Re: Snowie and GNUBG

[Timothy Y. Chow]

Rich Heimlich wrote:

> Well, let's also be clear about some harsh realities here. Backgammon is 
> always going to be seen in the same light as checkers. It just is. No 
> matter how big the following, it's never going to be chess or have that 
> sort of following. It's pretty much seen as a beginner's game that you 
> keep around because it's easy to teach and play. We know differently, 
> but that takes exposure. If anyone here doubts that, just look at the 
> OVERWHELMING number of reviews of virtually any even remotely decent 
> backgammon game. They're flooded with cries of cheating dice rolls and 
> that's simply due to no one believing that backgammon could possibly be 
> played that well. They used to win at it all the time and now a computer 
> program hoses them so they swear it must be cheating -- yet the same 
> people would not act the same way about a chess program beating them. 
> Chess is "complicated" so of course a computer can beat them.

I agree with you about how the general public views backgammon, but I 
don't think that it makes sense to compare backgammon with checkers.

You say that the same people would not act the same way about a chess 
program beating them, and I agree.  But I believe that the same people 
would also not act the same way about a checkers program beating them. 
How could they?  There are no dice in checkers to complain about.  What 
would it even mean for a checkers bot to cheat?

I maintain that backgammon was designed as (or has evolved into) a 
gambling game, and not a game of skill.  As such, its deceptively simple 
nature is a feature, not a bug.  The shark *wants* the fish to think that 
the fish lost because of bad luck.  That's what keeps the fish coming back 
for more.  That backgammon will always be viewed as childishly simple is 
not a harsh reality, but a pleasant one---at least if you accept its 
nature as a gambling game.

It is not necessary for backgammon to be viewed as a game of skill for it 
to gain a wide following.  In fact I would argue the opposite.  It can 
only gain a wide following as a gambling game.  Strong bots actually work 
against that, by peeling away the illusion that the game is simple.  That 
people complain that backgammon bots cheat is actually a hopeful sign---it 
means that the weaknesses of human psychology that backgammon exploits are 
robust enough to survive consistent factual refutation, and so the game 
has a chance of surviving despite the existence of strong bots.

In any case, I was under the impression that the discussion was about 
market share, and not about increasing the total size of the market.  You 
don't necessarily have to run faster than the bear if you can outrun your 
companion.

Tim