XG paradox !

[FancyPrince]

hello everybody..who said backgammon is a game based on skill and luck and if u beat a strong player u would lose in a long run?! long run means 2000 points match? so let me show my game against very strong extreme gammon. im a casual backgammon player..not so strong but i use my own style of playing..i played an unlimited match against xg (with jacoby rule + beaver action) . just look at to my screenshots :



and



you see my Pr was 22.08 with a red color hehe..and the luck result was average . so i was not lucky and i crashed xg with a big score of 2105 - 124 !!! i just want to show you in backgammon world anything can happen. dont say a lower Pr never can beat a super human higher Pr. many times i played unlimited match and i won with a big score. i think high level players make high level blunders because all top players use the same style that xg uses. i sent the game file as an attachment if u like to watch how game was played. waiting for your comments. thank you.

[ah_clem]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Thanks!

[dorbel]

This isn't a 2,000 point match. It's a 24 game money session, so not "in the long run" in any sense. As you have optionally stopped at 24 games and not shown us any other sessions, it isn't unreasonable to assume that you usually get buried!

[NIHILIST]

I think this guy is secretly vegasvic.

Bob

[FancyPrince]

This isn't a 2,000 point match. It's a 24 game money session, so not "in the long run" in any sense. As you have optionally stopped at 24 games and not shown us any other sessions, it isn't unreasonable to assume that you usually get buried!

so you think 220 games is a long run? i think it is as long as you want.. take a look at these screenshots..




again ..what do you think? you cant beat xg with normal style of playing ! i just have created my own style..and think this way of playing is so so sharp !

[dorbel]

The real question here is, "Would you contract to play 220 games against XG for money?" You wouldn't of course, but if you would, the line of prospective backers for XG would reach around the block!

[socksey]

again ..what do you think? you cant beat xg with normal style of playing ! i just have created my own style..and think this way of playing is so so sharp !

In the long run means lengthy experience.  If you were so smart, you would know that punctuation belongs at the end of a sentence without a space in between.     Please forgive me, you have just exhibited one of my pet peeves.   



The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits ... Albert Einstein

[FancyPrince]

 If you were so smart, you would know that punctuation belongs at the end of a sentence without a space in between.     Please forgive me, you have just exhibited one of my pet peeves.   



The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits ... Albert Einstein

haha..but im not smart nor stupid..something in between i expect you backgammon players just watch some of games and tell me if you like my style or not. thank you

[FancyPrince]

The real question here is, "Would you contract to play 220 games against XG for money?" You wouldn't of course, but if you would, the line of prospective backers for XG would reach around the block!

dorbel you said my match was not a long run match at first time, i gave you another match with long play, now you are speaking about another aspect, i should say yes that was not a real money match but how can i play a very long match with xg ? unlimited match was the option. i didnt understand what do you want to say with the "the line of prospective backers for XG would reach around the block!" plz use simple words
i should say i reached to the 8000 score now! xg is 5000! does anyone want to learn my style? haha

[MichaelP7]

I only watched fully the session by which you jumped up from 116-49 to 116-2097 and partially some of your other sessions. Your style is the one that drives all games to backgames. This is one of the many strategies in backgammon, as for example is the priming game, the blitzing game etc. However each one should be used accordingly while pushing your game with any single strategy is wrong. Backgames are usually the last resort option.

I noticed you have your own feeling when the position of your backgame is suitable for you to eventually win and in that case you raise the stakes to the maximum. You either drop all other games or play them to completion at low stakes.

You ask if your strategy is correct. The answer is very simple. No!
The reason is again very simple. You bet a backgame at maximum stakes (did you set the max to 2048?) while your chances of winning -at your desired position-are only 40% (Usually single wins). You run the risk of losing 60% and almost all of those loses will be gammons.

My best advice to you is this:DON'T try this in the real world!!

You said that currently you are at 8000 and the bot is down to only 5000.

There are two possibilities for that
Either a)You got lucky in those 3-4 occasions that you managed to drive the game to your desired position with high stakes
or b)You are correctly exploiting most bots' weaknesses in backgames. If this is the case then you are right to talk about a paradox.
For your information there is actually one person at Fibs who does exactly the same thing, he exploits the bots weaknesses in backgames, and uses it to boost up his rating to quite high levels.

[dorbel]

I don't believe that bots are all that weak at backgames. It's almost certainly true that their play isn't optimal, but how many humans play them better? I doubt if there is anyone on fibs who does. There have been and maybe still are players on fibs who steer for backgames, but if they are successful I would suggest that they would been even more successful with normal strategies.

[NIHILIST]

Old adage; 

BACKGAMES BECOME BACKGAMMONS

Bob

[MichaelP7]

I don't believe that bots are all that weak at backgames. It's almost certainly true that their play isn't optimal, but how many humans play them better? I doubt if there is anyone on fibs who does. There have been and maybe still are players on fibs who steer for backgames, but if they are successful I would suggest that they would been even more successful with normal strategies.

This guy wouldn't. He  plays at -30.5 mEMG on checker and -97 on cube that's about 1593 abs.Fibs rating.
Playing a 7 pointer Vs a bot (with normal strategies) he would have about 20% chance, or 15% at a 11 pointer.

[FancyPrince]

There are two possibilities for that
Either a)You got lucky in those 3-4 occasions that you managed to drive the game to your desired position with high stakes
or b)You are correctly exploiting most bots' weaknesses in backgames. If this is the case then you are right to talk about a paradox.
For your information there is actually one person at Fibs who does exactly the same thing, he exploits the bots weaknesses in backgames, and uses it to boost up his rating to quite high levels.

michael thanks for your comment. but anyone knows that backgammon engines like snowie or XG are playing backgames at very high level and so dynamic..they defend perfectly, but i think XG has a big BUG and its related to using the cube. why XG raise the cube to 2024 at backgames? backgame player always say welcome to the raising of cube! because he knows if backgame run correctly it can beat the best players in the world. my style is based on holding games and backgames. i use this way for real world and it works correctly!

[FancyPrince]

Old adage; 

BACKGAMES BECOME BACKGAMMONS

Bob

my own rule :all of backgammon players are using engines for training so they are all experts at this job! if you want to beat them you should create your own style. use backgames as shotGUN because most of them frightening from backgamerS! first sycologicaly beat your opponent then beat him by score
furthermore, playing backgames causes wrong decision of cube use by your opponent.

[FancyPrince]

i'm challenging all of you readers my topic for a 1001-point unlimited match (with jacoby rule and cube:max128) at netgammon server.
my nickname is Fancy'Prince there. netgammon has a nice graphic you will like it im sure. socksey! come on! dont want to taste my backgames? ;-)
just come at this server and send me an email there.

[dorbel]

Yes I'm up for this. I assume that $1 a point is not too much for your pocket. I will happily deposit $1,000 as a guarantee of my intent to pay if losing, with an agreed third party. Perhaps stog would like to be the stakeholder in return for 5% of the sum paid to the winner. I will happily accomodate you up to $10 a point if you prefer.

[FancyPrince]

Yes I'm up for this. I assume that $1 a point is not too much for your pocket. I will happily deposit $1,000 as a guarantee of my intent to pay if losing, with an agreed third party. Perhaps stog would like to be the stakeholder in return for 5% of the sum paid to the winner. I will happily accomodate you up to $10 a point if you prefer.

dorbel i cant play money game now because i live in iran and cant pay your money if you win nor recieve ur money if i win. but lets start a friendly match ha? you konw my ID. come here at netgammon. i want to prove myself to you

[dorbel]

Thanks, but no thanks. I already know how these tactics work out. Get an account on Fibs and I'll be happy to play you a few matches.
Good luck!

[MichaelP7]

but i think XG has a big BUG and its related to using the cube. why XG raise the cube to 2024 at backgames? backgame player always say welcome to the raising of cube!

I actually agree with you, in what the bots do. A human would very reluctantly cube in a match Vs a weaker opponent in backgames for various reasons, while the bots simply base their cube decisions on the Match Equity table after estimating Wins (single), % gammons and % backgammons for each side . Hence they would  double or redouble with no restriction if they judge it worths it.

There is also another weakness in how Bots handle backgames imo. That has to do with the so called "timing". A human would avoid hitting too much because this offers  his opponent all the timing he needs to have an effective backgame. Bots prefer hitting for their + in equity without usually caring much about the timing factor. Probably because the effect of timing will show up in 8+ plies while bots are not designed to "think" that deep.   Of course they have some correction code running at the end that tries to correct their timing, some rolls before the bearing off phase, by recirculating some checkers. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

And thirdly you might want to know that the way bots evaluate each possible move, fails many times when the options for that roll are too many. Imagine a roll has 24 possible plays, it often occurs that the best move fails to make it trough their 3-4 ply evaluation and  it could even fail to make it through in rollouts. This is because at some point during this evaluation phase bots start scraping out moves. This is what some people call "confusion" of bots. Such cases where a roll has too many alternative plays are more frequent in backgames.

[dorbel]

Michael is correct in that bots don't take into account skill differential when making their cube decisions and of course knowledgeable humans will use this to their advantage. It isn't a bug, it just isn't part of the program.
However Michael's opinion on bot weaknesses in defending against backgames is only an assertion. There play may be and probably is less than optimal, but there is no way to show that without a human or a superior bot producing better results than XG.
The bot weakness of failing to find the best play where there were large numbers of options, usually with small doubles, was occasionally noticeable in gnu and snowie and may for all I know apply to XG. To save time, they narrowed the field for higher plies of evaluation by doing a faster scan at 0-ply (1-ply in snowie), which could and sometimes did fail to include the best play. Of course humans do this too. However, I don't believe that there is any evidence to show that this is "more frequent in backgames" as Michael asserts.

[dorbel]

It would be possible for a bot to continually analyse its opponent's play and adjust its own cube action accordingly. Would that actually be desirable though? At present, its actions constitute a reference point, which is a basis for our own actions. If that reference point is constantly shifting depending on who it is playing, how would we know what was right? The bot would win more, but that isn't its raison d'etre is it?

[ah_clem]

It would be possible for a bot to continually analyse its opponent's play and adjust its own cube action accordingly. Would that actually be desirable though? At present, its actions constitute a reference point, which is a basis for our own actions. If that reference point is constantly shifting depending on who it is playing, how would we know what was right? The bot would win more, but that isn't its raison d'etre is it?

There was an interesting thread on that a few year's back over at Stick's site:
http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=171858#171858

For analyzing my own matches to see where I made mistakes, the current bot behavior of assuming perfect play on both sides would still be desirable.  If you're designing a bot to win tournaments against human players, using an asymmetric MET and otherwise adjusting play based on the opponent might produce better results.  But my understanding is that the bots will beat the humans already so it would seem to be an unnecessary enhancement.  Plus, I don't think any TDs would allow a bot to enter.

[FancyPrince]

I actually agree with you, in what the bots do. A human would very reluctantly cube in a match Vs a weaker opponent in backgames for various reasons, while the bots simply base their cube decisions on the Match Equity table after estimating Wins (single), % gammons and % backgammons for each side . Hence they would  double or redouble with no restriction if they judge it worths it.

There is also another weakness in how Bots handle backgames imo. That has to do with the so called "timing". A human would avoid hitting too much because this offers  his opponent all the timing he needs to have an effective backgame. Bots prefer hitting for their + in equity without usually caring much about the timing factor. Probably because the effect of timing will show up in 8+ plies while bots are not designed to "think" that deep.   Of course they have some correction code running at the end that tries to correct their timing, some rolls before the bearing off phase, by recirculating some checkers. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

And thirdly you might want to know that the way bots evaluate each possible move, fails many times when the options for that roll are too many. Imagine a roll has 24 possible plays, it often occurs that the best move fails to make it trough their 3-4 ply evaluation and  it could even fail to make it through in rollouts. This is because at some point during this evaluation phase bots start scraping out moves. This is what some people call "confusion" of bots. Such cases where a roll has too many alternative plays are more frequent in backgames.

thanks for your comment. i learned new things . when i was 19 i saw my friends playing a game with two dices..blocking each other and bearing checkers and finally one of them wins. i told them this is a game just based on luck. they said come and examine .i played many games and lost all they made me 6-prime and won all the games and a lot of fun for them . after years i found this game much more exciting and tried to play better and better. i think i can play at good level now. but now, again i have came back to my first idea: this game is based on luck! plenty of matches i have analyzed since i have played at FIBS or NETGAMMON servers, maybe more than 1000 matches. but the result was same. any game i won my luck was much more than my opponent and any game i lost my luck was less. do you agree with me? thats why i have created my own style:-) . the point i noticed in new style is that i have gained more than 100 outplays! and its not reachable for who plays like XG .
in backgammon i think the main goal is winning not receiving better Pr. i prefer to have much luck and less Pr than losing with -1 wow!!Pr.

[MichaelP7]

snip..... this game is based on luck! plenty of matches i have analyzed since i have played at FIBS or NETGAMMON servers, maybe more than 1000 matches. but the result was same. any game i won my luck was much more than my opponent and any game i lost my luck was less.

a)I have studied the matter of luck to some depth and concluded that as long as the abs.Fibs Rating difference between the players is < 230 then the number of games won by pure luck are more than those won by skill. If skillA=skillB then all games are won because of pure luck. At abs.Fibs Rating difference =230 it breaks even and at >230 skill wins more games than luck.
So I don't agree with your over generalization that "this game is based on luck". Surely if you play an almost equal skill player e.g you play someone who is weaker by about 100 Fibs rating points then playing 100 7 pointers you would only win 14 matches because of skill and 43 matches because of luck. So in general it's a combination of Skill and luck.

b)Your observation that 99%+ of  matches or games won are by the player who "appears" [at bots' summary results]to have accumulated more nett luck is true,  and coincides with my observation as well. It is very very rare for the looser to ever have accumulated more nett luck than the winner. I am currently studying this issue but got no conclusions yet. I am concentrating on the possibility that it just "appears" to be so, but I could be wrong.
The bots results surely deviate a lot from the mathematical equation of Nett Luck+Net skill of the winner in a match=+50%...

NB. You will need a better PR to win more times. Surely you can continue playing those backgames to get some experience how they could possibly win, but I think you should revert to normal strategies and improve your PR.

[dorbel]

The great majority of short matches, ie less than 11 pts are won by the luckiest player. When you examine stats closely you will see that the player who plays best on the day is more likely to have positive luck. The greater the skill differential, the more pronounced this is. This is counter intuitive, as we all learn at our mother's knee that the luck will even out, so why doesn't it? Go to http://www.fibsboard.com/fibsboard-forum-matches/how-do-%27luck%27-calculations-work/ , read the whole thread, particularly the contributions of pck, boomslang and Zorba and all will become clear. The best thread ever on this site.

[MichaelP7]

When you examine stats closely you will see that the player who plays best on the day is more likely to have positive luck.

Hmm I don't think so. I just checked a random folder containing 13 matches Vs bots that by definition play better all the times and here are the luck results for the bots: +46, -22, -22, -63, +13, +14, +33, -13, +15, +24, -45, -22, -2.
If you are talking for nett luck for the winner that's almost always positive regardless of skill.

NB.Thanks for the link.  I 've actually read it a few weeks ago.

[dorbel]

You think a sample of 13 matches is statistically significant? Are you pulling my leg?

[MichaelP7]

You think a sample of 13 matches is statistically significant? Are you pulling my leg?

It surely is an indication. Searched and found another folder with 5 more matches Vs bots.
Again here are the results for the bot +14, +80, +38, -5, -43. The indication to me so far is that the odds for any side to get positive total luck is rather 50-50!
On the other hand if you have statistical data to back up your statement feel free to present it.