On August 13, 2022 at 7:06:39 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:

>> | This is the paradox of luck and skill: the more skilled the
>> | competitors are, the more the outcome is determined by
>> | luck.

> Add-on: If two clueless backgammon players compete,
> the outcome is also determined mostly by luck.

If "clueless play" means "random play" (or near-random
play), according to this definition of luck, if two clueless
chess players compete, the outcome is also determined
entirely (or mostly) by luck as well.

Yet, that wouldn't make chess a game of luck because if
the game is analysed without knowing that it was played
by clueless players and tracing backwards from the final
position to the opening move, one may find that there
were many skillful moves made and that the player who
made more of those skillful moves did indeed win.

My point is that how a game is played in certain ways
doesn't change its nature (i.e. a game of skill or luck).

Therefore, because backgammon is played with dice, it's a
game of luck by nature and no particular ways of playing
it will ever turn it into a game of skill.

I have always disagreed with how "luck" was defined and
calculated by gamblegammon players and/or bots. Many
times, I tried to start discussions using more creative and
comprehensive approaches to defining and quantifying
"luck" with very limited results or no success at all. Based
on the above comments, I want to give it one more try...

Regarding backgammon, Bradley's quote would apply to
a bot playing against itself "perfectly". Although I totally
reject bots being perfect, let's assume it to be so for the
sake of the argument here and accept it as the upper limit
of skill, i.e. 100%.

Similarly, what Axel said would establish the lower limit
of skill, i.e. (*near*) 0%.

Thus, it's clear that in terms of absolutes, backgammon is
a game of luck with some relative skill occuring in between.

Skill "happens" in backgammon (or in any other game of
luck) just as luck "happens" in chess (or in any other game
of skill).

Above, I said *near* because even in a randomly played
backgammon game, some amount of skill will "happen".
In other words, even a "clueless" player will win more
than 0% against a "perfect" player.

Thus, the "real" skill begins at some higher level than 0%,
i.e. the "background skill" or "ambient skill" but we have
no idea where it begins. For years and years I suggested
that we make a "random bot" play against a "perfect bot"
to find out what that number is but nobody has shown
any interest. (Why are you all so fearful of knowledge??)

Now, let's go back to Axel's comment and talk a little
about "luck" itself. What if his two players are clueless
about luck also? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is
around to hear, does it still make a noise?

Once I had fun pretending that I was trying to enact a new
law making luck a punishable crime... :)

Surely I would have to take very seriously the definition of
luck and punishments proportionate to its severity. I would
have to consider as many aspects of it as possible, such as:
ignorance, intent, sanity, attempt, failing, repeating, petty,
misdemeanor, felony, premeditated, aggravated, etc.

For example, if a player clueless about luck gets a lucky roll,
the falling dice wouldn't make noise unless observed by an
opponent or a spectator and he wouldn't be guilty. Even if
there were witnesses, he would be unfit for punishment.

A player who is "clued" about bogus "temperature maps" of
bots and who gets a lucky roll without wishing for a specific
roll would only be guilty of petty luck.

A player who gets two doubles in a row is a repeat offender.
Jokers are misdemeanors. Super jokers are felonies.

A player who wishes for a specific roll and gets it, would be
guilty of premediteted luck.

A player who wishes for but doesn't get a specific roll, would
only be guilty of attempted luck.

If a player like Murat, in defying the bot's temperature map,
wishes for a roll that he considers lucky and gets it, he may
be accused of voodoo luck but would "get away with luck".

All this can be summarized as: Backgammon is by nature a
game of luck with undefinable and unmeasurable amounts
of luck and skill occurring in it.

"Luck + skill = 1" is plain bullshit, pretentious false science.

I congratulate you for having read my entire article. I won't
try to dissuade you from framing and hanging it on your wall. ;)

MK

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> In other words, even a "clueless" player will win more than 0% against
> a "perfect" player.

Sure.

> For years and years I suggested that we make a "random bot" play
> against a "perfect bot" to find out what that number is but nobody has
> shown any interest.

I have done so about two years back in a different context. No need to
program a single line, just have GNU Backgammon play itself, say,
"Expert" against "Beginner". And since "Beginner" is still far better
than "Random", set the "noise" ("Advanced Options") to 1, the maximum
value. Have fun watching!

A 21-point match just now during breakfast resulted in "Random" 2 versus
"Expert" 21, a rather typical result, here are my older experiments:

Casual Player-Random
64:1
64:1

Advanced-Casual Player
64:5
64:10

World Class-Advanced
64:21
64:55

And since you are obsessed with denying the existence of cube skill, I
have now done another one, "Expert with Random Cube" against "Expert".
The random cuber won 21:12. But it seems (also for "random" checker
play) that a noise value of 1 is not enough and does not result in
completely random play, be it cube or checkers.

So maybe I need to reactivate my mutant bot.

Best regards

Axel

On August 16, 2022 at 1:06:07 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

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

>> For years and years I suggested that we make a
>> "random bot" play against a "perfect bot" to find
>> out what that number is but nobody has shown
>> any interest.

> I have done so about two years back in a different
> context. No need to program a single line, just have
> GNU Backgammon play itself, say, "Expert" against
> "Beginner". And since "Beginner" is still far better
> than "Random", set the "noise" ("Advanced Options")
> to 1, the maximum value. Have fun watching!

Not quite the same but similar idea/experiment.
I'm glad to hear you have done those but can you
tell us what was your "context"/purpose in doing
your experiments? I would like to know. It may be
interesting to me.

> Advanced-Casual Player
> 64:5
> 64:10
> World Class-Advanced
> 64:21
> 64:55
> .....

When you were doing those, did you pay attention
to see if the results met the expextations, i.e. the
expected win/lose ratio based on the error rates
of the two sides?

As you know, based on my own experiment results,
one of my arguments is that the error rates are bs.

> And since you are obsessed with denying the
> existence of cube skill,

When genericly speaking I refer to cube skill as one
but I have clarified many times that I actually mean
it's much less than what it's hyped up to be. More
specificly, I only accept the existance of cube skill
towards the very ends of games.

> But it seems (also for "random" checker play) that
> a noise value of 1 is not enough and does not result
> in completely random play, be it cube or checkers.

> So maybe I need to reactivate my mutant bot.

Yay! I always thought that someday you would.

BTW: I'm not trying to insult you but trying tu push
your buttons to "activate you". ;)

I think you are the person most open minded about
running experiments here. I value that.

MK

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> On August 16, 2022 at 1:06:07 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
>
>> But it seems (also for "random" checker play) that a noise value of 1
>> is not enough and does not result in completely random play, be it
>> cube or checkers.
>
>> So maybe I need to reactivate my mutant bot.
>
> Yay! I always thought that someday you would.

No need to, as I found some old "mutant" session results with expert
checker play mimicking GNU Backgammon and random cube play (double,
hold, beaver, take, pass). After 1000 games the mutant was trailing with
17394 points versus gnubg's 114822. You can suspect from the points per
game that this is Petersburg Paradox terrain, which I confirmed with my
stability analysis techniques.

It seamed too trivial to warrant a post.

Best regards

Axel

On August 28, 2022 at 6:41:02 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

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

>> On August 16, 2022 at 1:06:07 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

>>> So maybe I need to reactivate my mutant bot.

>> Yay! I always thought that someday you would.

> No need to, as I found some old "mutant" session results

I have to admit I'm rather surprised that you had already
done these kinds of "mutant" experiments in the past.

> with expert checker play mimicking GNU Backgammon

What's "mimicking" mean? Is your mutant bot a slightly
modified version of Gnubg or a variant of a different bot?

> and random cube play (double, hold, beaver, take, pass).
> After 1000 games the mutant was trailing with 17394
> points versus gnubg's 114822.

That's almost exactly 15%. I don't' know how to refer to it
in plain language. I'm tempted to use words like "tare"(??)

I think setting the checker skill to the highest possible of
the bot would better isolate "cube skill" and 1,000 ganes
are hardly enough to be significant but your numbers are
all we have and thus surely better than nothing at all.

I should also clarify that since I'm not trying to predict the
"cube skill value of random cube decisions", I'm willing to
accept whatever properly done experiments will reveal.

Are anyone willing to comment on your 15% result and/or
what would they have guesses/predicted it would be?

Also one very important point that I keep repeating and
you all keep avoiding is the predicted results based on the
error rate in comparison to the actual results.

In your above experiment, what was the cube error rate
of the mutant that made random cube decisions?!?!

Based on that error rate, was the mutnat expected to win
more or less than 15%?!?!

Knowing these is very important in proving my argument
that equities, error rates, etc. as calculated by the current
bots are "bullshit"! If you disagree, provide the numbers
from your experiments. You can run but you can't hide...

> You can suspect from the points per game that this is
> Petersburg Paradox terrain, which I confirmed with my
> stability analysis techniques.
I won't even question your "techniques" if you can try to
explain what your "Petersburg Paradox terrain" mean in
relation to your "cube skill theory"??

MK

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> On August 28, 2022 at 6:41:02 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
>
>> with expert checker play mimicking GNU Backgammon
>
> What's "mimicking" mean? Is your mutant bot a slightly
> modified version of Gnubg or a variant of a different bot?

I programmed it to ask for GNU Backgammon's move and then send it
back. So checker play will be identical.

> I think setting the checker skill to the highest possible of the bot
> would better isolate "cube skill" and 1,000 ganes are hardly enough to
> be significant

I will not spend time on this. Perhaps some day on "never double, always
take" and "never double, never take", two limiting cases similar to some
beginners' cube "handling". But we do know the results already, don't
we? These "strategies" will be beaten terribly, even with perfect
checker play. Maybe I can save the experimental effort and derive
something analytically from

https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+513

> Also one very important point that I keep repeating and
> you all keep avoiding is the predicted results based on the
> error rate in comparison to the actual results.

I will not spend time on this.

> I won't even question your "techniques" if you can try to
> explain what your "Petersburg Paradox terrain" mean in
> relation to your "cube skill theory"??

We had this before. I will not spend time on this.

Axel

On August 30, 2022 at 12:45:51 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

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

>> On August 28, 2022 at 6:41:02 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

>> I think setting the checker skill to the highest possible
>> of the bot would better isolate "cube skill" and 1,000
>> ganes are hardly enough to be significant

> I will not spend time on this.

I wasn't asking you either. The rest of my sentence that
you cut off said "but your numbers are all we have and
thus surely better than nothing at all." meaning that we
can make do with what we have for the moment being.

If you are going to ignore the results of your own tests
and are not willing to discuss their implications, why do
waste your time doing such experiment to begin with??

> Perhaps some day on "never double, always take" and
> "never double, never take", two limiting cases similar to
> some beginners' cube "handling". But we do know the
> results already, don't we? These "strategies" will be
> beaten terribly, even with perfect checker play.

The "ramdom cube" experiment was about "no strategy"
and you left is unfinished as with your other experiments.

Of course, more experiments about various "strategies"
can be revealing but you have demonstrated that you are
incapable of doing an experiment properly. So, I would
advice against wasting more of your time and then ours.

> Maybe I can save the experimental effort and derive
> something analytically from
> https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+513

Since you say you already know the results, why would
you even bother with more "smokes and maths"?

Especially if you ignore and deny the "relative" results??

You make fart-ass claims like "will be beaten terribly"
with no effort to quantify "how terribly" and, of course,
"in relation/proportion to what other other quantity".

I can even accept that you skip this "prediction" step to
be based on your "cube skill theory" (bullshit!) but can't
let you off the hook without retroactively comparing the
actual results to what would have been expected by your
"cube skill theory bullshit"!

>> Also one very important point that I keep repeating and
>> you all keep avoiding is the predicted results based on
>> the error rate in comparison to the actual results.

> I will not spend time on this.

Wise decision, because if you did, then you would have to
execute "anal harakiri" using your cube skill theory bullshit!

>> I won't even question your "techniques" if you can try to
>> explain what your "Petersburg Paradox terrain" mean in
>> relation to your "cube skill theory"??

> We had this before. I will not spend time on this.

You never did. That was another half-brained, half-baked
experiment of yours. I drafted a digest of it and set it aside
in favor of more current discussions but it's there for me to
go back to it at an oppurtune moment.

MK