On January 7, 2023 at 3:40:16 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

Wow! What a nice effort and contribution. I must
thank you for this. I'm anxious to add my replies
and comments, hoping that this will inspire others
to participate. So let me start.

You can try this yourself without having to code.
I did it and played 10 games this way.

Yes, of course. I must admit that I haven't played
complete games but I experimented a little before
suggesting that this would lever luck immediately
with the dice still "random enough in the long run".

Have you saved your games? If so, can you paste
them here in text format?

Here is how to do this:
1. Set GNU Backgammon to manual dice, "Expert"
play, "Expert" analysis, and start a new money session.

It's great that you spelled out the steps. Even after
I clarified my instructions for Philippe, they weren't
this detailed and clear.

2. Roll a pair of real dice (different colours, e.g.
gnubg has the red one). Say, gnubg rolls a 4 and
you roll a 1. By now, gnubg has become "luck
master" and you will be the "luck servant".

I don't understand the need for colored dice but it's
no big deal. I understand that your "luck master" is
my "driver", who rolls random dice for himself but
gives "luck leveling" numbers to your "luck servant"
or my "passenger" player.

I omitted some steps which can be seen in your post.

closest roll to the target equity of 0.037 is 11. Move.

Following these steps my numbers were a little off
but the target equity was 0.037 also. Perfect. :)

10. Repeat cycles from 2 to 6.

So far we are in agreement. Let's put a marker here.

Yes, this was tedious, but kind of interesting. Some
impressions:

- As long as you do not blunder, the game stays very
close (the equity oscillates just a little around 0). A
pretty static tug-of-war.

Why not blunder? To the contrary, my intention was to
level the "luck equity" but allow the "skill equity" swing
and/or drift apart without limitations, so that whatever
skill difference may be, it would become visible quickly.

- Doubles hence are rare (unless you have lost
considerable equity before)

I wouldn't have expected this but maybe because you
eliminate blunders. I was worried that after one player
rolls a big double in a race, it would become a battle of
the big doubles.

- I won only one of the 10 games, as "luck master"
with the help of final lucky doublet in a pure race.

Only 10 games may not be telling much but it would be
interesting to see how your games enfolded.

If this get added to Gnubg, we can run long experiments
with different plies of the bot play against each other to
see what happens in 1,000 games in this variant vs. in
10,000 games in regular gamblegammon. If the results
come out similar, that would be a trophy reward for me.

Also, what about cube actions in your games? I predicted
that there would be very cautious and very very few cube
actions. This is what I'm most curious about (for obvious
reasons that you can guess.. ;)

- It cuts down the branching factor considerably. For
example, after a 42 opening (played correctly) the
reply roll will always be 31.

I'm not so sure about this. Replies to opening rolls can
be memorized but only assuming best play from both
sides. Playing either roll differently won't gain anything
since it may not necessarily thwart the opponent's
subsequent correct play.

In any case, I foresee the branching factor going back
to normal after the 3rd roll. This is to be seen. Do you
think it can be determined by inspecting the games..?

After a big racing doublet by the master, expect the
same for the servant.

Ah, I was afraid of this but does it really matter all that
much, except the different look and feel of the games?

What's wrong with luck being leveled very fast? Other
than lack of luck swing will dull the cube activity which
I would like to see indeed as a proof that cube is fueled
by luck and not by skill...

After a dance on the bar by the master, expect that
you will not be able to cover your home board blot
as a servant.

Again, I don't see these as bad things. A player will only
be able to widen the equity gap through skill, not luck.

- Once I started to try to predict the rolls for the luck
servant (finally feeling like a dice paranoid instead
of working on my game) I was surprised quite often
by how bad doublets can be, or, put more generally,
how far off my estimations were. There is a lesson
to be learned by some here.

I don't quite understand this paragraph. Can you expand
on it a little..?

- There are highly artificial dice sequences: I saw 8
subsequent 21s for the servant in a race in order to
compensate for some previously accumulated luck
(that due to the position could not be compensated
adequately before).

I wonder if this will hold in the long run? If so, then it
may only mean that "dice dispersion" can have more
clusters but the "dice distribution" can still be good?

- It can only be done with a computer.

Yes. I hope they will put this in some bots someday.

- Considering the dice and luck paranoids out there,
the artificial sequences, the even more frustrating
outcome against a world class bot, I expect that
Gary Wong's official dice complaint form would
need a substantial update.

I don't understand this paragraph either. How do you
mean? I don't think you are being sarcastic. Are you
complaining about the dice? Why..?

Not for me, but your mileage may vary.

If you mean you wouldn't enjoy playing this variant
gainst a bot, I can understand that but what about
using it in "bot vs. bot" and/or bot vs. "mutant bot"
experiments?

As you all know, I'm a big advocate of experiments.
I love experiments. I think this one would be a very
revealing experiment about luck and/or cube skill...

I have more to say on this but I don't want to get too
far ahead of you or others who may want to chime in.

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On January 7, 2023 at 2:13:35 PM UTC-7, MK wrote:

On January 7, 2023 at 3:40:16 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

10. Repeat cycles from 2 to 6.

So far we are in agreement. Let's put a marker here.

After posting, I realized that there was nothing about
keeping a "running equity balance" in your numbered
steps, which is indispensable!

What you did has nothing to do with what I proposed.

The average equity in the temperature map has nothing
to with this. You look at the temperature map to find
the roll with the closest equity to the opening roll of
the "master" only once.

After that you put the difference into a "equity balance"
variable and then on you look at the temperature map
to find the roll with the closest equity to that "equity
balance" which will be updated after every move of the
"servant" and after every random roll of the "master".

Darn! :(( I got excited for nothing. What you did is all
wrong compared to what I proposed. That's probably
also the reason for your complaints about the dice.

If you want to play another 10 games properly, that
will be great. We can talk about your observations
again after that. If you don't want to do it, too bad. :(

I think I see now how you guys have such difficulty
understanding my noverl ideas. You keep going back
to what is etched into your minds... Sorry that your
efforts were in vain but I also feel like a fool to have
followed your steps without catching myself sooner. :(
So, I guess we are even... Just too bad...

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

MK <[email protected]> writes:

On January 7, 2023 at 3:40:16 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

[...]

Have you saved your games? If so, can you paste them here in text
format?

As you should know by now, I prefer if others get their hands dirty as
well. There is a lot to learn.

- As long as you do not blunder, the game stays very close (the
equity oscillates just a little around 0). A pretty static
tug-of-war.

Why not blunder? To the contrary, my intention was to level the "luck
equity" but allow the "skill equity" swing and/or drift apart without limitations

I understand this. But if I err/blunder (gnubg does not), then the game
does not stay close but rather crawls slowly in direction of a double
for gnubg.

- Doubles hence are rare (unless you have lost considerable equity
before)

I wouldn't have expected this but maybe because you eliminate
blunders.

I did not "eliminate" blunders, far from it. In fact I was quite busy
getting the "logistics" right and so most likely paid less attention to
the game itself. For the record: I doubled not at all (but should have,
prior to the final 33 as "luck master", which won the only game for me,
an oversight by me). In all other games gnubg doubled, I took 6 and
passed 3. So doubles are rare for the (non-expert) human.

what about cube actions in your games?

Well neither player adapted his strategy, but from first principles I
would argue as follows:

The luck master should be careful with doubling, because there will not
be many market losers: Good rolls by the doubler will be compensated for
the luck servant. For the luck servant on roll it is different: If the
luck master rolled something good, the servant will also get a good
roll. If then the next roll by the luck master is bad (say, half of the
times), it might be a market loser. The logic for takes/passes will be
similar.

- It cuts down the branching factor considerably. For example, after
a 42 opening (played correctly) the reply roll will always be 31.

I'm not so sure about this. Replies to opening rolls can be memorized
but only assuming best play from both sides. Playing either roll
differently won't gain anything since it may not necessarily thwart
the opponent's subsequent correct play.

In any case, I foresee the branching factor going back to normal after
the 3rd roll.

No. The roll of the luck servant is fixed by the roll of the luck
master. Backgammon is listed with a branching factor of 250 here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity#Complexities_of_some_well-known_games

This boils down (21 rolls) to an assumed 250/21 = 12 moves per roll. If
one player has only one roll (servant to the master), then the
combinatorial explosion (calculated for one move each) is cut down from
250*250 to 250*12. A factor of 21 is "considerable" for me.

- There are highly artificial dice sequences: I saw 8 subsequent 21s
for the servant in a race

[...]

I wonder if this will hold in the long run?

Anyway, this constraint was extremely annoying. The game feels crippled,
less lively. Try it yourself.

- Considering the dice and luck paranoids out there, the artificial
sequences, the even more frustrating outcome against a world class
bot, I expect that Gary Wong's official dice complaint form would
need a substantial update.

I don't understand this paragraph either.

Do you think that people who dislike the amount of luck in Backgammon
(often dice paranoids) will happily join such a game variant on a
server? Do you think that weak player (who often blame the dice instead
of their game) will happily play such a variant? After all, it could
reveal how weak their play is (of course fueling further paranoia about
the dice and the luck calculations involved, which they most likely do
not even understand).

If you mean you wouldn't enjoy playing this variant
gainst a bot, I can understand that but what about
using it in "bot vs. bot" and/or bot vs. "mutant bot"
experiments?

No. I play agaist bots to prepare for play with humans. Since I would
not want to play this variant agaist humans, this is "L'art pour
l'art". Not interested.

As to your other post: I did things correctly. The luck difference
between master and servant is the amount of luck (= potential equity)
that needs to be given to the servant as quickly as possible. The
average equity in the "Distribution of rolls" dialog corresponds to an imaginary roll with zero luck. Hence you need to add the difference from
above and pick the closest roll. All fine here. I will not elaborate
further, I believe this is all crystal clear.

My effort was not done in vain, I will not play further games either.

Axel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On January 8, 2023 at 12:58:56 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

MK <[email protected]> writes:

On January 7, 2023 at 3:40:16 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

Have you saved your games? If so, can you paste
them here in text format?

As you should know by now, I prefer if others get
their hands dirty as well. There is a lot to learn.

Fuck your holy selfishness! Especially when you
yourself have not done anything to learn from it
for your own sake... :(

Why not blunder? To the contrary, my intention
was to level the "luck equity" but allow the "skill
equity" swing and/or drift apart without limitations

I understand this. But if I err/blunder (gnubg does
not), then the game does not stay close but rather
crawls slowly in direction of a double for gnubg.

Because you don't understand the purpose of the
experiment and you are doing it all wrong...!

- Doubles hence are rare (unless you have lost
considerable equity before)

I wouldn't have expected this but maybe because
you eliminate blunders.

I did not "eliminate" blunders, far from it. In fact I
was quite busy getting the "logistics" right and so
most likely paid less attention to the game itself.

Okay, my comment was based on you having done
the 10-game experiment right. Since you hadn't, it
doesn't apply. Since the "master" rolls random dice,
at least he would roll an expected amount of doubles
and the "servant" can't do too much worse...

For the record: I doubled not at all (but should have,

Ha ha ha...! This was one of my points (even if you
haven't done it right).

prior to the final 33 as "luck master", which won the
only game for me, an oversight by me). In all other
games gnubg doubled, I took 6 and passed 3. So
doubles are rare for the (non-expert) human.

I think thwy would be rare for both if you had done it
right.

what about cube actions in your games?

Well neither player adapted his strategy, but from
first principles I would argue as follows:

The luck master should be careful with doubling,
because there will not be many market losers.....

All this is only partially true, (i.e. partially proving my
point), again because you didn't do it right.

In any case, I foresee the branching factor going
back to normal after the 3rd roll.

No. The roll of the luck servant is fixed by the roll
of the luck master.

Yes but how he will play it is not fixed. Mentally ill
gamblers like you can't understand this because
you are fixated on "perfect play" bullshit...! :(

Forget about the 3rd roll, you can't even know how
your opponent will play the 1st or the 2nd roll, if he
is a human...!

You can know if it is a bot because bots are 100%
predictable and that should be an advantage for
the human player. But bott kissers can't understand
that...! :(

Backgammon is listed with a branching factor of
250 here:

So what? How does that apply here is important.

Besides the fact that the branching factor does not
correlate to game complexity, as I have demonstrated
to you all in my post about "baranching factor inflation".

I wonder if this will hold in the long run?

Anyway, this constraint was extremely annoying. The
game feels crippled, less lively. Try it yourself.

It's supposed to be less lively. :) What is crippled is luck,
not skill...! This is the whole fucking point of it! And you
demonstarated that mentally ill gamblers don't like skill,
they like luck!

After all, it could reveal how weak their play is

Yes, indeed, that's what I would like to demonstrate.

(of course fueling further paranoia about the dice and
the luck calculations involved, which they most likely
do not even understand).

Let's forget about them. Let's talk about you and your
ilk. You all understand luck calculations, don't you..? ;)

If you mean you wouldn't enjoy playing this variant
gainst a bot, I can understand that but what about
using it in "bot vs. bot" and/or bot vs. "mutant bot"
experiments?

No. I play agaist bots to prepare for play with humans.
Since I would not want to play this variant agaist
humans, this is "L'art pour l'art". Not interested.

Oh, wow! You almost left me speechless here. :( I have
no interest in discussing "L'amour pour l'amour" with a
whore either...!! :((

As to your other post: I did things correctly.

No, you didn't. Why don't you make a genuine effort to
understand instead of arguing that you understand all
the while you don't?

All fine here.

I've never been "there". So, I can't very well argue against
how things may be in your realm of sick gablers...

I will not elaborate further,

Good decision. Why elaborate on something you don't
even have sane brains to understand...?

My effort was not done in vain,

Actually, on second thought after my second post, I also
thought so because some of (at least my) arguments
would apply either way. In other words, if you did another
10-game experiment, there would be occasions for me
to repeat those arguments.

I will not play further games either.

Please don't! Don't waste your time and effort on things
that you don't have the capacity to understand...

What is truely sad is tha Phillippe can impemeny this in
Gnubg in less time than it would take you to play anothe
10-games manually but unfortunately he won't, for the
reasons that I/we know very well why... :(

I will write a separate article about "LevelGammon", or
"FlatGammon", or any other suggestions? regardless
of who may understand it and/or benefit from it.

MK

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)