pedestrian: we don't really need these notifications until the end of the match IMO

joshi tm: I realize it would be rare, hence asking... since it may not have been noticed but still not work. Hopefully the code is in one place and it's broken everywhere and will be fixed everywhere :)

playBunny: Wonder is it works in regular old backgammon... would be rare but possible.

playBunny: Right, the back 2 need to land on the opponents midpoint. this is as likely as 2 move fools mate in chess, but still the answer to the theoretical question :)

Walter Montego: Simple in theory.. how many moves minimum to get the pieces off.

2 farthest - 4 each
5 next farthest - 3 each
5 closest - 1 each
3 next closest - 2 each

total 8 + 15 + 5 + 6 = 34 moves

34/4 (assuming doubles) = 8.5, which is 9 turns.

Assuming 7 probably counted pips, however being 7 out cannot be borne off in 1.2 moves for example :)

WellyWales: Because you can't use both numbers... and in this case you need to use the highest number. If you swapped you would move 1 but not be able to move 2, which is an illegal move.

Nothingness: if you resign after bearing off at least one, it will be 3-0... otherwise it will be 5-0 (or 7-0 if you're pieces are still in opponents area).

So get one piece off first, then resign if you can't mathematically win.

Pedro Martínez: Was the post removed? It was a proper link to a respectable slang dictionary (beaver is an animal, any other usage is slang). If that offended someone then they need to grow up and join the rest of us in real life.

toedder: i did do something stupid. Anyway, must be a bug in the program then, since the calculation involves probabilities 1 and 0 only.

52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 44, 33, 22

isn't that 21 chances? did you forget 33 and 22? or did i do something stupid...

Either way double is correct, and simple since control of cube is not in the calculation. Must be either a bug in the program or user error. ;)

Anjil: 11 games, or 22 dice rolls, is not enough to know anything... this set of results is random enough. I guess the biggest anomaly is 8 fives and only 1 one .. but you need to collect about 100 starting rolls to even begin the discussion.

Of course, someone could query the database and post the stats... :)

Walter Montego: Easiest way is to play the game through a computer yourself afterwards and see if the player made any mistakes. Most players will make a few mistakes.

in reference to your longshot vs safe... the computer would decide just as easily as any other move... with math.

For example if you had a choice.. keep the game 50/50 or make a move that is 30% likely to win and 70% likely to give the opponent a 70/30 advantage... what would the computer do?

move 1: 50%
move 2: 30% + 70x30% = 51%

Move 2 wins.

The human may think this is a difficult decision (because the %ages are hard to calculate so it feels like a gut decision).. but not the computer.

Pedro Martínez: 160 turns in 5 years... about one every 11 days or so.

These people live in some parallel universe - all that matters is having enough games to guarantee there will be a move waiting for you at all times... it's a drug.

Czuch: Looks like I narrowly missed the second round. - and my last move was in 2005. Kinda glad I didn't make it.

moistfinger: Guess I should rethink my other handle then. Got any other ideas?

Surely the easiest way to analyze this is by getting the source code and running a large number of tests... Fencer? I suggest making at least the random number generating code available so others can analyze properly. Either it isn't a defect and can be proved, or it is and can be fixed.

Pedro Martínez: Great machine, and here was i thinking they paid 1000 people to sit at their cubes and roll dice!

If there is a defect it would seem not to be the random number generator but that the code doesn't use the generator in the particular case mentioned, but instead just gets the last number... sounds like a caching problem?
I wonder if those games were played with 2 people on the same computer? moves happening very quickly? We need more of this type of data most likely, in order to replicate the problem.

Pedro Martínez: Well, that explains my searches not finding it. :)
It was closed in 2008... i'd say it should be re-opened and investigated. I'm sure anyone with access to the historical database could publish the statistics for a start.

pedestrian: Was this added to the bug tracker? If so I couldn't find it.

Thom27: That's a wierd bug... increasing the odds of the second roll equaling the first? What kind of twisted algorithm would cause that?..?..

Unless you wrote code that generated a random number first, then used that to determine whether to roll or just use the first result, ... but why write that sort of code?? It just doesn't seem like a plausible defect.

Any ideas?

pgt: There should be a way of passing your current tournaments in your will... could end up having your grandkids finish the tournament for you. Maybe someone not even born yet will play the winning move years from now. :)

AbigailII: yeah, and i notice it's also 120 moves, but only one game... glad i didn't enter an anti-bg tournament.

Czuch: they have played about 120 moves in 5 years... that works out to 24 moves a year, which is about a move every 2 weeks... unfathomable - almost impossible given the 7 day limit.. they literally have to almost wait until the last second on every move!

Resher: If both numbers were generated at the same time, wouldn't you expect 100%..? To what do we attribute what is being seen.

playBunny: oops, second roll can be doubles... gotta get some sleep.

AbigailII: Ok, but if you take out the doubles, there are only 30 possible rolls I guess... right? so 1 in 15 then?

that makes sense... first die 2 in 6, second 1 in 5... 3x5 = 15

pgt: Just to be clear... is the suspected behaviour that the first move for each player is the same? So if I roll a 3-1 so does my opponent?

If so I checked my last 7 games and didn't find it at all...

Expected would be 1 in 9?

pedestrian: Can you publish statistics that prove that it isn't coincidence... or perhaps Fencer can?

playBunny: I'd be more interested in if the player's moves were identical to an easily utilized program... since even computers make minor mistakes, the odds of the player making exactly the same mistakes over an extended time is... ?

Vikings: I think this game is shown from the other player's point of view, so 5-2 was the roll... 5-1 is the current roll about to be played... no?

Vikings: Looks like maybe 5-2 was the roll? Then it would make sense.

alanback: The answer is clearly 4 kgs.

AlliumCepa: dices? like a salad?

Why all this talk about the randomness of the dice? There appears to be no evidence that it isn't.

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

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

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

playBunny: Yep, most of the very high ratings are impossible without cheating given the ounce of luck in the game. That 3000 rating for example.

Perhaps we need to set up a team of "agents" to root out the cheats. :)

Thad: Workable solution, but I'd hardly call it simpler. Hands up who had to read that twice to fully understand it ;)

rod03801: The solution is simple... add a button to the move page "Pass and autopass until I can move"

That way the player has a choice in the game. This could be used in cube backgammon games when a double is possible... i should be able to essentially say "I'm not doubling so please start autopass now"

Pedro Martínez: It was implemented incompletely. Since then no action has been taken to make it work properly.

Pedro Martínez: ah, but no way to handle with the cube. A player should be able to choose in the game to sutopass in the current situation despite having the ability to double.
Unfortunately this oversight means autopass isn't working 90% of the time when it should.

UzzyLady: I apoligize - I thought playbunny was making a joke... outlier is a fairly common word. And as you showed the internet makes all words knowable in a few seconds anyway - why wait for me to respond?

I am making an assumption - it isn't a perfect system. It is, however, better than the one in place now - which is nothing. Come up with a better formula and I'll back it up.

playBunny: Nice try, but you know what an outlier is. I would use this as a filter for tournaments or waiting games for example.

playBunny: Too many in this context simply meant the number that starts to affect your ability to keep up. If I play 10 games I may do all my moves quickly, going to 20 may be the same (I just play 2x as many moves to make up for the extra games), however if I go to 1000 games it's unlikely I'll be moving 100x faster to compensate.
I may move a little faster though, which is why the average can't be over too long a time.

paully: In my mind that makes you an outlier, not to mention annoying if I happened to also be online.

Of course we could apply advanced mathematics to this problem and get a better result, I can't be bothered figuring that out - until someone does my simple formula would be good enough for a start.

While I agree with the complaints that an average wouldn't be *exact*, I still think it's a better indication than nothing. I think you guys are talking about outliers.

Also, in response to the queries about number of active games: I don't want to know how quickly someone plays, I want to know how quickly someone plays *each game*. I don't think that doubling the number of games will double the number of moves, but if it does then clearly that player isn't playing too many games.

AlliumCepa: a graph is just a series of results, so my formula could certainly be graphed if you want to show history.

It isn't meant to be clairvoyant, so while doubling the number of games *may* not mean twice as slow, it's the best guess with the available data. Of course you could discount time where no moves are available if you want to be more accurate -
moves made / time with at least one move available, over, say, the last month.

"moves per day" = moves / days. It *is* an average. Otherwise I would say "moves made today" or something like that.

AlliumCepa: I disagree... the fact he has 200 games now is vitally important. In this case he will be twice as slow because he has twice as many games... This is meant to be something indicating *current* ability to play quickly.

Also, I would argue "# of moves per day" implies an average (though I admit I needed to say over how many days - hence the mod later).