Having Bill Robertie present always makes for a great interview!! One comment. Goldie admits she might be at the level of high beginner. At about the 19:00 minute mark of the video she says and I quote, "Even though they are virtual dice, 1-6 comes up more often than anything else." Good grief. Seriously? Let me guess... she has absolutely no actual data to support her claim. I can say that because I've been hearing similar claims about online dice for about 30 years now and not ONCE has ANYONE EVER submitted ANY actual evidence of any kind to support these type of statements. It's much more likely Goldie's memory is simply faulty... she remembers the times when 1-6 was rolled and thus believes it happens more frequently than it should. At about the 1:05:55 mark of the video she again makes a statement that "computers cannot have completely random numbers" and that she can "see patterns" (with the dice). She says she can guess the dice roll, "on occasion." Good grief again. One, you can find patterns in just about anything. That doesn't mean the dice rolls aren't random. You can easily find patterns in random numbers. Two, everyone can guess the dice roll "on occasion." Of course, her comment seems to imply that she can guess the roll more frequently than chance would indicate. If so, that's another claim I'd like to see the evidence for. Three, depending upon the algorithm, computers can indeed produce truly random numbers. One such way is to use a radioactive source as the base for the seed. (The points in time at which a radioactive source decays are completely unpredictable.) Four, and most importantly, for all practical purposes, pseudo-random numbers are FINE! They are as random as they need to be. A proper pseudo-random generator will NOT favor any dice roll, such as 1-6 or any other dice roll for that matter. It will NOT produce predictable "patterns." Given a large enough sample size, the dice distribution using a pseudo-random number generator will be exactly what it should be. A pseudo-random dice generator, for all practical purposes, produces numbers that are JUST as random as actually rolling a physical die!!! Anyone who believe otherwise simply does not have a through understanding of computer programming, and how computers generate random numbers. 1-6 is not appearing more often for Goldie or anyone else. And anyone making a claim regarding how the dice distribution is not proper or produces "predictable" and "non random" patterns should present the evidence to support said claim.
I have a question for anyone who can answer: All of my players were in but one and on my board, the fourth space was empty but two pieces on the fifth space. I had nothing on the sixth space. My last roll with one player out was a six and five and if I had moved a six first, i would have landed on the fourth space, then I would have been required to take out a five, leaving one piece on the fourth position and one piece on the fifth position. Instead, i chose the first move as a five, giving me now three pieces on the fifth position and since i did not have any pieces on the sixth position, i took in one player from the three I had on the fifth space, resulting in all pieces, as being covered. He told me this is wrong and said that I need to move six first, then five.
Best question, by Carol about Bill's 3rd book!! The first two are among the best backgammon books ever written just in terms of content and clarity. But they are also structurally amazing, which serves as a great aid to the reader in terms of review and retention. Reading and nodding along is one thing. Reading, learning, and absorbing is quite another. Bill writes with his reader in mind at a world class level. Well done, sir.
Human beings are terrible at telling what's random and what's not. We see patterns in everything. Leave the randomness to the computers.
Having Bill Robertie present always makes for a great interview!!
One comment. Goldie admits she might be at the level of high beginner. At about the 19:00 minute mark of the video she says and I quote, "Even though they are virtual dice, 1-6 comes up more often than anything else."
Good grief. Seriously?
Let me guess... she has absolutely no actual data to support her claim.
I can say that because I've been hearing similar claims about online dice for about 30 years now and not ONCE has ANYONE EVER submitted ANY actual evidence of any kind to support these type of statements.
It's much more likely Goldie's memory is simply faulty... she remembers the times when 1-6 was rolled and thus believes it happens more frequently than it should.
At about the 1:05:55 mark of the video she again makes a statement that "computers cannot have completely random numbers" and that she can "see patterns" (with the dice). She says she can guess the dice roll, "on occasion."
Good grief again.
One, you can find patterns in just about anything. That doesn't mean the dice rolls aren't random. You can easily find patterns in random numbers.
Two, everyone can guess the dice roll "on occasion." Of course, her comment seems to imply that she can guess the roll more frequently than chance would indicate. If so, that's another claim I'd like to see the evidence for.
Three, depending upon the algorithm, computers can indeed produce truly random numbers. One such way is to use a radioactive source as the base for the seed. (The points in time at which a radioactive source decays are completely unpredictable.)
Four, and most importantly, for all practical purposes, pseudo-random numbers are FINE! They are as random as they need to be. A proper pseudo-random generator will NOT favor any dice roll, such as 1-6 or any other dice roll for that matter. It will NOT produce predictable "patterns." Given a large enough sample size, the dice distribution using a pseudo-random number generator will be exactly what it should be. A pseudo-random dice generator, for all practical purposes, produces numbers that are JUST as random as actually rolling a physical die!!!
Anyone who believe otherwise simply does not have a through understanding of computer programming, and how computers generate random numbers. 1-6 is not appearing more often for Goldie or anyone else. And anyone making a claim regarding how the dice distribution is not proper or produces "predictable" and "non random" patterns should present the evidence to support said claim.
Very good to see such interviews ! :)
More to come!
Thanks for the great video!
Very useful description! Especially how the video is broken down into chapters with time stamps.
I'm pretty happy with how it turned out, yes!
I have a question for anyone who can answer: All of my players were in but one and on my board, the fourth space was empty but two pieces on the fifth space. I had nothing on the sixth space. My last roll with one player out was a six and five and if I had moved a six first, i would have landed on the fourth space, then I would have been required to take out a five, leaving one piece on the fourth position and one piece on the fifth position. Instead, i chose the first move as a five, giving me now three pieces on the fifth position and since i did not have any pieces on the sixth position, i took in one player from the three I had on the fifth space, resulting in all pieces, as being covered. He told me this is wrong and said that I need to move six first, then five.
You are free to use the dice in either order and thus, if playing modern backgammon rules, your play was legal.
Best question, by Carol about Bill's 3rd book!! The first two are among the best backgammon books ever written just in terms of content and clarity. But they are also structurally amazing, which serves as a great aid to the reader in terms of review and retention. Reading and nodding along is one thing. Reading, learning, and absorbing is quite another. Bill writes with his reader in mind at a world class level. Well done, sir.