lør. 10. mai 2025 kl. 08:15 skrev MK <[email protected]>: > On 5/9/2025 5:45 AM, Øystein Schønning-Johansen wrote: > > > Yes, I did! But I also read the GNU Backgammon source code. > > The dice input window is actually sized based on the screen> resolution > of the computer - your code will therefore work > > on one computer screen resolution but not on another. > > Not true. Dice window is proportional to the playing window. > In XG and Bg-Blitz dice window is fixed size. In GnuBG I saw > [snip]
Ah! You are right again. I was reading an old version of the code, and incorrectly assumed that it had not changed over the years. > you could expand the dice window but not shrink it. I assumed > 540x330 was the default size as in other bots. So, unless you > can adjust the offset and spacing constants in the source and > recompile it for your favorite size, it won't work unless you > size your playing window so that the dice window will open at > 540x330. > > I thought about making the constants percentages of the window > size but decided that it wasn't worth it. GnuBG is a bucket of > buggy spaghetti, obviously a product of amateur programmers, > that is lacking in essentials but overly rich in unnecessary > features gilding the "brown lily". > > Unlike other bots, GnuBG doesn't have a minimum playing window > size. You can shrink it until you'll need a magnifying glass > to see the pieces. Couple that with the opening roll window > with differently sized and labeled icons, it would be nearly > impossible to make a utility work with all sizes, which was > not my goal anyway. > > Did you see how short and simple the codes is? It's less than > 40 lines including the 4 that swap the dice to display the > bigger number first just as in the "game record" window, which > I added to track the rolls visually more easily, to see the > skipped rolls due to dice window losing focus after being made > active but before mouse click is sent to it. I didn't trace it > but it may even be GnuBG's playing windows that's stealing the > focus while refreshing it for some reason..?? > > Oh, so, once you get the dice window size working, you can > change your screen resolution and it will still work. > It sounds to me that you have had a lot of engineering considerations when developing these tools. Good! These are the first steps of becoming a better developer. Becoming a better developer is something most developers like. Learning new theories and methods is what drives developers forward, And one thing I have learned over my many years is that you should never consider yourself done learning. I am pretty sure that whatever level your developer skills are on, you still have something to learn. John Carmack and Linus Thorvalds are probably still learning new things! > > I indeed find your solution very nice, since this method of > > mimicking mouse-clicks - it is general and can be applied to > > other backgammon applications. Very clever. > > Yes but all other bots accept keyboard input which is easier > and more reliable than mouse events. GnuBG is the only stupid > bot that doesn't accept keyboard input for dice even though it > used keyboard input for all kinds of other actions. Perhaps > someone has an explanation for this idiocy...? > Maybe this could be added as a feature in GNU Backgammon? > > Well - GNU Backgammon is indeed an open source program and > > you are free to examine the source code and point out the > > lines of code that exploit the functionality of accessing > > future dice rolls. > > How many times do I have to point out that this is a useless > argument since you can't expect everyone to be a computer > programmer, and with a special ability to decipher hieroglyphs > at that. > Maybe you need education, like a degree from a university to understand the hieroglyphs? > The manual dice feature was added to be able to transcribe > > live games - back in the 90s players sometimes paid..... > > I had never heard about this before but even if so, another use > for it doesn't negate the fact that manual dice has always been > the ultimate argument for proving to oneself that bots don't cheat. > I think this depends on the level of suspicion and conspiracy you are on, Experiments with manual dice will convince the majority of scaptics - but maybe not all. > ..... Play a match twice - first with your tool for selecting > > dice rolls from a file - then with the build-in feature ..... > > Okay, well, do your realize that in saying this you are indeed > acknowledging that you need use my tool or some other similar > method to compare. > To me it is a bit funny that you point this out - I describe an experiment that will potentially convince you that GNU Backgammon do indeed cheat (or maybe not). But now that you have the tools - why do you not conduct the experiment? Can you please tell me - what would it take to convince you that GNU Backgammon does not cheat? It's like listening to Flat Earthers (people that literally think we live on a flat earth). Whatever evidence you throw at them - they always come back with a new undocumented claim like NASAs photos are fake - they present their model and their explanations of - night/day, seasons, eclipses etc. but always their models are either contradicting each other and/or is disputable with a single observation. In 2024, pastor Will Duffy even invited several prominent Flat Earthers to travel to Antarctica to observe the 24-hour sun - an observation that Flat Earthers claim is impossible on a flat earth - all expenses covered by Will Duffy himself. The result was that the most prominent Flat Earthers declined the offer from Mr. Duffy. They really could not face the truth - proving the earth is not flat would break the narrative, will break their youtube channels, will break the grift for those making money out of flat earth. It's safest for them to not participate in any experiment that can prove them wrong. (As a side note I can give credit to former flat earther Jaren Campanila, who actually accepted the offer - and he was convinced that the earth is not flat - he has left his flat earth community and he has my respect there. He showed honesty.) So Murat, let me ask you again: what would it take to convince you that GNU Backgammon does not cheat? -Øystein
