alanback:
Yes, the assumption was that the generator has for each game a new initialisation. As you mentioned, there is also a second way possible, just one RNG for all games.
And only this second way is the right one - if Fencer implemented his RNG according to the first way, then
sooner or later somebody will count the cycle of the numbers...

CryingLoser:Are you assuming there is a separate incidence of the random number generator for each game?  I think that is very unlikely, and that it is more likely that the same RNG is used for all games on the site.  This would make it impossible for two players to anticipate any cyclical result.

Czuch:
There is a way, but a *very* hard one: The random numbers generators in programming languages are implemented as a function modulo m (for us with unknown m), in the simplest such random function there is a start number s, and the random numbers r1, r2, etc. are generated as s mod m =3 etc. There exist math proofs that random generators that include the modulo
function, even if they are not so simple as the one before, are always cyclical, i.e. after some thousand random numbers r1, r2, ..., rx they start from the beginning.
So if you play some very slow dice game like Anti Backgammon with a friend and the goal of both, not to win but to count the dice numbers, you may find out
a repating sequence of about 5000 - 6000 numbers. And
in a real game you can after 4 - 5 moves guess the next "random number". (Have not tested it, would be too hard effort just for winning some games...)

playBunny: Yeah, I know... it was just a recent 3 day period where I logged on and my first three games each day all had the same dice roll ( not the same roll all 9 games, but the same one for 3 games each day)


We do not know when the dice rolls are generated, is that it?

For awhile, I thought it was when the player actually clicked to see the game for the first time after it was their turn again. But then it seemed like it was generated right after the opponent made their move, but was only revealed when the next player came to see it?

You are right, there is no way to know for sure, except ask Fencer?

Czuch: Whenever someone says "it seems more often than random that ..." about a random process it seems more often than not that it's their brain seeming things and not the random process.

Without knowing how BrainKing's dice are generated I can say nothing with certainty about the rolls, however, as I see absolutely no benefit to Fencer or the players in having every dice generated according to the clock it would surprise me greatly if it were the case.

But it's moot anyway because there's no way for us to determine the timing of dice events.

playBunny: What about dice rolls in relationship to the time? For example, if 10 different people were to make a roll in different games all at the exact same time, would there be any type of correlation, IE would they all have the same dice rolled, or a higher rate of this?


I know it seems like sometimes I will log on and play a few quick moves, and it seems more often than random that I make the same roll in all the games....


Also, I think I remember being told that in casinos, the video and or slot machines give any specific result on one play, based on the exact time that you pull the lever or hit the play button? Something like all the potential outcomes are spinning around in the machine, and which outcome you get is based purely on the timing of when you hit play?

playBunny: Further to my "not sure there's a hard way", there are several steps.

** First get a lot of matches. That's a fair challenge in itself.

** Unless Fencer has fixed the .mat export bug which makes multi-game match files useless, you'd need to run each match file through a script that would fix the error.

** Run the matches through another program that will extract the dice rolls.

** Do your analyses. Here it's very much a question of how complex you want it - whether you want to look at dice independantly of the games, ie. just streams of rolls, or whether you want to know about dice in relation to the players and positions. The latter would be a considerable adventure in programming.

AlliumCepa: I *think* that they're trying to find some means of analyzing the rolls themselves--in isolation--apart from the way they might be used in backgammon.  I suspect there are (or were, a while ago) some fairly regular departures from randomness in the routine(s) that govern the rolls here.  But analyzing and demonstrating that would have been difficult.

Thad: Hmmm, you say "easy"... ... I'm not even sure that there's a hard way!

Is there an easy way to pull all the dice rolls and analyze them? I *NOT* accusing Brainking of doing anything wrong, I just think some of us math geeks might have fun seeing the results.

paully: Even so, I think every backgammon player has occasionally felt very badly used by the dice :-)  It doesn't always help to know that even a perfectly random system can (indeed, must occasionally) mimic the behaviour of a malevolent demon!

"GERRY": Oh no, it isn't bad luck at all. Obviously you have been singled out and Fencer has written a specialized script that activates in any games you play, looks to see what dice will best suit your opponent and would least suit you, and the script automatically plays those selections.

Well, that was kind of a joke just to illustrate how ridiculous it is to suggest the dice are anything other than random

LOL it seem's very odd when you play backgammon your opponent get's all the doubles at the end when you need them & when i play anti backgammon i get them when i don't need them LOL I guess it's just bad luck hey

Vikings: Thanks for clearing that up! I, for some reason, misunderstood a backgammon as being when the other player still had pieces outside of their home base before you got all your off. That aside, the scoring did initally give me one point but that later chenged to 2. Thanks folks for helping out!!

Anjil: no bug, your opponent got all of his pieces out of your home so you did not score a backgammon, but he did not get any pieces off so the score is a gammon which is worth 2 points

alanback: Oh!! .. is this a bug with the scoring?

Anjil:  Also, you did not score a backgammon (3 pts), you scored a gammon (2 pts)

Anjil: you're welcome

Hi skipinnz, I see two points now too, it only showed 1 point before, my apponent saw the same thing, 1 point before and now 2 - at least it's correct now - thanks for your response!!

Anjil: When I looked at the game it shows at the very top that you have 2 points and your opposition has only 1 and after 2 games that is correct as you got 2 pts for your win and they got 1 for their win.

Hi folks, does anyone understand why I only got 1 pont for this match with doubling cube? I got a backgammon so was expecting more.. Am I being dim and not understood something with the rules? :)

Would be very much appreciated if somone could explain...


Backgammon (Anjil vs. SentineL)

Constellation36: Yes, that looks like a bug to me also. Of course if you wait a long time to tell anyone, or tell no one - it is hard for bugs like that to be fixed.

On the game page, in the upper left hand corner is a "bug" icon - click on that to report a bug on that game. Include the same information you wrote here there - and hopefully the bug can be fixed.

(Fencer, game programmer does not always read the boards on a regular basis - so best to leave it in the bug tracker so he can easily see the list of bugs that need fixed.)

What's the purpose of writing a rule of a game when the system does not apply it?

Look at this move White to play 65. White is forced according to rules to unblock a point in the 6 prime to allow an opponent to move.

This is the corresponding rule Brainking has:
It is allowed to build a prime (six consecutive blocked points) anywhere else (not in the player's starting quarter), but if opponent has collected all his checkers onto the one point behind player's prime, the player must unblock a point in his prime to allow the opponent a chance to move.

The implementation has also another serious flaw.
I will make an overview in some days about what improvements need to be made in Fevga in this site, to the rules and to the implementation that is buggy.

Key McKinnis: Yea that is always like that..... and you know, the rules says if you can use both dice - you have to use both dice.... even at the end.

Yes, I just figured out that if you roll a 1-4 with only one piece left 3 spaces away from where you bear off you have no choice but to hit the blot right in front of you.

Key McKinnis: I have it in all mine. You must have had a situation where you couldn't switch dice because of not being able to use both dice if you did. (That's all I can think of)

Where is the switch dice option for Cloning Backgammon?

saeco:

Reporting a Cube move.

To all player's that are in my backgammon 10 brain prize tournament If you get a doubling Cube move effect in any game report it here please.

"Fencer might redo all the ratings with a better rating system and fix
everything up to this point. (then again, maybe not - but we can hope.)"
yes we can hope

tonyh:There's a lot to be said for single point matches. It's an opportunity to practice pure checker play.  It can be a lot of fun, too, when you can take chances you would not take if gammons and cubes were in play.

In discussions of this subject, I find it useful to point out that cubeless games come up in a majority of matches even when the cube is in play.  For example, there is no cube in the Crawford game, and gammons are significant only against the leader.  Post-Crawford games are almost cubeless as well, since the cube is more or less automatic.  The clearest case is when the players are tied at 1-away:  there you are in a pure cubeless situation.

So you could say that you don't need to play one-pointers in order to have the opportunity to play cubeless; or you could say that one-pointers give you a chance to practice pure checker play, which will come in handy in those 1-away, 1-away situations.

As is so often the case, it's a matter of personal preference.

grenv: I agree with you; It's just that it takes that much longer to play a 3 point match than a single game - but it is better backgammon. I am reverting to cubed matches.

coan.net: Fencer might redo all the ratings with a better rating system and fix everything up to this point

That would be very interesting and I hope he does it that way. It would also be nice to have a preserved copy of the ranking tables just before the conversion. It would be fascinating to study how some players will have gone up in the rankings and others down because of the mix of match lengths and opponents that they play.

tonyh: Well what this site needs is a Backgammon rating system in place - since the current rating system is based on Chess which is mostly a skill game - and does not work as well with games like Backgammon which does include some luck along with skill.

Of course that discussion has come up many times in the past, and Fencer had been a little interested, but not really enough to put it in place - but the hope that someday he will.

And remember - last time he did something to the rating system, the system looked back to game #1 and redid the ratings from the very start - so even though the rating system does not work too well now, my opinion is to not worry about it to much - and continue to play as well as you can - and you never know, Fencer might redo all the ratings with a better rating system and fix everything up to this point. (then again, maybe not - but we can hope.)

tonyh: Why even bother to play without the cube? I don't.

nabla: A perfect explanation of why cubed matches should be rated more than single games. There is another point. In a single game, a player is not concerned about losing a gammon. Thus, he may pile as many pieces as he can into your home squares, which makes winning quite difficult!!

I guess it's just stock standard dementia then ;)

coan.net: I can't even find a brains tournament using the cube... i was hoping to find one and can't :(

"GERRY": Again - sorry, but I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. All the post before yours were talking about ratings cheaters (people playing games & losing on purpose to raise their ratings)

You came along and (I THINK) was saying you got stuck in a double cube tournament and lost.

I took a quick look at your current games & recent played games, and could not find anything that used the double cube.

So if you are still having this issue - if you could include a link to the game and/or tournament, it might help me understand what the issue is.

"GERRY": lol. Are you using an online translation program"?

"GERRY": I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying you signed up for a brains tournament which was using a double cube, but you did not know it used the double cube? If that is what you are trying to say, then when you go to sign up for a tournament - there is a long description of all the options of the tournament above the area where you sign up at - so all the details (time, autopass, cube, etc...) should all be listed.

If it is not listed - then I agree that it needs to be.

If it is listed and you just did not notice it - then I don't think it would be the fault of the person who used a "cube" against you.

Which brings up the second question.

if you were going to win a game, and they use the cube - then you should not have lost unless you declined it and gave up... otherwise you may not have been in the best position to actually win the game.

..... Again - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say - and if so, sorry. If you could explain a little better I would be happy to try to help.

***** Added - which tournament/games - might help to look to help understand what you are trying to say.

playBunny:And yours, dear friend

alanback: Heh heh, fortunately that's as much a product of attitude as it is of the bodily resources. Keep it up, old timer, enlightenment is yours for the taking.

playBunny:Lucky for me that even at my advanced age I am still able to learn and grow :-)

alanback: Alan, those are fancy words but, if it's to be viewed from that perspective, it is an absolute truth that nothingis important, including, but not limited to, our quality of life and whether we live or die.

You mention ego and sanity. Although clearly insane back in 2006, you were thevertheless being much more human, if somewhat boastful, than when you take the lofty view! Backgammon (alanback, 2006-10-18 20:20:52)

And now you are out of the top 5 as a result of a handful of cheats. It's a good job that you no longer care about your position.

I think that even with a flawed rating system it is worth protecting the validity of the ranking charts. If people are put off playing because of that lack, especially if they're put off paying to play, then it's a loss. Of course changing the BKR to use the standard backgammon formula would help prevent the cheating and fix the rating formula problem in one go.

playBunny:I play mostly for the enjoyment of testing my skills against other players and to some extent for social interaction.  There is an egoic rush associated with a high rating, but in my saner moments I don't value that.  Of course other people do value it, but that doesn't make it important.  Importance is not purely subjective; it is an absolute truth that games and their outcomes are not important.  The most they can do is feed the ego, which is like blowing up a balloon - a biodegradable balloon!

Now, if a site is going to have a rating system, there is a certain internal logic to protecting the integrity of that system.  However, it has been demonstrated so many times that the BKR system has no integrity for reasons that have nothing to do with cheating, that it's hard to get worked up about the latter even from the standpoint of ego.

nikos: Problem is you can ban the user, but the person behind it can always start another one.