New droppers

[robthablob]

Hi,

User jcr after dropping a match (not sure whether just to avoid losing) persistently refuses to resume. Maybe one to add to the drop-list?
New user russekz similarly dropped a match just as it became unlikely to be a win - maybe one to watch.

Rob

[robthablob]

Add to that joesoluk - as a new player I gave him benefit of the doubt first time, but...

1. Attempting to start a new game with me without resuming a saved game.
2. Dropping the same game again as soon as he/she realised it was unwinnable on resume.

Forewarned is forearmed.

[adrian]

Hey Rob !

1. If you use Javafibs, there is a nice feature , Villains list, a list that may be filled by you with the players who dropped you, were rude during the chat or simply were too lucky for your taste  (or any combination of the above)
2. In Javafibs you can see the software used by players. I suggest to avoid Odesys and IPhone users. Mostly the Odesys ones. Player zbilbo may help you if you try to use his bot called whofibsvillains.
3. Use the show savedcount <playername>     command to see the number of the unfinished matches of a player and act accordingly. Or better make two programmable buttons for it (only in in Javafibs) : show savedcount <inviter> and show saved count <player>. 

I hope this was helpful. do a search for the term dropper on fibsboard, you will learn (maybe) more that way.

[rebcalale]

I personally do not drop but the only smart players on FIBS are droppers.  Why would anyone not drop when u have a "FIBS" (which is synonymous with highly improbable, more like impossible) chance of winning?  Do players enjoy beating others because of the ridiculous rolls commonly seen on Fibs that blatantly favor one player over another.  Is this good sportsmanship? NO its not!!!!!!  Not surprisingly, do the stats and u will see that ranked players r more often than not the recipient of unusually favorable rolls.   Guess what (again do the stats and/or use GNU) this has nothing to do with ranked players making better moves.  It has everything to do with fibs dice being absurdly improbable.  I once saw one of the Fibs apologists offer some reward if anyone could prove cheating and or that Fibs dice were not legit.  Well the same goes for the opposite position, I'd like to see someone prove that fibs dice r legit rather than simply say they r.  Doubt I will ever see it and I'm betting it's because it is impossible to prove something that is false.

[socksey]

I'm sure someone of your vast experience on Fibs (892 as I post) can authoritatively make these assumptions!   

We have some of the best backgammon players in the world playing on Fibs and most of them do not agree with what you have said.     Stick around a few years, and then decide.   

socksey



"Toothache: the pain that drives you to extraction." - Anonymous

[rebcalale]

As always another sad response from a FIbs apologist. "we" what ever that means, do not have any of the best players in the world.  What Fibds does have is a sad collection of misfits who take pleasure in the absurd rolls of FIbs dice.

[Yvon]

Actually THERE IS a way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the dice at FIBS is neutral.
Playing through password protected  file containing the rolls. The file been emailed to both players before the start of the match, the password been emailed ONLY after the game is finished. WINRAR is known to  produced such password protected files, even the author of WINRAR states he cannot open a file unless he knows the password.
I suggested this some time ago.... the answer i got was "it's difficult".

Well...

Here's one experiment you can do to check FIBS dice:
Use 2 different clients. Login to Fibs with 2 different nicks. With each of your client watch a different matches. Record the dice when rolls appear either simulltaneously or say max 0.5sec from each other.
See anything strange?

[dorbel]

Actually Fibs does have a number of very strong players who are quite happy to play on fibs. if I found myself drawn anywhere in the world in a bracket that included dlevy, kitwoolsey, mamabear, gumpi, runnerup, mws, melzi, weaky, Zagloba, _Z-, gnomystwo, gandp, sita, c_ray or roderick, to name but few, I would expect to see some world class play, because these are world class, or at the very least expert players. They are well known in the bg world under their real names and this is by no means a complete list, or anything like it.
These are people who know and who are known. Who are rebcalale and Yvon?

[ah_clem]

robthablob,

Being dropped is very frustrating, and when I was first starting out on Fibs I encountered a lot of droppers.  But as adrian points out, avoiding the droppers is not that difficult.  My personal policy is:

1) Don't play phone users. (odesys as client)

2) Don't play anyone with more than 10 saved matches unless I know them

3) Don't play anyone with a negative RepBot rating

4) Think carefully before playing someone with less than 1000 experience points.  (I'll play someone with less, but only if their repbot and saved count looks good.)

I rarely get dropped anymore. 

[ah_clem]

These are people who know and who are known. Who are rebcalale and Yvon?

Don't really know Yvon yet, but rebcale is just your everyday dice whiner.  But you knew that.  (c:

[Yvon]

Actually Fibs does have a number of very strong players who are quite happy to play on fibs. if I found myself drawn anywhere in the world in a bracket that included dlevy, kitwoolsey, mamabear, gumpi, runnerup, mws, melzi, weaky, Zagloba, _Z-, gnomystwo, gandp, sita, c_ray or roderick, to name but few, I would expect to see some world class play, because these are world class, or at the very least expert players. They are well known in the bg world under their real names and this is by no means a complete list, or anything like it.
These are people who know and who are known. Who are rebcalale and Yvon?

I am nobody dorbel. Just someone who has higher rating than you on Fibs AND SUSPECTS Fibs dice equally as the newbie above.

[dorbel]

Anonymity is a useful cloak, from behind which anybody can assert anything. Even if you do have a higher rating than mine, it doesn't necessarily mean that you know what you are talking about, particulalry if you equate a high rating on fibs with knowing the game!

[diane]

I am nobody dorbel. Just someone who has higher rating than you on Fibs AND SUSPECTS Fibs dice equally as the newbie above.

You dont play as Yvon...what is your nick?  Are you really rated higher than 1929?

How much experience do you have playing live matches with precision dice under tournament conditions?

I don't accept any comments on dice until someone has  spent about 2 years playing live with good players...because then you will really have seen crazy rolls...with your dice, on your board, rolled by your hand...fibs starts to look very normal after you have done that.

[Yvon]

Of course I don't play as Yvon. Yvon was my daughter's email, that she abandoned, and just used it myself to register here. I am actually on and off from Fibs, backgammon is just one of my hobbies, i consider it a rather easy game to be on top, (compared with chess that i dealt with in the past), i ve been playing BG from childhood, i have a few thousands experience at fibs, and I use 2 different nicks one playing bots, and one humans.My highest rating a bit less than 2000 is the one i play bots.

Now if dorbel thinks I am lying so be it i don't care.I don't think he ever managed to cause the bots to disappear/be removed for maintainance for more than 2 weeks like i did last year..... I don't use BG to make money, I never use computers to analyse my games, i never read a book on bg. I just use it bg for pleasure and excitement.

Any further questions Diane?

And yes i dare say I suspect the dice at FIBS, and i tell you something:Most top players don't dare say it because the are afraid of their reputation. Ask them what they think when playing with bots for example. Damn you REALLY think the bots have the ABILITY to play better than the best HUMAN? Are you really serious??

Then explain me how ALL bots on fibs are rated higher than the best human...

[jackdaddy]

East yvon. The bots are programmed to play flawlessly (with the exception of the blunderbots). Now, I'm a bit curious as to why you won't reveal your FIBS nick. My guess is because you aren't all you claim to be.

[dorbel]

Bots don't play perfectly, but bots based on Gnu do play better than any human, which is why on fibs their rating is higher than any human who plays without cheating or manipulation. Note too that they are dropped several times a day, without which they would all be higher than they are.
How can we tell that they play better than humans? Ask any of the world's greatest players who they would choose as a doubles partner. If allowed a choice of a bot, they would all choose one over any real person, falafel, nack or grandell included.
The person who caused the gbots to be taken off is commonly known as geissenpeter, a saboteur who achieves his aims by using bots. One way or another, this makes you a liar and your opinions worthless.

[Yvon]

East yvon. The bots are programmed to play flawlessly (with the exception of the blunderbots). Now, I'm a bit curious as to why you won't reveal your FIBS nick. My guess is because you aren't all you claim to be.

You guessed wrong! As far as I can see from my log I only played you once. Here's the result:

"Done.
You win the game and get 4 points. Congratulations!
You win the 7 point match 8-4 ."

Now guess who "you" is.

[Yvon]

Bots don't play perfectly, but bots based on Gnu do play better than any human, which is why on fibs their rating is higher than any human who plays without cheating or manipulation. Note too that they are dropped several times a day, without which they would all be higher than they are.
How can we tell that they play better than humans? Ask any of the world's greatest players who they would choose as a doubles partner. If allowed a choice of a bot, they would all choose one over any real person, falafel, nack or grandell included.
The person who caused the gbots to be taken off is commonly known as geissenpeter, a saboteur who achieves his aims by using bots. One way or another, this makes you a liar and your opinions worthless.

Too bad calling me a liar and stuff... At a time that I alllll...most started respecting you dorbel.Well I am not geissenpeter if that's important for you. Why don't you  all  just stop and listen carefully for a moment. I 've seen many people complaining about the dice at FIBS. Most of them newbies and most of them on on wrong grounds. In fact when I personally first complained in this forum they called me newbie, and the fact was, I was a newbie then, so i had no defence. Now I have, and I have hard evidence that I can use any time I wish. It's like holding the cube if you like So for the moment I will just continue "holding the cube" without revealing my nicks at fibs...

The SUSPICION though about the dice at FIBS is still there and THERE IS NO WAY to remove it unless the runners of FIBS convince us otherwise by providing evidence that goes beyond any reasonable  doubt. I already proposed one way to do it perhaps there are other ways, i don't know. Such assurances that the rolls come directly from Fibs server, or watch the rolls getting generated through Telnet etc etc cannot convince me.

I know very well how the bots play. Yes they play at top level so we agree on that. What I disagree with you, is your absolute conviction that they generally play better than the BEST human players.
I keep my reservations.

[diane]

Of course I don't play as Yvon.

Of course?  Why of course?

You were asked to use the same nick here as you do on fibs when you registered, why would I naturally think that you didn't do that?

Then explain me how ALL bots on fibs are rated higher than the best human...

Because they don't play equally skilled players all day, they are predominantly playing weaker players, and therefore win more often.  Obviously if they played with you exclusively and were still rated 2000+, they would have to be cheating  


And since you are now playing some other game than backgammon, I have lost interest.

[dorbel]

I lose interest too.

[Yvon]

Of course?  Why of course?

You were asked to use the same nick here as you do on fibs when you registered, why would I naturally think that you didn't do that?

Because they don't play equally skilled players all day, they are predominantly playing weaker players, and therefore win more often.  Obviously if they played with you exclusively and were still rated 2000+, they would have to be cheating  


And since you are now playing some other game than backgammon, I have lost interest.

Diane my dear, the "of course" was meant to mean you would have known me if my nick at Fibs was Yvon. If English is your native language please rephrase it for me. Let's not split hairs now shall we? btw I was never asked to use the same nick while registering in this forum...

As for the explanation you gave I am sorry to say but it is wrong.. think about it.

And finally I did not like the insinuation in your last sentence.

I honestly and without fear told my opinion,  yes i am  non beleiver, in the middle ages they would call me a heretic take me to the Inquisition and burn me on fire.

Guilty as charged i.e

[jackdaddy]

Me three, but only after guessing this is amarganth.

[diane]

Me three, but only after guessing this is amarganth.

No, I met armaganth, nice guy - no paranoid twit     

[Yvon]

Yeah, a nice pack of name callers....

[socksey]

I have a suggestion.     If you don't like Fibs players and you don't like Fibs dice, get out!     We're overcrowded as it is, and your exit would be appreciated.      Patti runs Fibs and has enough headaches without the likes of you complainers.    

socksey



"Having a child is surely the most beautifully irrational act that two people in love can commit." - Bill Cosby

[Yvon]

I have a suggestion.    If you don't like Fibs players and you don't like Fibs dice, get out!    We're overcrowded as it is, and your exit would be appreciated.     Patti runs Fibs and has enough headaches without the likes of you complainers.    

socksey



"Having a child is surely the most beautifully irrational act that two people in love can commit." - Bill Cosby

I also have a suggestion:Learn to read and make sure you UNDERSTAND what you 've read.
There are special courses for that in case you can't manage.

[socksey]

Perhaps you should take your own advice, Yvon.     I don't recall mentioning any names in my post.  It was meant as a generality but directed mainly at the one who did complain about the people of Fibs.  Take it or leave it.  Your choice. 

socksey



"Kites rise highest against the wind -- not with it." - Winston Churchill

[Yvon]

....

[rebcalale]

Atually THERE IS a way to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the dice at FIBS is neutral.
Playing through password protected  file containing the rolls. The file been emailed to both players before the start of the match, the password been emailed ONLY after the game is finished. WINRAR is known to  produced such password protected files, even the author of WINRAR states he cannot open a file unless he knows the password.
I suggested this some time ago.... the answer i got was "it's difficult".

Well...

Here's one experiment you can do to check FIBS dice:
Use 2 different clients. Login to Fibs with 2 different nicks. With each of your client watch a different matches. Record the dice when rolls appear either simulltaneously or say max 0.5sec from each other.
See anything strange?

R u on drugs  this is a ridiculus response

Edited by Diane to make it clear that this was a quote, not a repeat of a previous post.

[Yvon]

No, but from your symptoms I would say your problem is more complicated than a simple chasing disorder.

[rebcalale]

Don't really know Yvon yet, but rebcale is just your everyday dice whiner.  But you knew that.  (c:

At least and I know this will be difficult for you, get my name right.  However anyone who is honest and wants to understand, knows my statements are right on the money.  In other words, those who want to call me a winner prove your position instead of blatant name calling.  This response is just another confirmation that my position is correct. As I write this I have yet to see any scientific evidence that FIbs dice r legit and as I stated before, this will not ever be seen here.  WHY? simpley u can't push a rope.  In other words u can't offer proof for something that has no basis on fact.   

[stog]

good job it isn't a money server if the dices r twisted

[diane]

As I write this I have yet to see any scientific evidence that FIbs dice r legit and as I stated before, this will not ever be seen here.  WHY? simpley u can't push a rope.  In other words u can't offer proof for something that has no basis on fact.   

What you cant do, ever, is satisfy someone who does not wish to be satisfied.  This is why we, at fibsboard, mostly don't bother with this.  But once in a while, it is interesting to go and see what is new, or the same, in the wide world of dice whining....

If you do a simple google search, you will rapidly end up at rgb....but I will speed that up for you http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+10


There you will find a long list of articles which had to be written to satisfy a long list of 'this or that electronic backgammon game/software cheats with the dice'

Have fun reading your proof....personally, that list in itself is enough to satisfy me that humans wouldn't know a random roll if it took the top of their head off...Simians are built to see patterns - our very survival depends on it ['there will be food here in a few weeks, cos that happened the same last year' - that sort of thing]


   

Dice on backgammon servers  (Hank Youngerman, July 2001) 
    Does Agushak Backgammon cheat?  (Mr Nabutovsky, June 2000) 
    Does BG by George cheat?  (George Sutty, Nov 1995) 
    Does Cybergammon cheat?  (Goto Informatique, Aug 1996) 
    Does David's Backgammon cheat?  (Joseph B. Calderone, June 1998) 
    Does GNU Backgammon cheat?  (Robert-Jan Veldhuizen, Nov 2002) 
    Does Gammontool cheat?  (Jim Hurley, Sept 1991) 
    Does Hyper-Gammon cheat?  (ZZyzx, June 1996) 
    Does Jellyfish cheat?  (Fredrik Dahl, June 1997) 
    Does MVP Backgammon cheat?  (Mark Betz, Oct 1996) 
    Does MonteCarlo cheat?  (Matt Reklaitis, June 1998) 
    Does Motif cheat?  (Rick Kiesau+, Mar 2004)  [Long message]
    Does Motif cheat?  (Billie Patterson, Feb 2003) 
    Does Motif cheat?  (Robert D. Johnson, Oct 1996) 
    Does Snowie cheat?  (André Nicoulin, Sept 1998) 
    Does TD-Gammon cheat?  (Gerry Tesauro, Feb 1997) 
    FIBS: Analysis of 10 million rolls  (Stephen Turner, Apr 1997)  [Recommended reading]
    FIBS: Are the dice biased?  (Kit Woolsey, Oct 1996) 
    FIBS: Entering from the bar  (Tom Keith+, Apr 1997) 
    GamesGrid: Too many jokers?  (Gregg Cattanach, Sept 2001) 
    Jellyfish: How to check the dice  (John Goodwin, May 1998)  [Recommended reading]
    Jellyfish: Proof it doesn't cheat  (Gary Wong, July 1998) 
    MSN Zone: Security flaw  (happyjuggler0, June 2004) 
    Official complaint form  (Gary Wong, June 1998)  [Recommended reading]
    Synopsis of "cheating" postings  (Ray Karmo, Feb 2002) 
    Testing for bias  (Kit Woolsey, Jan 1995) 
    The dice sure seem unfair!  (Michael Sullivan, Apr 2004) 
    Too many repeated rolls?  (Stephen Turner, Mar 1994) 
    Winning and losing streaks  (Daniel Murphy, Mar 1998) 

[jackdaddy]

Thanks Diane. I like this one from Kit... http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+52

I have no objections to people stating that they think the dice on FIBS
are biased, even though I disagree with them.  It's a free world on the
internet, and such points of view do spark interest and perhaps will show
that there is some bias.  I do hope, however, that these people will make
more of an effort to substantiate their case with proper testing, rather
than mentioning a few isolated runs of good or bad luck or expressing
their feelings that the dice are biased.

My main reason for writing this is to persuade FIBS players not to let
their game be affected by thinking that the dice are unfair.  Once you
start to believe there is something wrong with the dice it is very easy
to think you should distort your play in order to compensate for the
dice, and the results will not be good.

[dorbel]

Actually you can prove that the dice have no bias. Here's how. Unbiased dice are unpredictable. The chances of any given number appearing next turn are the same as for any other. If they are predictable, then those who can predict them can make money betting on the next number, much as a roulette player could if he knew that number 13 say, was more likely to appear than any other. When those who say that the dice are predictable are offered the opportunity to bet, they don't take it, even though the queue of those willing to take their wager stretches around the block.
If people won't bet on a sure thing, it isn't a sure thing. QED.

[Yvon]

I would agree with Woolsey's article that

"It should be noted that statistical tests can't prove anything one way or
the other; they can only give us indications."

I wonder whether anyone has ever tried to make statistics. Bear in mind that statistics that simply target the randomness of rolls are totally useless. Assume that someone has the means to cheat, s/he would most propably just need  one joker roll per game. That joker roll differs from game to game therefore in the overall the randomness of rols still remains INTACT.

You need statistics for each and every parameter of the game separately. These are some of the main ones:
a)  Getting off  bar statistics.
b)  Statistics from the point the "confrontation game" is over until end of bearoff.
c)  Statistics on the first few rolls
d)  Joker statistics over total availability of jokers.

The first 2 are relatively easy to do. In fact I have already made an Excel macro for "A".
Here's an example:  (attached below)



It doesn't need a rocket scientist to realize that both players were actually lucky regarding this very SPECIFIC parameter.Therefore Red cannot complain for bad luck in getting off the bar. What costed him the game was the too many rounds on bar, and the critical round #5 where he got 2 on bar. However there are times this parameter is critical. A 60% success over a total availbility of 50% for player X, compared with a 40% success over the same availability for player Y is usually decissive for X winning the game.

B)This is fairly easy to do. 10 + pips difference while it is your turn to play should normally win you the game. The same of course is valid for the opponent. Notice this statistic cannot apply on a game to game basis but on the total number of games you played.

C)  Here you have to decide which rolls are critical to secure an initial advantage within the first say 3 rolls. 33s, 11s ,22s 31, 42 etc. Then make your statistics accordingly.

In the end as Woolsey said you will end up with just indications, no solid evidence whatsoever....

There can only be one solid evidence  for internet backgammon and that is a password secured file containig rolls. Each new game starts from next available roll in file, so the set of rolls for each player is unpredictable.

[socksey]

That all sounds way too complicated for fun and I prefer fun first.     I'll take my chances like everyone else.   

socksey



"The biggest sin is sitting on your ass." – Florynce Kennedy

[rebcalale]

Too bad calling me a liar and stuff... At a time that I alllll...most started respecting you dorbel.Well I am not geissenpeter if that's important for you. Why don't you  all  just stop and listen carefully for a moment. I 've seen many people complaining about the dice at FIBS. Most of them newbies and most of them on on wrong grounds. In fact when I personally first complained in this forum they called me newbie, and the fact was, I was a newbie then, so i had no defence. Now I have, and I have hard evidence that I can use any time I wish. It's like holding the cube if you like So for the moment I will just continue "holding the cube" without revealing my nicks at fibs...

The SUSPICION though about the dice at FIBS is still there and THERE IS NO WAY to remove it unless the runners of FIBS convince us otherwise by providing evidence that goes beyond any reasonable  doubt. I already proposed one way to do it perhaps there are other ways, i don't know. Such assurances that the rolls come directly from Fibs server, or watch the rolls getting generated through Telnet etc etc cannot convince me.

I know very well how the bots play. Yes they play at top level so we agree on that. What I disagree with you, is your absolute conviction that they generally play better than the BEST human players.
I keep my reservations.

As always talk is cheap there is no evidence that fibs rolls r legit?  I'm guessing there is a simple reason ; because the facts r clear, FIbs dice are biased and this results in absurd rolls.   Use GNU, ranked players have just as many questionable moves as anyone else and yet somehow, more often than not, FIBS dice favor ranked players and BOTS.  Guess what, BOTs can and do  leverage biased rolls.  Lets stop the cheap talk  PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!

_{edit: rebcalale, could you please put your own text OUTSIDE the quote tags, thank you - Zorba}

[dorbel]

Along with David Icke I firmly believe that Prince Phillip is a shape-changing lizard from the planet Zog. He and Prince Charles, who is also an alien, receive their instructions from an UFO that hovers nightly over Buckingham Palace.
I challenge you to provide proof that this isn't so. You can't? Hah!

[Yvon]

Along with David Icke I firmly believe that Prince Phillip is a shape-changing lizard from the planet Zog. He and Prince Charles, who is also an alien, receive their instructions from an UFO that hovers nightly over Buckingham Palace.
I challenge you to provide proof that this isn't so. You can't? Hah!

Hah! We have a stalemate now! Score 1/2-1/2 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate

[diane]

[dorbel]

All the statistical evidence regarding fibs dice points to the conclusion that they are in fact random and unbiased. There is no statistical evidence to the contrary.
All the scientific evidence points to the planet earth being several billion years old. There is no scientific evidence to support the theory that it was created in the space of a week ten thousand years ago.
Neither of these situations is a stalemate. What we have in each case is a theory unsupported by any evidence whatsoever that challenges the accepted status quo, yet relies on blind faith. They are analogous.
Science has observed that in the past an apple falling from a tree has invariably fallen downwards. I accept that tomorrow it is possible that one will fall upwards, but this does not mean that it deserves equal consideration to the established theory.

[Yvon]

All the statistical evidence regarding fibs dice points to the conclusion that they are in fact random and unbiased. There is no statistical evidence to the contrary.
All the scientific evidence points to the planet earth being several billion years old. There is no scientific evidence to support the theory that it was created in the space of a week ten thousand years ago.
Neither of these situations is a stalemate. What we have in each case is a theory unsupported by any evidence whatsoever that challenges the accepted status quo, yet relies on blind faith. They are analogous.
Science has observed that in the past an apple falling from a tree has invariably fallen downwards. I accept that tomorrow it is possible that one will fall upwards, but this does not mean that it deserves equal consideration to the established theory.

Come on dorbel there has not been ANY statistical evidence on the games themselves. Only statistical evidence on the dice. I said before that it only takes one joker roll if you have the means to cheat to in the game. THAT joker roll differs from game to game, so assuming you get it, it does NOT AFFECT whatever statistics  you do on dice.The randomness remains intact.

Now on scientific theories there are scientists today who question the law of gravity itself. In other words the common beleif so far is that it is a pulling force from the earth to the center of the apple. They say it is not a pulling force but a pushing one from the outside of the planet to the center... This is how humanity  progresses by questioning things, not by sticking around to beleif.

The heretic has spoken!!

[dorbel]

What you really mean is that you haven't actually gathered any evidence yourself. If the evidence is there, gather it and present it. To present your theories before you have done that is like the people who try to convince us of UFOs but who's camera mysteriously failed to work on the day that they saw one.
Why don't you play 100 matches against gammonbots, run them through Gnu (or Snowie, or BgBlitz or ExtremeGammon or even jellyfish) and count the jokers for each side? That would be a good start. At the same time you could of course record your playing level and that of the bot. You'll probably learn more from the second than the first.

[Yvon]

Should we repeat the same things over and over again?

I said before there are many parameters to evaluate a game and none of them will provide any evidence either pro or against the subject matter.Why do you concentrate on the matter of jokers? A simple hit decides the game more often than a joker. One simple round on bar...

Why don't you do yourself a test? Use GNU (I think this program gives you the option to manually input the rolls).So give yourself the option to decide on just one of the 2 dice once every game. So you will chose a number from 1-6 just for one of the dice once every game. I bet you will be able to win most of your MATCHES.Then do whatever statistics you like. If you ever manage to prove anything then i ll cut my throat!
But the fact REMAINS that you cheated haven't you?

[dorbel]

I said before that it only takes one joker roll if you have the means to cheat to in the game.

and later

Why do you concentrate on the matter of jokers?

Collect some stats Yvon. If it's there, it can be observed. Conversely if you can't observe it, it isn't there.

[Yvon]

Collect some stats Yvon. If it's there, it can be observed. Conversely if you can't observe it, it isn't there.

Same goes for you my friend re:the experiment i told you to do. The cheating will be there but you will not be able to observe it. So your conclusion that "because you can't observe it it isn't there" is obviously fallacious.

This brings us back to what I have proposed from the very very beginning:a password protected file containing pre rolled dice. It will clear up things once and for all.

Btw my suspicion towards the bots is something close to the experiment i told you to do.
But i still play the bots just to discover my weak points. Their weak point is very well known: "heavy backgame" they will do a total mess  

[dorbel]

Now I have, and I have hard evidence that I can use any time I wish.

and later

The cheating will be there but you will not be able to observe it.

Which is it? You can't say that you have hard evidence of cheating and that it can't be observed.

[stog]

Yvon by all means feel free to use the dice we provide here on Fibsboard - bottom of Front page right hand side below the donation info...

also..

With 7 donations in 6 months it will surely die soon anyway...so time for new blood..

the donations you mention are for this forum - fibsboard which is not an official support board for Fibs.

Please read "about Fibsboard" on the Front page.



If you appreciate Fibsboard and would like to contribute to its ongoing running costs, please click below and choose how much you would like to give. We appreciate any size of donation, and depending on amounts provided, we could then lessen our dependence on corporate advertisements, thx again.

to donate or advertise see here

[Yvon]

and later

Which is it? You can't say that you have hard evidence of cheating and that it can't be observed.

Right.... We started the tit for tat now...

After so many posts you remembered to go back to what i said 3 pages ago.

The first hard evidence is for my rating. I have it and it's upto me to reveal it to you or anyone.
The second one refers to the experiment I told you to do. I told you to cheat on purpose and then try to do statistics to prove it.

Everything a bit clearer now dorbel?

Btw I totally lost interest now. Bye.

*****************************

Hey stog, I heard you man. You  will get 3 donations from me.

[ah_clem]

This brings us back to what I have proposed from the very very beginning:a password protected file containing pre rolled dice. It will clear up things once and for all.

FIBS has one dice generator that is used across all matches, so there is no such thing as the pre-rolled dice file for a specific match.  The generator simply gives the next roll to thread that asks for it, without regard for which match/player is doing the asking (in particular, it doesn't know or care if the player is a bot). You could obtain this master roll list for the entire server, but you'd have no way of knowing which match would get which roll since this isn't determined until the matches are actually played, and depends on the speed of play  amongst other things.   IOW what you are asking for does not exist.

BTW, plenty of information has been produced to "clear things up once and for all".  It's just that the dice whiners cannot or will not understand it.

[diane]

IOW what you are asking for does not exist.

BTW, plenty of information has been produced to "clear things up once and for all".  It's just that the dice whiners cannot or will not understand it.

Yvon isn't asking for something that exists...but something which cant ever happen.

If you tried, there would be sooooooooooo many ways to cheat - passwords protect nothing, they can always be broken.  Whoever was playing this would accuse the other of cheating, and we would be in exactly the same place as we are now.  What a waste of effort.

Yvon could simple generate her own list of rolls and sit and plug them into gnu and see what happens...but that wouldn't prove her point, and she really isn't interested in anything which which doesn't conclusively prove she is right.

[rebcalale]

I personally do not drop but the only smart players on FIBS are droppers.  Why would anyone not drop when u have a "FIBS" (which is synonymous with highly improbable, more like impossible) chance of winning?  Do players enjoy beating others because of the ridiculous rolls commonly seen on Fibs that blatantly favor one player over another.  Is this good sportsmanship? NO its not!!!!!!  Not surprisingly, do the stats and u will see that ranked players r more often than not the recipient of unusually favorable rolls.   Guess what (again do the stats and/or use GNU) this has nothing to do with ranked players making better moves.  It has everything to do with fibs dice being absurdly improbable.  I once saw one of the Fibs apologists offer some reward if anyone could prove cheating and or that Fibs dice were not legit.  Well the same goes for the opposite position, I'd like to see someone prove that fibs dice r legit rather than simply say they r.  Doubt I will ever see it and I'm betting it's because it is impossible to prove something that is false.

let me MAKE this POINT very clear droppers t the only smart players on fibs

[rebcalale]

In other words crap is crap and fibs is crap but we all know that alreaady

[boomslang]

I said before there are many parameters to evaluate a game and none of them will provide any evidence either pro or against the subject matter.Why do you concentrate on the matter of jokers? A simple hit decides the game more often than a joker. One simple round on bar...

Why don't you do yourself a test? Use GNU (I think this program gives you the option to manually input the rolls).So give yourself the option to decide on just one of the 2 dice once every game. So you will chose a number from 1-6 just for one of the dice once every game. I bet you will be able to win most of your MATCHES.Then do whatever statistics you like. If you ever manage to prove anything then i ll cut my throat!
But the fact REMAINS that you cheated haven't you?

If, in such an experiment, you simply look at 'luck' as reported by GnuBG (whether measured in MWC or in EMG), you *will* be able to tell which of the two players was able to choose one die per game: luck from the player with fair dice will have an average of zero, whereas luck from the player who was allowed to choose one die in each game will have a positive average.

Not sure if this will convince you though.