stepped forward yet!
>
> So, yes, I did prove my point. But it's like proving to Ken
> Hamm that god doesn't exists...

Perhaps I am not following what you are saying, but did anybody actually say it was impossible to beat XG in such fashion. In a life time? If so, this is a pretty silly claim.

> Do the believers of "BG bot/gambling religion" understand
> the logic, the process and the meaning of "proof"?

I don't see a logic in making a claim it is impossible to beat XG in this fashion in a life time span after you clearly provided the evidence. So, perhaps, they meant something else?

> But, still, it's okay. I will try to "show a miracle" or
> whatever else it will take for them to become "BG bot
> atheists", if they give me a fair opportunity to do so.

I seriously doubt they will become bot atheists. Nobody I know of makes a claim that XG plays perfectly and its weaknesses cannot be exploited.

> What's mind boggling is that I offered to make money bets
> to such large amounts to take a second mortgage on my house
> but the "real trolls" always menaged to find a way to weasel
> out at the last minute and disappear (i.e. "lose interest":)!

I doubt anyone will make a serious bet over internet play. But what do I know...

[mu...@compuplus.net]

On August 4, 2017 at 3:27:02 AM UTC-6, Michael wrote:

> You can play a predetermined number of matches with the
> bots at Fibs, at your leisure.

Been there done that. This would be going back to square
two (square one was Jellyfish).

MK

[mu...@compuplus.net]

On August 7, 2017 at 12:58:21 AM UTC-6, Dmitriy Obukhov wrote:

>> I was more concerned about whether the trial and registered
>> versions play the same. I asked here more than once but "XG
>> team" never answered. Chow (an his ilk) suggested that I may
>> get an answer if I contact them directly but those idiots
>> don't realize the value of open/public communications vs.
>> private ones because they create a "public record"...

>> If I can play a few trial sessions againt the registered
>> version, there may not be a need to get an answer and I
>> may agree to proceed with a variation of the experiment.

> Could it be the reason you can't get an answer is you
> calling the creator an idiot?

I didn't call the creator an idiot but the people who
advised me to contact the creator privately.

Private communications can be denied. Public ones are
of public record. Get the difference?

BTW, I called the creator much worse than "idiot" and
I do stand by everything I called "the creator" (THIEF!)
previously and them some more to come... ;)

>> I have posted here several times how to defeat the copy
>> protection and keep trying it for free forever. It's a
>> stolenware. It's an age old dilemma whether stealing from
>> the thief is still unethical. I feel like Robin Hood... ;)

> I would still from Microsoft or Adobe because they are
> big and because their software is overpriced. XG is small
> and pretty cheap.

Jellyfish and Snowie were small also. Who knows what kind
of buttfuckings were going on between Dahl, Wong, Furrare,
Simborg, etc. (later to include Petch) against Eggert...?

> Besides, stilling what I already own sounds silly to me.
> What you do is your business.

You said XG had already been tried on your computer and I
explained that, if needed, XG could be tried again and
again and again and again on your computer in order to
duplicate my initial experiment that was made using the
the trial version of XG, again and again and again...

Unless it's a language barrier, what kind of a dumb chess
player are you...?

>> Doing it this can take forever... I won't mind but maybe
>> you will? If I provide the computer equipment, can you or
>> some other person/entity provide the internet access, so
>> that I can connect and play whenever I can?

> I am in no rush. If you want to provide your computer it
> may work.

Okay, great.

> However, the idea was also to record everything. How is
> that gonna work?

You can install the appropriate (and verified) version of
XG on that computer, adjust the settings and create an XG
profile for me.

Then we can use something like Teamviewer that will log all
of my interaction with the "server" computer, so that you
will know I haven't reinstalled, renamed, deleted, etc. any
files.

In fact, you and others can randomly log on to the same
server to watch what I'm doing and catch me in the act if
cheat, which will scrap the whole experiment on the fisrt
occurrence of me trying to cheat.

>>> If proving that your previous session can be duplicated
>>> is all you want to do, then I agree you want to keep the
>>> same settings.

>> Yes, that's why even using Michael's dice roller wouldn't
>> be "reproducing" my previous results.

> Hmm, shouldn't you be playing 100 games then? perhaps,
> several sessions of 100 games each?

Yes. At least four or desirably five sessions.

>> Dmitriy, please visit my web site about all this and see if
>> I did achieve anything or not. And feel free to contribute
>> your take on it, which I will appreciate for sure.

>> http://www.montanaonline.net/backgammon/xg.php

> If this was an experiment, I would expect you to state
> your prediction/goal before it. Did you do it? I wasn't
> following and can't tell. Without the prediction/goal I
> can't really tell.

I understand. The prediction was based on previos similar
bets, dares, proposed experiments, etc.

a) Could I beat XG beyond my ER (to be computed after the
sessions would be played)?

b) Could I bead XG more than 50% of the time (regardless
of ER)

I was willing to bet money on these in the right order,
that is (a) first and then (b), simplye because I would
get only one shot at this and after (b) it would be
meaningless to make bet (a).

I'm still willing to do that. In fact, as I said before,
I will take a second mortgage on my house for the bet (a).

Any mother fucking world class gambling takers???

It wasn't going to be be Chow's and his millionaire faggot
friends while to bet on anything less than 50/50... In due
time, we'll get to them butt fuckers also... :)

>> Nobody argued that the videos were edited and such. The only
>> possibly valid argument was only one of many arguments that
>> Michael had offered, which was that I could have recorded
>> many more unsuccessful sessions but only recorded the one,
>> or the few, that I had won.

>> My counter argument, (counter offer to him or anyone else),
>> was to produce what they claimed in order to prove that it
>> can be done (withing a human life span, that is:)... And as
>> you may have guessed it, nobody has stepped forward yet!

>> So, yes, I did prove my point. But it's like proving to Ken
>> Hamm that god doesn't exists...

> Perhaps I am not following what you are saying, but did
> anybody actually say it was impossible to beat XG in such
> fashion.

Yes. That was the purpose of Michaels developing a dice roller
with auditing cababilities in order to test if I could reproduce
my results (not literally "reproduce" since the conditions would
be different but it would be telling enough and so I had agreed).

> In a life time? If so, this is a pretty silly claim.

On whose part? Mine or his?

If on his part. you have made my day! :) Thanks.

If on my part, are you then saying that you can fabricate those
in a "life time" (very relative depending on whether we are
talking about humans, elephants or mayflies)?

How long would it take you to do it?

>> Do the believers of "BG bot/gambling religion" understand
>> the logic, the process and the meaning of "proof"?

> I don't see a logic in making a claim it is impossible to
> beat XG in this fashion in a life time span after you
> clearly provided the evidence. So, perhaps, they meant
> something else?

Well, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and explain
what else they may have meant.

>> But, still, it's okay. I will try to "show a miracle" or
>> whatever else it will take for them to become "BG bot
>> atheists", if they give me a fair opportunity to do so.

> I seriously doubt they will become bot atheists. Nobody
> I know of makes a claim that XG plays perfectly and its
> weaknesses cannot be exploited.

Yeah, yeah... But they can't give it up either, can they?

If they won't bet money on the soundness of ER/PR, why
can't they just trash it? Simple question.

>> What's mind boggling is that I offered to make money bets
>> to such large amounts to take a second mortgage on my house
>> but the "real trolls" always menaged to find a way to weasel
>> out at the last minute and disappear (i.e. "lose interest":)!

> I doubt anyone will make a serious bet over internet play.
> But what do I know...

They carried the discussion far and long about emailing each
roll with super encryption, etc.

I was willing to settle for less than what they were making
out of it but even then they weaseled out. (At least from the
ER/PR adjusted bet and insisted that I skip to the 50/50 bet).

Then, times changed. Technologie advanced. And you were the
first to point out that this experiment could be done using
remote access software, preventing all possibilities of
cheating.

That how this discussion got this far.

So, what are their excuses now??

They should be getting in line to put their moneys down on
XG against me.

Why don't you (and maybe Michael) dare them to put their
moneys where their mouths are (and take a small cut from
the action)?

MK

[Dmitriy Obukhov]

In Case you are wondering what happened to this thread -- You lost me the moment you called me a dumb chess player. I didn't care much about your insults before, but once I volunteered to help you, you should have kept your mouth shut. Now you can find someone else to help you.

[mu...@compuplus.net]

On August 22, 2017 at 2:14:46 AM UTC-6, Dmitriy Obukhov wrote:

> On August 7, 2017 at 4:24:26 AM UTC-4, mu...@compuplus.net wrote:

>> On August 7, 2017 at 12:58:21 AM UTC-6, Dmitriy Obukhov wrote:

>>> Besides, stilling what I already own sounds silly to me.
>>> What you do is your business.

>> You said XG had already been tried on your computer and I
>> explained that, if needed, XG could be tried again and
>> again and again and again on your computer in order to
>> duplicate my initial experiment that was made using the
>> the trial version of XG, again and again and again...

>> Unless it's a language barrier, what kind of a dumb chess
>> player are you...?

> You lost me the moment you called me a dumb chess player.
> I didn't care much about your insults before, but once I
> volunteered to help you, you should have kept your mouth
> shut. Now you can find someone else to help you.

Read the above quoted parts. You called me silly first, in
regards to what I had said, which I re-explained because you
hadn't understood the first time.

What you took as my calling you dumb was more of a question
in disbelief but it doesn't matter. It's not in my character
to kiss ass in order to receive favors.

BTW: After your post, I got curious and googled about any
links between being good at chess and being intelligent. It
turns out that there aren't any... (Apparently the majority
of chess players even do believe in god. How much dumber a
person get beyond that?)

Anyway, after realizind that XG was stolenware based on GNU,
I don't even know if I feel the same way about doing this
experiment. It may be more worthwhile to do an experiment
(or demonstration) to show what kinds of sick puppies are
Xaviar and his cohorts.

In fact, if you were intelligent (i.e. not a dumb chess
player), you would have figured it out without needing my
experiment and would have expressed it (if at the same
time you also had courage and integrity).

I was going to say that we can fall back on Micahael's
encrypted dice roller scheme but I'm not so sure because
what I said about you goes for him also (dumb Michael).

It looks like you got the excuse you were waiting for
and you got it. Who knows, maybe there will be another
time and another opportunity to do this experiment.

Yet, if the video captured sessions I posted and the
accompanying logical arguments aren't enough for you
and your ilks :), nothing will ever be.

Praise the lord! Amen...

MK

enough