In "Math bulls Tim and Axel constipated??" thread,
I had demonstrably exposed, once for all, that Tim
and Axel are just full of hot air and bullshit. To give
them another fair chance to prove otherwise, I am
posting it again on a new slate, clean of distracting
comments.

===========================================
In my thread "Need help with gamblegammon formulas/calculations",

On November 19, 2022 at 9:32:07 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:

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

>> if there was as much cube skill as hyped, random
>> cube player could not achieve a 15% win rate...

> Try to estimate how often a game will be played to
> conclusion and then think about what this amounts
> to with equal checker play. No surprise here.

And I had asked Axel some questions in my reply post:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/AwI9RYDHLcs/m/2pmWWudFBgAJ

In my other thread "My experiment to compare checker skill vs cube skill in gamblegammon",

On November 16, 2022 at 3:45:15 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:

> On 11/16/2022 3:18 AM, MK wrote:

>> Scenario 3: grandmaster vs random checker + grandmaster cube.
>> After 500 games: gnubg = 1462, mutant = 4 points

>> Scenario 4: grandmaster vs grandmaster checker + random cube.
>> After 503 games: gnubg = 2136, mutant = 873 points

> If you found these results surprising then you have a
> long way to go before you achieve any understanding
> of this topic. Your results are completely in line with
> what the conventional wisdom would predict.

And I had asked Tim some questions in my reply post:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/i53IQfeJ_iE/m/UW_7Fc8NBgAJ

Neither one of you have yet posted any answers to my
questions even though you have been posting in other
threads.

I wonder if you may be ailing from math constipation..? ;)

If you were the PHD chiefs of some mathematician tribes,
you would be the feathered, beaded, "Shitting Bull"s... :)

Come on you two, measure up! Or, have the courage to
jump over the fence to my side and concede already... ;)

MK

On 11/27/2022 9:55 PM, MK wrote:
> In "Math bulls Tim and Axel constipated??" thread,
> I had demonstrably exposed, once for all, that Tim
> and Axel are just full of hot air and bullshit.

This was already a well-known fact. Why did you feel the need
to "expose" it?

By now you should have learned that you can't force us to produce
intelligent responses with invective. All that does is cause us
to smile, munch on popcorn, and provoke you to spew more hilarious
nonsense. It's a lot more fun!

Oh wait, I forgot...you're not provoked. You're not going to
respond to this message with an insult-laden rant. You're above
that sort of thing, right? Saint R.B. Sahi, you are! But maybe
you can enlist one of your sock-puppets to respond on your behalf?

---
Tim Chow

On November 28, 2022 at 6:41:39 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:

> On 11/27/2022 9:55 PM, MK wrote:

>> In "Math bulls Tim and Axel constipated??" thread,
>> I had demonstrably exposed, once for all, that Tim
>> and Axel are just full of hot air and bullshit.

> This was already a well-known fact. Why
> did you feel the need to "expose" it?

I don't know how you knew that it was known well
and by whom (other than you and me) but I didn't.
So, I wanted (not needed) to let readers know that
I had exposed you and Axel in a previous thread.

> By now you should have learned that you can't force
> us to produce intelligent responses with invective.

There was no "invective" in the thread that I linked
to but you still weren't capable of "producing an
intelligent response" to my asking you how efficient
could you be using your "conventional wisdom", if I
gave you the detailed settings for a pair of bot play
levels, in predicting their win/lose results and you
instead went mute... ;)

There was no "invective" in the thread that I linked
about Axel either. I had asked him if/how he could
estimate how often games are played to conclusion
and then calculate what win rate it would amount to.
He wasn't able to "produce an intelligent response"
either and instead he also went mute... :)

> to smile, munch on popcorn, and provoke you to
> spew more hilarious nonsense. It's a lot more fun!

Since you speak for both of you by saying "us", can
you tell me what else other funs and pleasures you
two may be sharing...?

> Oh wait, I forgot...you're not provoked. You're not
> going to respond to this message with an insult-
> laden rant. You're above that sort of thing, right?

No, but if you want me to respond to you with and
insult-laden rant, you either need to try harder to
provoke me or get on your knees and beg.

> Saint R.B. Sahi, you are!

Once again, I'm deeply sorry for all the traumata that
I have caused you. Can you forgive me?

> But maybe you can enlist one of your sock-puppets
> to respond on your behalf?

I wouldn't even think about interfering with anyone
else's enjoying the satisfaction of being personally
provoked and/or begged by you... ;)

MK

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:41:39 AM UTC-3, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 11/27/2022 9:55 PM, MK wrote:
> > Tim and Axel are just full of hot air and bullshit.
> By now you should have learned that you can't force us to produce
> intelligent responses with invective. All that does is cause us
> to smile, munch on popcorn, and provoke you to spew more hilarious
> nonsense. It's a lot more fun!

What's the fun in replying to an endlessly argumentative chimneys collector? Your life must be deadly boring.

On 11/30/2022 1:29 AM, Grunty wrote:
> What's the fun in replying to an endlessly argumentative chimneys collector? Your life must be deadly boring.

Not at all...if I find even Murat entertaining, don't you think
I find the rest of life even more fun than a barrel full of monkeys?

---
Tim Chow

On November 29, 2022 at 11:29:24 PM UTC-7, Grunty wrote:

> On November 28, 2022 at 10:41:39 AM UTC-3, Tim Chow wrote:

>> On 11/27/2022 9:55 PM, MK wrote:

>>> Tim and Axel are just full of hot air and bullshit.

>> By now you should have learned that you can't
>> force us to produce intelligent responses with
>> invective.

> What's the fun in replying to an endlessly
> argumentative chimneys collector?

I didn't assert that they were wrong baselessly
but asked them to substantiate the claims that
they had made. I said they are full of hot air and
bullshit only after they failed to do so, (in Tim's
words "failed to produce intelligent responses").

This is not being argumentative on my part but
as a member of the pack of mentally ill dogs,
you came out of your hole to your ilk's rescue. ;)

And, lo and behold!, just as I had said you sick
puppies do when you run out of arguments, (i.e.
detract from the subject, resort to childish name
calling sprees, etc.), in your case here this time,
you did it by calling me a "chimneys collector". :)

You are pathetic! :(

MK