Playing Backgammon against the computer

[Dee Dee]

I have seen other people's complaints about the Fibs computer player.  I am curious if more people feel this way.

[PersianLord]

I voted 'Yes', just to keep you keeping us laughing, buwahaahahaha

[dorbel]

This subject has been covered innumerable times on the net. In this forum you may care to look at http://www.fibsboard.com/general-chit-chat/rigged-or-extreme-bad-luck-t2135.40.html for an interesting example. Bots on fibs draw their dice from the same list as you do. They can't choose their dice or know in advance what is coming.

[playBunny]

The bots are luckier. All good players are luckier. But none of them are luckier through cheating.

[blitzxz]

The bots are luckier. All good players are luckier.

What does luck mean?

[playBunny]

What does luck mean?

Indeed. That's a very interesting question.

[ah_clem]

Does anyone get the idea that the Fibs computer player is a cheater?

Yes.  Lot's of people think this.

It's demonstrably wrong (as has been demonstrated in this and other forums over and over and over) , but many ignorant people continue to think it.

If I posted a question "Does anyone believe in the Easter Bunny?" the obvious answer is Yes.  That doesn't mean that the Easter Bunny is real, only that there are some naive clueless people out there.  Same thing here, although it's much easier to prove that FIBS doesn't cheat than it is to disprove the Easter Bunny.

[ah_clem]

What does luck mean?

There's a mathematical definition used by gnubg, which basically compares the equity before the roll to the equity after the roll (assuming the player makes the best move).  If the equity increases, it's a lucky roll. If it decreases, it's unlucky.  More equity swing -> more lucky or more unlucky.

Of course, with this definition, no player is more lucky than another in the long run.

The bots and good players position their checkers so that there are more good rolls than bad ones - when they get the good roll it seems lucky, but it's not.  It's skill. 

Likewise, poor players position their checkers so that there are few good rolls and a lot of bad ones - when the bad roll inevetibly comes up, it's not luck but skill. Or lack thereof.

[dropper]

I recommend downloading GNU Backgammon (it's free). Then set the dice to manual and roll out the dice yourself while you play against it. It'll still keep winning.

[playBunny]

If I posted a question "Does anyone believe in the Easter Bunny?" the obvious answer is Yes.  That doesn't mean that the Easter Bunny is real, only that there are some naive clueless people out there.  Same thing here, although it's much easier to prove that FIBS doesn't cheat than it is to disprove the Easter Bunny.

Er, that's my cousin, Easter Bunny, you're talking about there!

[playBunny]

There's a mathematical definition used by gnubg, which basically compares the equity before the roll to the equity after the roll (assuming the player makes the best move).  If the equity increases, it's a lucky roll. If it decreases, it's unlucky.  More equity swing -> more lucky or more unlucky.

Of course, with this definition, no player is more lucky than another in the long run.

But surely, if luck is defined as the increase in equity then the person who wins more will receive more equity increases, hence more luck?

[ah_clem]

...luck is defined as the increase in equity...

luck is defined as the increase or decrease in equity assuming the player makes the best move.

The last part is important, and is why luck alone does not decide games & matches.

[dropper]

If you want to actually measure how much a game is luck rather than skill you can use a ratings calculator.

Here's one:
http://www.netadelica.com/bg/fibscalc.html

If I'm average and have a rating of 1500 and then play a 5pt match against the top player in the country who has, let's say, a 2000 rating. Then I should have a 22% chance of winning.

[diane]

Er, that's my cousin, Easter Bunny, you're talking about there!

   I thought my son ate him last year...

[blitzxz]

There's a mathematical definition used by gnubg, which basically compares the equity before the roll to the equity after the roll (assuming the player makes the best move).  If the equity increases, it's a lucky roll. If it decreases, it's unlucky.  More equity swing -> more lucky or more unlucky.

Yes, I know gnu's definition. But that's boring and technical. Luck is subjective. Sometimes very good or bad and very unlikely to happen to _you_. It's up to you to decide what is good or bad or even unlikely. Being lucky is a state of mind. 

I found also interesting link about this:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Is-There-Such-a-Thing-as-039-Being-Lucky-039-20584.shtml

"So, although randomness doesn't and cannot a priori favor anyone and no one can have any special personal relation with it, people who delude themselves that they have such a special relation, often end up happier than the rest."

[playBunny]

luck is defined as the increase or decrease in equity assuming the player makes the best move.

Yep, and the error on a move with positive luck is the amount by which the player fails to fully capitalise on that luck.

The last part is important, and is why luck alone does not decide games & matches.

That's true, however anyone who does any amount of GnuBg analysis cannot help but be struck by how few games are won by the player with the least luck.

[playBunny]

I found also interesting link about this:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Is-There-Such-a-Thing-as-039-Being-Lucky-039-20584.shtml

Nice one. That was a lucky find. ;o))

[ah_clem]

... anyone who does any amount of GnuBg analysis cannot help but be struck by how few games are won by the player with the least luck.

Hmmm.  I analyze every match I play, and I'm not struck at all. 

What makes backgammon such a successful gambling game is that beginners think it's mostly luck, while strong players understand that's it's mostly skill with just enough luck to keep the fish coming back.

[dropper]

"If you don't know who the fish is then it is probably you."
-- Danny Kleinman

[playBunny]

... anyone who does any amount of GnuBg analysis cannot help but be struck by how few games are won by the player with the least luck.

Hmmm.  I analyze every match I play, and I'm not struck at all. 

When I say "struck by" I mean notice. Are you really saying that you've never noticed that winner of each game is almost always the luckiest player?