Apparently there are dozens of backgammon variants today
and I don't know much about the history of each but all of
them are referred to as variants of "backgammon".

Thus I will use "backgammon" in referring the game for which
it was first used in English language and wich was and still is
the most commonly played ("original/classical") version in the
Middle East and elsewhere unchanged since then.

And I will use "gamblegammon" for the currently most played
variant in the West, with many modifications to turn it into an
efficient gambling game using a doubling cube and odd rules.

You all know how I looked down on gamblegammon all along,
as a less enjoyable (for non-gamblers), a less complex and a
badly bastardized variant that ruined backgammon.

It took me time to realize that it hadn't ruined backgammon in
parts of the world where it is alive and well, and is enjoyed by
hundreds of millions of people; that gamblegammon is the
variant actually less played by a comparably smaller but more
visible number of gamblers.

Nobody can dictate who should play what game and personally
I will be happy enough to see gamblegammon properly called a
variant of backgammon, using a different name and I would be
even more happy if the "gamblegammon" name that I proposed
gains acceptance and wide usage.

Whatever its new name, the differences not only in rules but in
essence aslo, such as the following, by all who love either game
for what each really is.

Recent discussions about the "branching factor" gave me a new
perspective on both games. I will argue that gamblegammon is
a lesser game than backgammon based on the following:

(I maintain that whatever the so-called "cube skill" actually may
be, it exists outside/alongside of the game but doesn't become
an integral part of it, nor add any complexity or excitement to
the game, other than perhaps gambling adrenaline. Thus, I will
keep it out of my arguments here.)

1- The starting roll.

In gamblegammon, the rules don't allow opening doubles. So,
there are 15 possibe dice combinations, that can result in 190
possible positions with some duplicates. (I'm not sure if those
should be pruned or left alone as thicker branches?)

In backgammon, the 6 allowed opening doubles result in 257
possible positions in addition to the 190, for a total of 447. So,
in gamblegammon, the game starts with 60% of the branches
already hacked off at the trunk.

Some math PHD's can surely calculate and tell you what may
be the "combinatorial explosion" rates of possible positions,
based on the "branching factor" of each game but even I can
see that they will be too far apart for comparison.

Going back to our analogy in the other thread, we will explode
past the Seattle city limit much faster in backgammon, an in
contrast, we will be proportionately more likely to see some
features of scenery more frequently in gamblegammon,
perhaps until the state line.

2- Doubling cube.

Looking up some old articles, apparently double/drop positions
can occur as early as right after the 2nd move. In post-crawford
games, a free drop can come after the 1st move. (Crawford itself
has no effect here since it only shortens matches not games and
we are only concerned with games. The same goes for Jacoby.)

The effect of such super early drops is like the fuse fizzling out
before reaching the cap and the explosive never explodes. Thus
we will see those short twig, early positions more frequently also.

Similarly, bear-off positions will be clipped off from the tail end. In
fact, we may almost never get to see quite a few final positions.

Mid-game branches will be cut off short at various stages as well
resulting in a stunted looking tree, with lots of thick low branches
(more frequent positions) and not as much towards the top.

In gamblegammon land, our travel accross states will also be less
scenic than in backgammon land. If you could live a few thousand
years and travel a lot, you would notice the frequency of positions.

3- Three-point wins.

This shortens the game with or without the cube. It prevents one
from getting his second wind and enjoy a last chance comeback.

But actually it's more than just about hurrying to get out of the
opponents board at the last minute. Not worrying about losing
an extra point, would result in games played differently through
the entire game.

However, it's harder to make statements about repeating positions
here because even though the games may be shorter, they are still
played out until the end instead of getting truncated, especially at
the start and end of the games where the positions are more likely
to occur more frequently by nature.

4- ??

I am getting tired of typing. If I come up with more ideas related
to this, I will add later.

As I wouldn't doubt that some heavily addicted players (gamblers
or not) may not find time for sex from playing (or posting in RGB),
let me close with a few sexual analogies. ;)

For me:

Backgammon is like a long intercourse with one's wife, enjoyable
until the last roll, with a higher "combinatorial explosion".

Gamblegammon is like quickies with whores for money, ending in
premature ejaculations, with a lower "combinatorial explosion".

MK

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

On 4/17/2022 1:46 AM, MK wrote:

Similarly, bear-off positions will be clipped off from the tail end. In
fact, we may almost never get to see quite a few final positions.

In Crawford play, all games are played out to their conclusion.

In fact, if one considers double match point, gammon go/gammon save,
and many-away/many-away as three different sets of positions, then
*more* positions can arise than in your preferred version of the game.

---
Tim Chow

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

On April 17, 2022 at 7:11:42 AM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:

On 4/17/2022 1:46 AM, MK wrote:

Similarly, bear-off positions will be clipped off from the tail end. In
fact, we may almost never get to see quite a few final positions.

In Crawford play, all games are played out to their conclusion.

Yes, that's why I had said: "Crawford itself has no effect here
since it only shortens matches not games". I further don't see
how what you said relates to what you quoted from me?

BTW: even as I kept calling "cube skill" bullshit, periodically I
clarified that I didn't mean zero skill and that some skill came
into play as the end of the game approched. I don't really have
an idea about the frequencies but I would guess that most
cubeful games will end with cube actions during bear-off. Feel
free offer facts or even your opinions on these...

While talking about this, I just realized that resignations in
backgammon are also "unnatural" endings of games and thus
somewhat skew the spectrum charts but probably negligeably.

And again while talking about this, I realized that my having
said "The same goes for Jacoby." was wrong and I retract it.
Since Jacoby urges the use of the cube, it causes games to
become cubeful, thus shorter just as any cubeful game.

In fact, if one considers double match point, gammon
go/gammon save, and many-away/many-away as three
different sets of positions, then *more* positions can arise
than in your preferred version of the game.

Surely I will agree that different strategies within games can
result in different spectrums of positions but I don't see how
those different types of plays, resulting in different sets of
position would be different in cubeful vs. cubeless games.

Whether cubeful or cubeless, matches are matches, games
are games... Feel free to expand and explain. I'm interested.

MK

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

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

double/drop positions can occur as early as right after the 2nd move

Yes. 52 split, 55 double hit, dance, double, pass.

The effect of such super early drops is like the fuse fizzling out
before reaching the cap and the explosive never explodes.

I do not figure that many explosions. Most of these blitzes will just
end in gammons, with the occasional lucky late hit by the dancer. Not
terribly exciting checker play.

Similarly, bear-off positions will be clipped off from the tail end. In
fact, we may almost never get to see quite a few final positions.

Yes. While using the cube to double your opponent out in a race will
cut the tree, it will in my opinion even more efficiently cut down the
luck involved. Take this position:

GNU Backgammon Position ID: 4HPMBwDgewcHAA
Match ID : cAkAAAAAAAAA
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: gnubg
| X O O | | O | 0 points
| X O O | | O |
| X O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
v| |BAR| | (Cube: 1)
| O | | X |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X |
| O X X | | X | On roll
| O X X | | X | 0 points
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: axel
Pip counts: O 141, X 121

This is double, pass. Without the cube, would you expect any interesting
MOVES? Rather than exciting ROLLS? I would not.

I played this to conclusion, squandered a whopping 0.001 of equity in
the process and lost due to GNU Backgammon rolling two 66s. Another try,
I lost 0.002 by non-optimal play and won easily. Every single roll in
this second (boring) game involved more luck or bad luck than this total
equity loss, see

https://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/AMeasureOfLuck.html

for measuring this (bots can do this for you).

3- Three-point wins.

This shortens the game with or without the cube. It prevents one
from getting his second wind and enjoy a last chance comeback.

Roughly the same as the races. Yes, it is exciting to win a "coup
classique", but apart from some tough containment position I think this
is mostly luck as well.

So yes, you are right, these rules cut the tree and decrease the
branching factor (but see Tim's counterargument), but in my opinion the
cube is a good thing to, surprise, REDUCE the gambling factor in
backgammon.

The branching factor is not everything, as far as I know it is well
possible to devise games with branching factors much higher than Go's,
but an extremely boring game play. From an optimization point of view
you are standing in the midst of an almost perfectly flat landscape and
have to decide which way to go "downhill". This is of course a matter of
game design and also taste. I think it rewarding to try a couple of
variants, bkgm.com has a lot of information about this, and I spent two
fun evenings with some of them.

Best regards

Axel

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

On April 19, 2022 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

double/drop positions can occur as early as right after the 2nd move

Yes. 52 split, 55 double hit, dance, double, pass.

Very happy to see you back Axel. :) Are you reincarnated
as a frog or a turtle..? ;)

Let me make a few side remarks before getting back into
the subject. I like: 1) that you use Gnubg rather than XG in
your posts, 2) that you write long, detailed posts, 3) that
you make efforts to support your arguments with more than
authoritative assertions (without taking advantage of any of
your other unrelated/unearned credibility, as some other hot
air ballons often do here), 4) that you don't let my "style" turn
you off from my "substance", 5) that you sometimes reformat
the lines you quote, like I often do, etc.

Of course, I would like to be able to respect some people
here and be respected back. Of course, I would like to win
over some people with my arguments and get their support
for my "causes". But I hope you can understand that I don't
want to form "alliances requiring mutual ass-kissing", etc.

As I had said before, I know I can never convince the "flock"
here but you may be able to convince a few who are at least
speaking the same language as you. So, I want to try to win
you over and "utilise" you fairly to convince others indirectly.
I think I have some chance of succeeding with you however
small the odds may be because at least on occasion I feel
that you have some integrity and are relatively candid and
open minded. To that end, I will make effort to explain my
points and understand your points as best as I can.

The effect of such super early drops is like the fuse fizzling
out before reaching the cap and the explosive never explodes.

I do not figure that many explosions. Most of these blitzes
will just end in gammons, with the occasional lucky late hit
by the dancer. Not terribly exciting checker play.

I don't mind talking about many sub-topic at once but let's
try to segregate related arguments at least a little.

Let's first talk about the above example sequence in terms
of my interest in "positions".

The dancing 3rd roll is a loop edge that doesn't link to another
vertex, i.e. the position doesn't change. So, the 4th roll will be
the one that will result in one of the however many legally
possible 3rd-tier positions.

All those positions, qualifying as very early positions, they will
occur in backgammon much more frequently than mid-game
positions. But in gamblegammon, they will never occur since
the game will be over before the 3rd roll.

Out of the supposedly recorded 100,000,000 game, if we take
10,000,000 backgammon and 10,000,000 gamblegammon
games, we may be looking at 100,000,000 positions in each
set. This assuming round numbers of 20 moves per game
resulting in 10 different positions, after excluding dancing
moves, more than one move ending in the same position, etc.

If we generate "spectrum charts" from those two sets of
positions, I propose that we will be able tell which one came
from backgammon and which one came from gamblegammon
because of a multitude of very strong "markers" such as in
the above example.

I won't dispute your saying that "Most of these blitzes will just
end in gammons, with the occasional lucky late hit by the dancer"
but you need to also realize that the blitz arose out of a lucky
double hit to begin with!

In backgammon, the dancer has a least some chance of winning
while in gamblegammon it's over.

So, what happened in gamblegammon is that the cube magnified
the luck so much that it instantly ended the game right there!

I'm going to keep trying at making you acknowledge that the cube
magnifies luck. So now, let me ask this question for the first time:
do you agree that the cube magnifies luck (at times drastically as
in this example)? Yes or no?

Another thing I'm going to keep trying at making you acknowledge
is that the cube shortens games. (I'm not talking about matches.)
Again, let me ask this question for the first time also: do you agree
that the cube shortens games? Yes or no?

The next question is very easy, almost rhetorical: do you agree that
longer games favor skill? Yes or no?

If you have any doubts about this, you can look at the FIBS rating
formula (which I called a horse fart from the beginning, because
of the arbitrarily inserted constants in it). There you will see that
the match length is one of the variables in it. By simple logic, the
same applies to game length.

Finally on this section, checker play following a opening double
hit may not be terribly exciting to gamblers but it's part of the
character of backgammon, having a chance at winning until the
last roll is indeed what makes backgammon fun and exciting to
people like me. From my angle, I don't what can be so exciting
about winning a game on the second roll due to pure luck? It's
a fizzled out fuze... Pffftt... :(

Similarly, bear-off positions will be clipped off from the tail end.
In fact, we may almost never get to see quite a few final positions.

Yes. While using the cube to double your opponent out in a race
will cut the tree, it will in my opinion even more efficiently cut
down the luck involved. Take this position:

This false argument never stops to fascinate me every time I hear
it, expecially mathematicians.

In order for the cube to cut down the luck by doubling out the
opponent, in a race or not, the player with access to the cube
has to get lucky first! :)

GNU Backgammon Position ID: 4HPMBwDgewcHAA
.....
This is double, pass. Without the cube, would you expect any
interesting MOVES? Rather than exciting ROLLS? I would not.

Again, what is so interesting about a double/drop purely due to
an unlucky/lucky sequence of just two dice roll..? I don't get it. :(

I played this to conclusion, squandered a whopping 0.001 of
equity in the process and lost due to GNU Backgammon rolling
two 66s.

How is rolling two 66s later in the game is less exciting than a
55 on the second roll? The excitement is not in how likely it is
to happen but in the possibility and anticipation of it happening.

Another try, I lost 0.002 by non-optimal play and won easily.
Every single roll in this second (boring) game involved more
luck or bad luck than this total equity loss, see

Would you ever consider that it may have been boring for you
because you are trying to play like the bot? Think os it as you
trying to ride your bike on train tracks... Do you realize that the
equities you are talking about are calculated by the bot, based
on some Jackoff-ski cube skill formulas? You will never beat
the train by following its tracks.

Now, since you mentioned the word, let's talk about "optimal",
(or "best", "perfect", etc.) play a little. The measuring sticks for
"optimal" are the super-human bots. Actually any bot would do
to use as a 100% consistent unit of measuring. Since the most
important thing is the consistency, then you probably need the
same bot playing against itself. That's why I rebuked you so
harshly about your example of possible distribution of plays
for a 43 roll, while talking about Markov chains, etc.

To revisit the sub-topic and further clarify, at the link you gave:

https://www.bkgm.com/openings.html#opening52

Only the first ranked 15 plays for the 15 possible dice rolls
would ever occur in bot-vs-bot play, resulting in only 15
different positions.

Just to earn some respect and credibility ;) let me use the
occasion to perfect the argument.

Theorically, a position said impossible to occur during the
first few rolls can actually occur after the game "recycles",
i.e. returns to the initial position, but only human-vs-human
games. Take a look at this:

https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+1530

His first two solutions would never happen in bot-vs-bot play,
since the bot wouldn't make the moves that he suggests,
regardless of whether the bot goes first or second.

His third solution actually belongs to me, 14 years before him:

https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+68

Let him take the credit, no big deal. What may matter though
is that, in addition to his and my clarifying that this solution
is only possible in backgammon allowing opening double,
but not in gamblegammon, when I had posted my solution
in RGB, I had also explained that this solution would be legal
in gamblegammon also if and after the game "recycles" to
the opening position in 5 moves first. I was ahead of him
and his ilks back then and I still am... :)

3- Three-point wins.
This shortens the game with or without the cube. It prevents
one from getting his second wind and enjoy a last chance
comeback.

Roughly the same as the races. Yes, it is exciting to win a
"coup classique", but apart from some tough containment
position I think this is mostly luck as well.

This is not about "coup classique" at all. That belongs to
gamblegammon. Pay attention.

I had said that in backgammon, the entire game will enfold
differently, throughout the game, from the beginning to the
end, simply because you don't worry about losing 3-points.

And as far as losing a 2-point games, it doesn't matter if
you have all your pieces in your home board but haven't
borne off any, or if you have all your 15 pieces still in your
opponents home board. Make an effort to understand the
difference and think how you would play differently then.

Anyone who hasn't learned backgammon first and came
to enjoy it for what it is, before becoming exposed to and
infected by gamblegammon, can never know nor even
imagine what they have missed... :(

So yes, you are right, these rules cut the tree and decrease
the branching factor (but see Tim's counterargument),

"Tim's counterargument"? What counterargument?? He
had none. If you think he did, can you explain to me also?

but in my opinion the cube is a good thing to, surprise,
REDUCE the gambling factor in backgammon.

When I hear this, I'm lost for words but I will try to keep hope
for as long as I can and I won't consider my efforts wasted
if you only promise me that you will also make some effort
to try to understand my arguments.

The branching factor is not everything, ..... This is of course
a matter of game design and also taste.

I agree completely. What's exciting is subjective. I'm finally
coming to a compromise in my mind that I would be happy
enough if gamblers quit referring to their gamblegammon
as backgammon and acknowledge the huge, huge, huge
differences between the two games.

After that, I think I could manage to discuss the cube-skill
bullshit, etc. politely ;) without being agressive/defensive
because of feeling resentment...

I have to admit, I really enjoyed trying to read up about
Markov chains and discrete maths graphs, etc. learning
new things even though a real world-class human can
beat the heat out of the current bots (bot wanna-be's)
without all that elaborate fantesizing...

Okay, I'm really tired and don't want to overdo it. Feel
free to break up the discussion into sub-topics within
this thread or new threads.

MK

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

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

do you agree that the cube magnifies luck (at times drastically as in
this example)? Yes or no?

Neither. Sometimes yes (mutant cube strategy), sometimes no (skillfully shortening and thus winning a game otherwise decided by luck). Hold your breath, I anticipate your response and will expand on this further
below.

do you agree that the cube shortens games? Yes or no?

Yes, since it cannot lengthen them ...

do you agree that longer games favor skill? Yes or no?

In general yes, but often no (example given below).

In order for the cube to cut down the luck by doubling out the
opponent, in a race or not, the player with access to the cube
has to get lucky first! :)

True, but you will hopefully see below that the cube still cuts down the
luck involved. I have altered the position I have shown previously into
a pure race:

GNU Backgammon Position ID: 4HM2BwDge8cBAA
Match ID : cAkAAAAAAAAA
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: gnubg
| O O O | | O | 0 points
| O O O | | O |
| O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
v| |BAR| | (Cube: 1)
| | | X |
| X | | X |
| O X X X | | X |
| O X X X | | X | On roll
| O X X X | | X | 0 points
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: axel
Pip counts: O 135, X 115

We agree on the fact that a particular amount of luck was involved to
get to this position, obviously, as you rightly say, I had more luck
than GNU Backgammon. This allows me to double it out, since the correct
cube decision is double and pass. For me this avoids the risk of losing
by GNU Backgammon having lucky rolls.

Now let's assume this position comes up at DMP (or cubeless
backgammon). Obviously I cannot double my opponent out. You will
hopefully agree that the amount of luck involved to get to this position
so far is exactly the same as in backgammon with the cube.

But how will the game continue?

Have a look in GNU Backgammon at "Analyze", "Distribution of rolls". The
equity will range from +0.946 (for a 66) to +0.618 (for a 21). That's
more than 0.3 of equity decided by luck!

Assume I roll a 51.

Now have a look in GNU Backgammon at "Analyze", "Hint". There are 16
legal moves, with the equity for the best (11/10 11/6) being +0.673 and
the equity for the worst (8/7 6/1) being +0.661. So only 0.012 of equity
is decided by skill. You could almost roll a dice to determine the move
to make ...

If you play on, you will see that this pattern repeats: Huge swings back
and forth, dictated by the dice, tiny equity differences between the
legal moves, caused by the skill of the players.

In the end, I will be more likely than not to win this game (I was a
huge favourite at the beginning of this thought experiment). If I do
win, my equity will be 1, exactly the same value as after doubling out
GNU Backgammon from this position in a game with the cube.

A couple of things should be noted:

1. If I decide to hold the cube or must not use it, my equity is smaller
than 1, because I can still lose.

2. Assuming I lose 0.15 of equity due to my incompetent play, I will
need 1.15 more of luck than GNU Backgammon to get from equity 0
(beginning of the game) to equity 1 (end of cubeless game, I won),
see

https://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/AMeasureOfLuck.html

3. While the "net luck" I need (assuming incompetent play) will always
be 1.15, the absolute luck will differ per game, some games will
include a bunch of jokers and anti-jokers (large positive or large
negative luck values from my point of view), while others will be
calm games with lots of average rolls.

The key point is that the sum of absolute values of luck will be much
larger in the longer game, which is not cut off by cube skill (double,
pass). So as long as the cube cuts off the branches with low equity
differences for the legal moves (races are a prime example), the luck is reduced by cube skill.

Would you ever consider that it may have been boring for you
because you are trying to play like the bot?

No, it is boring because almost no skill is involved any more. Coin
tossing is not much fun. Longer sessions of coin tossing are even less
fun.

Best regards

Axel

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

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:04:03 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
...

do you agree that the cube shortens games? Yes or no?

Yes, since it cannot lengthen them ...

...
The "cannot" is almost certainly wrong, depending on what precisely you mean. Cubeful and cubeless backgammon are (obviously) two different games.
Without coming up with examples, there are bound to be positions where the expected number-of-moves-till-end is larger with the cube active.
For example, breaking contact shortens a game. There may well be positions where
the best cubeful strategy, for both players, is to mutually hold each other, until someone
leaves a shot which leads to D/T. Whereas cubelessly, players would break contact.

Paul

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

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 2:04:03 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:

[Cube shortening games?]

Yes, since it cannot lengthen them ...

...
The "cannot" is almost certainly wrong, depending on what precisely
you mean. Cubeful and cubeless backgammon are (obviously) two
different games. Without coming up with examples, there are bound to
be positions where the expected number-of-moves-till-end is larger
with the cube active.

O.K., you got me. But on average a DMP game has quite some more moves
than the average of all games in a match, see

https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+712

Anyway, the skill of a session of coin tosses does not depend that much
on its length (which prevents Murat from to making the point that length
more or less directly translates to skill factor, see my pure race
example).

Best regards

Axel

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

On April 24, 2022 at 7:04:03 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

In order for the cube to cut down the luck by doubling
out the opponent, in a race or not, the player with
access to the cube has to get lucky first! :)

True, but you will hopefully see below that the cube still
cuts down the luck involved.

Not much cube skill is needed in this position. Luck just
allows one player to cash in. That's all.

GNU Backgammon Position ID: 4HM2BwDge8cBAA
Match ID : cAkAAAAAAAAA
We agree on the fact that a particular amount of luck
was involved to get to this position, obviously, as you
rightly say, I had more luck than GNU Backgammon.

I wouldn't say that at all! How you got to the doubling
position doesn't matter except the last roll (or maybe
two) that seals it.

Read some stuff I wrote about "Lucky positions vs
lucky rolls" in the past.

You guys need to decide whether there is continuity
in gackgammon (i.e. past rolls/play matter) or not
(i.e. only the current position matters before/after a
dice roll). You can't have your cake and eat it to...

This allows me to double it out, since the correct
cube decision is double and pass.

As bot-kisser, you must accept that you are the less
skilled player here, right?

Who needs more luck to win? More skilled or less
skilled player?

You got lucky and "only because of the inclusion of
the cube in the game", you were able to cash in.

I'm very disappointed in you. Honestly, I would have
expected better than this from you.

Also, notice that I'm not even asking "correct cube
decision is double and pass" according to who/what?
That's a whole different story that you guys can never
begin to address scientifically/mathematically...

For me this avoids the risk of losing by GNU
Backgammon having lucky rolls.

Are you joking? The bot doesn't need luck. You do!

But how will the game continue?

Have a look in GNU Backgammon at "Analyze",
"Distribution of rolls". The equity will range from
+0.946 (for a 66) to +0.618 (for a 21). That's
more than 0.3 of equity decided by luck!

Again, according to the fart-ass calculations by the
bot, based on how the bot would play. But anyway,
it's a "range" of values, not just a value.

Assume I roll a 51.
Now have a look in GNU Backgammon at "Analyze",
"Hint". There are 16 legal moves, with the equity for
the best (11/10 11/6) being +0.673 and the equity
for the worst (8/7 6/1) being +0.661. So only 0.012
of equity is decided by skill. You could almost roll a
dice to determine the move to make ...

After stuffing him in donkey's ass, I hate referring you
to him but ask Chow how "the more skilled player gets
lucky little at a time" vs the less skilled player needing
jokers...

If you play on, you will see that this pattern repeats:
Huge swings back and forth, dictated by the dice, tiny
equity differences between the legal moves, caused
by the skill of the players.

That's the idea/nature of the game. The more skilled
player will have the staying power over a long series
of moves to overcome the luck factor.

But that's exactly what you mentally ill gamblers can't
succeed at and/or derive enjoyment from. That's why
you guys injected the doubling cube in this game. Duh!

1. If I decide to hold the cube or must not use it, my
equity is smaller than 1, because I can still lose.

Yes. What a surprize? But, you can also still lose if your
opponent says "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead"!
Your skill will not be enough to survive the torpedos.
As the less skilled player here, you need luck!

2. Assuming I lose 0.15 of equity due to my incompetent
play, I will need 1.15 more of luck than GNU Backgammon
to get from equity 0 (beginning of the game) to equity 1
(end of cubeless game, I won),

Duh! Now, they gonna accuse me of being mean again. :(

The key point is that the sum of absolute values of luck
will be much larger in the longer game, which is not cut
off by cube skill (double, pass).

I can't believe what I'm reading. I better not say anymore.

MK

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

On April 24, 2022 at 9:27:13 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On April 24, 2022 at 2:04:03 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:

.

do you agree that the cube shortens games? Yes or no?

Yes, since it cannot lengthen them ...

The "cannot" is almost certainly wrong, depending on what
precisely you mean. Cubeful and cubeless backgammon
are (obviously) two different games.

This is music to my ears. Let's call this later invented different
game by a different name.

I don't think it can be done in US but can the name of a game
be protected in EU, similar to protecting product names used
based on their origins, like Champagne, Feta, etc...?

For example, breaking contact shortens a game. There may
well be positions where the best cubeful strategy, for both
players, is to mutually hold each other, until someone leaves
a shot which leads to D/T. Whereas cubelessly, players would
break contact.

This has some merit but only assuming that both sides will
subcribe to the bullshit of cube skill. If one player tries to turn
the game into a cubeless one by intentionally killing the cube,
then you would have to at least cancel this example as cube's
lengthening the game. Then, at best they will be of the same
length.

MK

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

On April 24, 2022 at 1:11:35 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

Anyway, the skill of a session of coin tosses does not
depend that much on its length

What a most stupid analogy! Bleh... :(

(which prevents Murat from to making the point that
length more or less directly translates to skill factor,
see my pure race example).

No it doesn't. Your ears don't hear what comes out of
your own mouth. You just try to regurgitate what you
have learned by rote but you can't even do that... :(

MK

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

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

On April 24, 2022 at 7:04:03 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

How you got to the doubling position doesn't matter except the last
roll (or maybe two) that seals it.

Why not three? Why not four? Why not all? Why not zero?

Read some stuff I wrote about "Lucky positions vs lucky rolls" in the
past.

I perhaps would if you gave some more precise pointers. Googling above
phrase does not yield any results that look like being authored by you.

You guys need to decide whether there is continuity in gackgammon
(i.e. past rolls/play matter) or not (i.e. only the current position
matters before/after a dice roll). You can't have your cake and eat it
to...

Did you read Zare's "A measure of luck"?

https://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/AMeasureOfLuck.html

Did you understand it?

Hint: There is (usually) one equity for one position, but the road to it
may be paved with different amounts of luck (if you take the sum of
absolute values, so luck per roll of say, -0.4, +0.3, -0.5, +0.6
involves more luck than -0.05, -0.1, +0.07, +0.08, even if the net
equity change is equal.

you are the less skilled player here, right?

Yes.

Who needs more luck to win? More skilled or less skilled player?

In general less skilled, but that does not matter in a position where it
is easy even for intermediate players to play close to perfection. The
equity loss by inferior play is drowned by the equity changes injected
from the dice. I gave you the numbers, you chose to ignore them, coming
up with generalizations that do not help/apply here.

"correct cube decision is double and pass" according to who/what?

Pure races are simple. Last roll situations with one checker each can be
solved analytically, then work your way backwards. That is how (one- or two-sided) bearoff databases are created.

For me this avoids the risk of losing by GNU Backgammon having lucky
rolls.

Are you joking? The bot doesn't need luck. You do!

So you did not read/understand "A measure of luck".

"Distribution of rolls". The equity

[...]

it's a "range" of values, not just a value.

Yes, and a huge range! This is the key point here.

"the more skilled player gets lucky little at a time" vs the less
skilled player needing jokers

Not in this low-skill, high-luck position.

The more skilled player will have the staying power over a long series
of moves to overcome the luck factor.

Not in this low-skill, high-luck position.

As the less skilled player here, you need luck!

Not in this low-skill, high-luck position.

The key point is that the sum of absolute values of luck will be much
larger in the longer game, which is not cut off by cube skill
(double, pass).

I can't believe what I'm reading. I better not say anymore.

... at least not until you have read and understood Zare's article. It
is easy and well written. (-:

Axel

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

On April 30, 2022 at 4:31:52 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

How you got to the doubling position doesn't matter
except the last roll (or maybe two) that seals it.

Why not three? Why not four? Why not all? Why not zero?

I don't understand the question "Why not zero?"

And I'm never going to make as stupid as claim that I can
understand bullshit but I would guess that if it's more than
two rolls (i.e. to avoid a market loser or such bullshit) then
one player or the other must have missed a double action.

Read some stuff I wrote about "Lucky positions vs lucky
rolls" in the past.

I perhaps would if you gave some more precise pointers.
Googling above phrase does not yield any results that look
like being authored by you.

Sorry about that. When I search for the phrase including the
quote marks, my article comes up as number three after the
two other very recent ones. But anyway, here is one:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/6xTmZQTGnCY/m/8oxcOI1JwpsJ

Did you read Zare's "A measure of luck"?

Of course, I did. And read meany others like it. Skill-luck=0
sounds mathematically beautiful but is bullshit. It can only
be true if there were only one perfect strategy and that was
the bot strategy.

I claim that I'm better than the bots. What are you gonna do
about it?

I claim that I or another bot or human can follow a different
strategy than a certain bot and beat it. What do you have to
say about it?

If you accept that multiple best/perfect/optimum or whatever
the fancy buzzword bullshit are possible, than Zare's measure
of luck gets flushed doen the toilet.

Then, luck is "if I get what I wish for". At a given position, bot's temperature map may indicate whatever it may, based on how
the bot calculates the equities before and after a roll.

But when I kiss the dice and say "Come on baby, give me NN"
I may not be wishing for the same numbers as the bot. Do you
(or Zare) understand this?

Again, you guys can't be throwing around words like "strategy"
so carelessly. You need to start by looking up its meaning in a
dictionary first.

Then, make up your minds about whether there can be strategy
in backgammon or not. You can't eat your cake and have it too!

If there is strategy, then I get lucky when I get the numbers that
I wish for. Regardless of what the bots or Zare's say about it.

Did you understand it?

No. :)

Hint: There is (usually) one equity for one position, but the
road to it may be paved with different amounts of luck (if
you take the sum of absolute values, so luck per roll of say,
-0.4, +0.3, -0.5, +0.6 involves more luck than -0.05, -0.1, +0.07,
+0.08, even if the net equity change is equal.

Why don't you try for a change that there are no such absolute
values. What you are offering are just what some bot says.

Have you scientifically validated them? No! It's all bullshit no
better than your daily horoscope...

you are the less skilled player here, right?

Yes.

Who needs more luck to win? More skilled or less skilled player?

In general less skilled, but that does not matter in a position
where it is easy even for intermediate players to play close to
perfection.

Yes, exactly. Come on, man. Come to your senses. It was an
easy enough position that even you could get the right cube
action. You got lucky. You cashed in. That's it. Quit!

"correct cube decision is double and pass" according to
who/what?

Pure races are simple.

The example position you gave was not a pure race. Don't
you feel any shame to keep trying to weasel out desperately?

Last roll situations with one checker each can be solved
analytically, then work your way backwards. That is how
(one- or two-sided) bearoff databases are created.

So? That's the size of Manhattan, remember? You try to work
your way past that and you run into combinatorial explosion
or whatever that big fart was... :)

"the more skilled player gets lucky little at a time" vs the
less skilled player needing jokers

Not in this low-skill, high-luck position.

Exactly! "Low-skill, high-luck" for you, not the bot! After your
high luck, if the game was to be played out, the bots would
get bigger gains on skill and smaller gains of luck. Why are
you making a mathematician ass out of yourself...? :(

The more skilled player will have the staying power over
a long series of moves to overcome the luck factor.

Not in this low-skill, high-luck position.

Exactly! You already had your high-luck that allows you to
make your low-skill cube action to cash in.

I can't believe what I'm reading. I better not say anymore.

... at least not until you have read and understood Zare's
article. It is easy and well written. (-:

For one thing, you can't substite Zare's article for what you
have written.

But Zare's article is "mathshit" anyway... ;)

MK

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

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

On April 30, 2022 at 4:31:52 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

How you got to the doubling position doesn't matter
except the last roll (or maybe two) that seals it.

Why not three? Why not four? Why not all? Why not zero?

I don't understand the question "Why not zero?"

My point was that your "maybe two" is arbitrary. If there is history dependence, then it goes all the way back to the start, so all moves are relevant (which is true for the luck assessment). If there is no history dependence, then zero moves are relevant (which is true for the equity assessment).

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/6xTmZQTGnCY/m/8oxcOI1JwpsJ

Thanks.

Pure races are simple.

The example position you gave was not a pure race. Don't
you feel any shame to keep trying to weasel out desperately?

It was, look it up. GNU Backgammon Position ID: 4HM2BwDge8cBAA

Rest of ranting removed.

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