GNU Backgammon Position ID: bdsBAOCdOQAAAA
Match ID : QYnuAAAAAAAE
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: gnubg (Cube: 2)
| | | O O O O O O | O 0 points
| | | O O O O O | O
| | | O | O
| | | |
| | | |
v| |BAR| | 7 points match
| | | |
| | | X |
| | | X X X | X
| | | X X X X | X Rolled 53
| | | X X X X | X 0 points
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: nasti
Pip counts: O 47, X 36

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> GNU Backgammon Position ID: bdsBAOCdOQAAAA
> Match ID : QYnuAAAAAAAE
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: gnubg (Cube: 2)
> | | | O O O O O O | O 0 points
> | | | O O O O O | O
> | | | O | O
> | | | |
> | | | |
> v| |BAR| | 7 points match
> | | | |
> | | | X |
> | | | X X X | X
> | | | X X X X | X Rolled 53
> | | | X X X X | X 0 points
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: nasti
> Pip counts: O 47, X 36

Dupes 4s so yes, otherwise no basically.

Stick

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> GNU Backgammon Position ID: bdsBAOCdOQAAAA
> Match ID : QYnuAAAAAAAE
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: gnubg (Cube: 2)
> | | | O O O O O O | O 0 points
> | | | O O O O O | O
> | | | O | O
> | | | |
> | | | |
> v| |BAR| | 7 points match
> | | | |
> | | | X |
> | | | X X X | X
> | | | X X X X | X Rolled 53
> | | | X X X X | X 0 points
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: nasti
> Pip counts: O 47, X 36

Do you know how GNU defines lucky and unlucky rolls? If not, RTFM. If so, why are you asking a question you already know the answer to?

Stick

On December 8, 2022 at 2:33:44 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:

> On December 8, 2022 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

>> GNU Backgammon Position ID: bdsBAOCdOQAAAA
>> Match ID : QYnuAAAAAAAE
>> X Rolled 53

> Dupes 4s so yes, otherwise no basically.

It is not a "yes/no" but a "why" question.

So "yes" what? "Yes lucky"? "Yes unlucky"?

Are you so lazy to type one more word to
make what you write clearly meaningful?

MK

On December 8, 2022 at 2:36:38 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:

> Do you know how GNU defines lucky
> and unlucky rolls? If not, RTFM. If so,
> why are you asking a question you
> already know the answer to?

I think he knew the answer but asked
anyway to see if you knew it also... ;)

MK

Because it dropped out of law school.

---
Tim Chow

On December 8, 2022 at 7:34:16 PM UTC-7, MK wrote:

> On December 8, 2022 at 2:33:44 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:

>> On December 8, 2022 at 11:31:59 AM UTC-5, Nasti Chestikov wrote:

>>> GNU Backgammon Position ID: bdsBAOCdOQAAAA
>>> Match ID : QYnuAAAAAAAE
>>> X Rolled 53

>> Dupes 4s so yes, otherwise no basically.

> It is not a "yes/no" but a "why" question.
> So "yes" what? "Yes lucky"? "Yes unlucky"?
> Are you so lazy to type one more word to
> make what you write clearly meaningful?

I was trying to sucker our world-class
professional gamblegammon player
to "stick" :) his other foot in his mouth
but he must have realized what he had
said and instead deleted his above post.

Because Nasti had used two negatives
in his question, (i.e. "doesn't" and "unlucky")
it's easy to misunderstand it and I think
that's what stick did. So, he answered
back by saying, in effect, "yes it's unlucky
because it dupes 4's"... :))

It looked Dobbeltfirere! bad on stick. :((
And so, he erased his post, which is a
world-class indication that Nasti was
justified in asking his question.

Yet, in other words, you help you all
understand, if stick was right (which
he was!) in his comment in his erased
post, then there must be a problem with
Gnubg's marking rolls lucky/unlucky
(which is true!)...

Gnubg is good in some aspects but it's
nothing more than gilded piece of shit
in others... :((

MK

On December 9, 2022 at 6:51:38 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:

> Because it dropped out of law school.

Please do something good for yourself.
Go seek help. You are sick! :((

MK

On 12/10/2022 4:34 AM, MK wrote:
> On December 9, 2022 at 6:51:38 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
>
>> Because it dropped out of law school.
>
> Please do something good for yourself.
> Go seek help. You are sick! :((

Yes, that's true, but the ibuprofen is helping. Thanks for
your concern!

---
Tim Chow

On 12/10/2022 4:33 AM, MK wrote:
> Because Nasti had used two negatives
> in his question, (i.e. "doesn't" and "unlucky")
> it's easy to misunderstand it and I think
> that's what stick did. So, he answered
> back by saying, in effect, "yes it's unlucky
> because it dupes 4's"... :))

I think Stick just accidentally posted in the wrong thread.
It happens.

---
Tim Chow

On Saturday, 10 December 2022 at 09:33:16 UTC, MK wrote:

> Yet, in other words, you help you all
> understand, if stick was right (which
> he was!) in his comment in his erased
> post, then there must be a problem with
> Gnubg's marking rolls lucky/unlucky
> (which is true!)...
>
> MK

rec.games.backgammon.narkive.com/

if you want to see what people have deleted.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022 at 8:39:00 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 12/10/2022 4:33 AM, MK wrote:
> > Because Nasti had used two negatives
> > in his question, (i.e. "doesn't" and "unlucky")
> > it's easy to misunderstand it and I think
> > that's what stick did. So, he answered
> > back by saying, in effect, "yes it's unlucky
> > because it dupes 4's"... :))
> I think Stick just accidentally posted in the wrong thread.
> It happens.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Yes, as noted before, my reader garbles things up at times and things are in the wrong place or at least appear in the wrong place to me so I double posted basically.

Stick

On December 12, 2022 at 12:34:44 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:

> On December 10, 2022 at 8:39:00 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:

>> On 12/10/2022 4:33 AM, MK wrote:

>>> So, he answered back by saying, in effect,
>>> "yes it's unlucky because it dupes 4's"... :))

>> I think Stick just accidentally posted in the
>> wrong thread. It happens.

> Yes, as noted before, my reader garbles things
> up at times and things are in the wrong place
> or at least appear in the wrong place to me

Them dang computers always do all kinds of
weird things... :(

> so I double posted basically.

Is there also a way to post "non-basically"...?

Your overly underworded post didn't basically
make sense, so unlike Tim, I didn't take upon
myself to assume that you had posted in the
wrong thread but instead I basically asked for
you to clarify, (took the opportunity to make a
few comments of my own in reply to Nasti).

Obviously you must be conceited to think you
are to good to converse directly with some of
us but you could have corrected yourself by
following up of to your own post. Instead you
chose to delete it.

"Deleting posts ... the weakest of sauces", eh?

Here is an uncharacteristically long post from you:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/4vPjIeAVqKQ/m/hOYMvmJVBAAJ

Which can be basically shortened to this:
================================================
On November 24, 2021 at 6:48:05 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
> On November 21, 2021 at 10:40:05 PM UTC-7, J R wrote:
>> On November 21, 2021 at 4:39:52 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:

>>> Anyway, I was getting tired of the game and deleted
>>> a few of my posts in this thread but as I said before,
>>> you are sick and can't just let go of it.

>> Deleting posts ... the weakest of sauces.

> Look who is talking about deleting posts!
> At least I deleted my own posts, for a good reason,
> as opposed to you who deleted/censored other
> people's posts in your forum for bad reasons!

Oh donkey kong, posts were never censored or deleted
on my forums except on the super rare occasion a valid
reason came up for it to happen. The option for users to
edit their own posts after posting or to delete them was
toggled off for a reason. I had one user request all his
posts be deleted but there was no good reason other
than he was done posting. It's fine that he's done but if
you start deleting posts then other posts replying to the
original posts cease to make sense. To this day you can
still find my middle of the night drunk ranting posts, you
can find all the glorious posts that accused me of cheating,
all the posts I'd have a reason to delete, all there. So for
the people in the back who didn't hear it the first time and
maybe it'll sink in this time for you ...

deleting posts, the weakest of sauces.

Stick
================================================

MK