Having lashed out at ahClem the other day, I was curious
about what I, he and other people had said about AI bots
in the past. I did some keyword searches in RGB and have discovered/rediscovered quite a few interesting medley of
items that I will share as of possible interest to you all also.
I have been on Usenet since 1996 but my oldest posts in
RGB seem to be from early 1998. Still, that's over 24 years
of uninterrupted posting here. I wonder if anyone else has
more seniority than mine or even near it? Let's hear you...
As I write, I may give some links to old articles, which you
may find ineresting to read if you can spare the time. Here
is one of the earliest threads where I started talking about
purposefully making "inferior moves against a bot" Jellyfish.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/eAj4GPf-Z2M/m/0Lrsk5JW8CIJ
My reason was different back then, which was to preempt
cheating moves by the bot that I thought I could predict. I
had to explain my being able to beat the bot somehow. In
fact, I thought FIBS was rigged for the same reason. Being
just a nobody in the BG circles, how else could I be beating
not just bots but "virtual human" players with higher ELO's?
It's ineteresting how I have evolved from that. Yet, I've been
consistent, to this day, that my beating the bots and "virtual
humans" didn't mean that I could beat the strongest human
players in real life because thay can adjust their plays to me.
Already after only a couple of months in RGB, in that article
I was talking about predictability of bots being a weakness
that could be exploited by humans. I was talking about bots
being capable of only a "sterile", "one-track" strategy while
humans could use "flexible" strategies by making "tactical
lesser moves" as part of an overall strategy, etc.
Look how long that thread is, with me having engaged all the
heavy cannons of RGB, in debating against me and against
one another, through detailed lengthy arguments. Dang! Was
I already smart back then. ;) And so polite... :)
By 2008, I was talking about "continuity in the game" for bots
and humans, and "luck" within that context. Probably that was
the first time I argued that the player who gains an advantage
will never lose it until the end of the game, after 4 billion trials,
which later evolved into my calling jackoffski formula based
"cube skill theory" a bullshit.
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/Qrtuz8QKhIE/m/BCelkyXiYHMJ
Unfortunately, by the same time, I had enough of being talked
down and insulted that I had started to swear back at people,
including calling "90% of you dumb shits". (When Paul recently
called the entire RGB newsgroup "bozos", I wonder why I tried
to spare anyone except myself, instead of agreeing with him?)
While reading several older threads or numerous articles each,
I noticed that I didn't see many or even any from ahClem who
was formerly posting simply as "Walt" since 2005 (if not earlier).
He had responded to other people who had commented on my
articles but never directly to me. Wow! If my observation is true,
which he is welcome to negate with examples if wishes, I'll say
that I have never seen nor thought possible such a spite... :(
On the positive side, I ran into a couple of threads from 2010,
which I will post about separately, as hey deserve it.
MK
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)