On August 31, 2022 at 5:35:04 PM UTC-6, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> On 1/09/2022 2:58 am, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

>> I shouldn't question where GnuDung is pulling the rolls?

> Axel already explained this:

No he didn't. Until I asked him how many times his snipped
of code was executed per turen, he didn't even know that
a number of dice rolls were read into memory. He cockily
asserted that his snipped of code produced to dice per roll
and abrasively asked Nasti to point out some shit it there.

> "The file is read completely into an array, from which...

> This is standard practise.

It's not!

> It makes no sense to open a file, read a record then close
> the file and repeat for every record.

The file isn't closed after every read. With the computing
speeds we have today, the difference of reading 10 bytes
1,000 times vs reading 10,000 bytes 1 time isn't even worth
talking about let alone considering in programming.

> Certainly, the code *could* look further into the file if it
> wanted to "cheat", but if it did, it would be in the source
> you've just compiled, yes? So go get it...

What if he can't get it, asshole!? He has every right to be
suspicious of an unexpected behaviour that he is able
to observe by the bot and raise a question about it. You
have answered that bots reads dice rolls into an array.
Leave it at that! Why do you have to ask him to prove
anything back?

Now that you clarified how Gnubg "reads ahead" dice
rolls, how about letting us benefit of your deep knowledge
in computing to explain to us why on earth a bg bot would
make multiple/multi-threaded calls per roll (or before cube
actions between rolls) to the external DLL..!? Go ahead, we
are listening.

> Axel asked, namely "Can you please point to the line
> in which the look at upcoming dice occurs?"

Axel couldn't even point to his own dumb ass! What right
did he have to ask anyone else to point at anything else?

MK

On September 1, 2022 at 2:43:56 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

> Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> writes:

>> The compiler, of course, also checks to see if .....

> You made my day! (-:

I bet you appreciated him doing that after I ruined
your day for you... ;)

Arrogant, ignorant, mentally ill gamblegammon
assholes in denial of simple reality..! :(

Why don't you all stop sitting in a circle and jacking
off one another and answer some of my questions?

Like you, Axel, why don't you post the game files you
base your calculations/conclusions on, so that we
can double-check them and then go on to deriving our
own conclusions/arguments based on them?

I never would have thought you would be such a slick
coward to act like I'm not talking to you... :( Pyuke! :(

MK

On 9/2/2022 6:06 AM, MK wrote:
> On August 31, 2022 at 7:05:33 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:
>
>> I'm waiting for Murat/Nasti to claim that all the
>> compilers out there are rigged. ....
>
> Go fuck yourself somewhere else away from my sight!

Don't you want to watch?

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, 1 September 2022 at 22:48:41 UTC+1, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> Does it make you feel better to insult the people trying to
> help you? You can get treatment for that.

And then a couple of paragraphs later.....

> Telling people smarter than you that they "need treatment"
> is a childish cop out.

Glorious. But I concede that there was a lot of background noise to your post, I think "mom" is calling you for dinner.

Now run along little boy, make sure you eat up all your greens.

On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 14:47:52 UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 9/2/2022 6:06 AM, MK wrote:
> > On August 31, 2022 at 7:05:33 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:
> >
> >> I'm waiting for Murat/Nasti to claim that all the
> >> compilers out there are rigged. ....
> >
> > Go fuck yourself somewhere else away from my sight!
> Don't you want to watch?
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

How's that Lamborghini you nearly totalled in Vegas? Insurance company torn you a new one yet?

Apparently NC fails to recognise humour.
You can get help for that too :-)

On 3/09/2022 1:50 am, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> On Thursday, 1 September 2022 at 22:48:41 UTC+1, Simon Woodhead wrote:
>
>> Does it make you feel better to insult the people trying to
>> help you? You can get treatment for that.
>
> And then a couple of paragraphs later.....
>
>> Telling people smarter than you that they "need treatment"
>> is a childish cop out.
>
> Glorious. But I concede that there was a lot of background noise to your post, I think "mom" is calling you for dinner.
>
> Now run along little boy, make sure you eat up all your greens.

On 9/2/2022 11:54 AM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> On Friday, 2 September 2022 at 14:47:52 UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
>> On 9/2/2022 6:06 AM, MK wrote:
>>> On August 31, 2022 at 7:05:33 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm waiting for Murat/Nasti to claim that all the
>>>> compilers out there are rigged. ....
>>>
>>> Go fuck yourself somewhere else away from my sight!
>> Don't you want to watch?
>>
>> ---
>> Tim Chow
>
> How's that Lamborghini you nearly totalled in Vegas? Insurance company torn you a new one yet?

No, I have to pay for it out of my own pocket with my profits from
Eraser.

---
Tim Chow

On August 30, 2022 at 10:02:43 PM UTC-6, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> No more excuses, Murat. Thanks to Jon Kinsey for making
> Windows builds much easier, posted to the bug-gnubg list:
>> 1. Download and install the latest version of MSYS2 from
>> https://www.msys2.org/ e.g. msys2-x86_64-20210725.exe
>> 2. Run the batch file from here: https://drive.google.com/file
>> /d/1-52afhxiZGv2Nzt9AhFFTw_WrdNIemjZ/view?usp=sharing
>> .....

Thanks for daring and prodding me on this, "oakhead" ;)

And with thanks to Kinsey for his work, firstly here are
some technical info for everyone's benefit.

I tried it and it worked without a glitch, bot by getting the
source code from the web or from the local gnubg folder.
It also worked from a portable drive by just relocating the
two folders needed. Msys2 only creates a handful registry
entries, mostly for uninstalling. It takes quite a few minutes
to run. I haven't tried it yet but after the initial run, it may be
possible to execute only the final command to build gnubg.

Now back to my comments. After growing frustrated with
Axel's being unwilling to do better than half-ass experiments
or to share his data and code, I tried to run some of my own
using Gnubg's existing features, as a first step towards more
later but I ran into bugs or problems with the setups of my
two computers.

Along with reporting my problem on bug-gnubg list, I also
suggested a few easy features for Gnubg, specifically for
running all sorts of experiments. See thread:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2022-09/msg00003.html

Joseph Heled, (one of the original developers of Gnubg),
has shown interest bus has not yet committed to doing it.
The reason I would like to see one of them do it is that the
features would then become permanent part of Gnubg. I'll
give them some time to digest the idea, hoping for it.

For the first time, I overcame my dreading that it would be
very cryptic and looked at the eval.c code. To my surprise,
it seemed consistent and with quite a few comments. By
looking at the code, I was able to better visualize what to
propose and to describe in detail, along with examples of
how the features would be useful. For someone familiar
with the code, it should be a very quick and easy task.

It would take adding only a couple of dozen lines, (without
modifying any existing ones), adding a few settings to the
main user config file and modifying the gtk file for player
settings. If nobody helps with it, I think I'll try to tackle it
myself even though it will take me longer since C is not
my "mother tongue" but at least I won't have to understand
anything more about how everything else works in Gnubg.

BTW: If Gnubg was a native Windows software, I probably
would have done this long time ago but I've always had a
dislike for Unix, let alone using Unix emulators on Windows.
This will be a one time, minor exception. :)

MK

On 21/09/2022 2:28 am, MK wrote:

> On August 30, 2022 at 10:02:43 PM UTC-6, Simon Woodhead wrote:
>
>> No more excuses, Murat. Thanks to Jon Kinsey for making
>> Windows builds much easier, posted to the bug-gnubg list:
>
>>> 1. Download and install the latest version of MSYS2 from
>>> https://www.msys2.org/ e.g. msys2-x86_64-20210725.exe
>>> 2. Run the batch file from here: https://drive.google.com/file
>>> /d/1-52afhxiZGv2Nzt9AhFFTw_WrdNIemjZ/view?usp=sharing
>>> .....
>
> Thanks for daring and prodding me on this, "oakhead" ;)
[...]
> For the first time, I overcame my dreading that it would be
> very cryptic and looked at the eval.c code. To my surprise,

That wasn't so hard after all, was it Murat?

> It would take adding only a couple of dozen lines, (without

So do it!

> BTW: If Gnubg was a native Windows software, I probably
> would have done this long time ago but I've always had a
> dislike for Unix, let alone using Unix emulators on Windows.
> This will be a one time, minor exception. :)

One of your most amusing statements ever :-)
If Windows was used to run/develop the internet, we'd still be
using teletypes...

On September 20, 2022 at 5:42:52 PM UTC-6, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> On 21/09/2022 2:28 am, MK wrote:

>> It would take adding only a couple of dozen lines, (without

> So do it!

I already explained in great detail what my suggestions
and my intentions were, for the benefit of rgb in general.

I already thanked you for your stubborn prodding me but
you never said anything about your reasons for it. So I'm
asking you now:

1) Are you asking me to do it hoping that I will fail at it so
that will make you happy somehow?

2) Are you asking me to do it because you want it done so
that you can use it to experiment yourself in order to learn?

2a) If so, would it be just as good if someone else does it?

3) Most importantly, don't you have nothing to say about
the essence of the experiments that I'm suggesting? Do
you understand what they could reveal? Etc.? Please try
to give an elaborate answer that may be useful to us all,
instead of your pathetic, brainless one-liners... :(

It's my turn to dare you to find out what you are made of.

MK

On 21/09/2022 4:40 pm, MK wrote:

> 1) Are you asking me to do it hoping that I will fail at it so
> that will make you happy somehow?

No.

> 2) Are you asking me to do it because you want it done so
> that you can use it to experiment yourself in order to learn?

No.

> 2a) If so, would it be just as good if someone else does it?

Don't care.

> 3) Most importantly, don't you have nothing to say about
> the essence of the experiments that I'm suggesting? Do

No.

> you understand what they could reveal? Etc.? Please try
> to give an elaborate answer that may be useful to us all,
> instead of your pathetic, brainless one-liners... :(

No.

> It's my turn to dare you to find out what you are made of.

Yawn.

On September 21, 2022 at 12:46:59 AM UTC-6, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> On 21/09/2022 4:40 pm, MK wrote:

>> 1) Are you asking me to do it hoping that I will fail at it so
>> that will make you happy somehow?

> No.

Okay, then why?

>> 2) Are you asking me to do it because you want it done so
>> that you can use it to experiment yourself in order to learn?

> No.

Okay, then why?

I'll stop trying to gues logical reasons and will simply let you
tell me why are you doing what you are doing?

Surely not without any reason..?

>> 2a) If so, would it be just as good if someone else does it?

> Don't care.

Good enough. Depending on your above reason/s, it may not
matter.

>> 3) Most importantly, don't you have nothing to say about
>> the essence of the experiments that I'm suggesting? Do

> No.

Okay, fine. You sure have your right to be a brainless idiot.

>> you understand what they could reveal? Etc.? Please try
>> to give an elaborate answer that may be useful to us all,
>> instead of your pathetic, brainless one-liners... :(

> No.

Okay, fine. You sure have your right to be a brainless asshole.

>> It's my turn to dare you to find out what you are made of.

> Yawn.

Google the words: "psychological reasons for yawning". You
may discover something about yourself... ;)

MK

On 26/09/2022 6:24 pm, MK wrote:

>>> 1) Are you asking me to do it hoping that I will fail at it so
>>> that will make you happy somehow?
>
>> No.
>
> Okay, then why?

Because I don't hope for people to fail. Besides, my encouraging
you to do your own investigating and experimenting instead of
demanding others do it for you, had a positive effect.

>>> 2) Are you asking me to do it because you want it done so
>>> that you can use it to experiment yourself in order to learn?
>
>> No.
>
> Okay, then why?

Because I am not interested in learning how to automate dice
feeds to bots.

> I'll stop trying to gues logical reasons and will simply let you
> tell me why are you doing what you are doing?

As I'm a brainless idiot, how would I know what I'm doing?

> Surely not without any reason..?

I try to have reasons for everything I waste time on.

>>> 2a) If so, would it be just as good if someone else does it?
>
>> Don't care.
>
> Good enough. Depending on your above reason/s, it may not
> matter.

It doesn't. And technically, my answer was wrong, it should have
been "Not Applicable" instead of "Don't care".

>>> 3) Most importantly, don't you have nothing to say about
>>> the essence of the experiments that I'm suggesting? Do
>
>> No.
>
> Okay, fine. You sure have your right to be a brainless idiot.

Because I disagree with your methods, I'm a brainless idiot.
Ok, thanks, got it.

>>> you understand what they could reveal? Etc.? Please try
>>> to give an elaborate answer that may be useful to us all,
>>> instead of your pathetic, brainless one-liners... :(
>
>> No.
>
> Okay, fine. You sure have your right to be a brainless asshole.

Because I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories, I'm a
brainless asshole. Ok, thanks, got it.

>>> It's my turn to dare you to find out what you are made of.
>
>> Yawn.
>
> Google the words: "psychological reasons for yawning". You
> may discover something about yourself... ;)

I already know plenty of things that are interesting about myself.

Was there a point to all this? It's clear you get a kick from
insulting people, so Google the words "psychological reasons for
insulting a person". You may discover something interesting about
yourself... ;)

On September 27, 2022 at 12:00:23 AM UTC+2, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> On 26/09/2022 6:24 pm, MK wrote:

>>>> 1) Are you asking me to do it hoping that I will
>>>> fail at it so that will make you happy somehow?

>>> No.

>> Okay, then why?

> Because I don't hope for people to fail. Besides, my
> encouraging you to do your own investigating and
> experimenting instead of demanding others do it
> for you, had a positive effect.

You still refuse to see that I'm not asking anyone to do
anything "for me, for my benefit alone". I already have
done my own experiments and shared my findings here
but they failed to convince you indogtrained folks. Thus
I was doing my part of encouraging you all to do those
experiments yourselves in order to convince yourselves.

>>>> 2) Are you asking me to do it because you want it
>>>> done so that you can use it to experiment yourself
>>>> in order to learn?

>>> No.

>> Okay, then why?

> Because I am not interested in learning how to automate
> dice feeds to bots.

Obviously you didn't even read what I wrote in my previous
post wanting to understand, nor what I wrote in bug-gnubg
mail-list about the experiments I was proposing. It's never
too late to read it. Here is the link again:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2022-09/msg00003.html

As for simulating manual dice, after suggesting the idea, I
went ahead myself to write and poste here simple codes to
do it in more than one way. I even shared the EXE file in my
backgammon site.

>>>> 3) Most importantly, don't you have nothing to say about
>>>> the essence of the experiments that I'm suggesting? Do

>>> No.

>> Okay, fine. You sure have your right to be a brainless idiot.

> Because I disagree with your methods, I'm a brainless idiot.

Not because "you disagreed" with my ideas and suggestions
but because "you didn't even bother to disagree" (nor to make
any comments for that matter), before you started "yawning".

>>>> you understand what they could reveal? Etc.? Please
>>>> try to give an elaborate answer that may be useful to
>>>> us all, instead of your pathetic, brainless one-liners... :(

>>> No.

>> Okay, fine. You sure have your right to be a brainless asshole.

> Because I'm not interested in your conspiracy theories, I'm a
> brainless asshole. Ok, thanks, got it.

They were not "conspiracy theories". I don't think that you even
understand what these words mean. I was suggesting that new
simple (and easy to code) features should be added to Gnubg,
so that people could repeat Axel's half-ass experiments (which
I had suggested for years that you all should do for yourselves),
and even do other experiments in various compbinations.

I know that you believers are afraid to find out that there is no
Santa :) which is not a problem for me. I was trying to create a
conversation, an interest in discovering, learning what you don't
know. You cetainly have a right to not be interested in my ideas
but then you don't need to engage in the conversation just to be
an asshole towards me...

"What goes around comes around" is true for all of us and so
is true "What comes around goes around".

MK

On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 23:00:23 UTC+1, Simon Woodhead wrote:

> I already know plenty of things that are interesting about myself.
>

I am sure.

A surname like Woodhead will mean you had to endure much pain whilst going through school.

The insults alone are not good. Kids can be very cruel.

Those insults can shape your outlook on life.

You start to believe everyone is out to get you, it's not a happy place o be.....I *do* sympathise.