Your posts seem similar to so many others I've seen over the years.
It seems that many players are truly shocked to discover how much stronger gnubg is than they are. They remember a few lucky rolls that occurred, and use those to explain their losses.
My suggestion is to play one game at a time and, after each game, have gnubg analyze the game. I suspect you'll find that your games are full of bad and doubtful moves.
The program can help you become a much better player, but not if you respond to its superiority by questioning the randomness of the dice rolls.
On Aug 17, 2013, at 12:11 AM, JD wrote:
All I am saying is that TO ME, it is sufficiently significant, because
I will certainly NOT be playing millions or billions of games and note
the rolls for each given board state.
Up to now (as of typing this message), I have played about 10 games,
and out pf 10 games, of 7 points each, I won only one game, even then,
marginally. I lost 9 games, and each one with a huge disadvantage in
the number of my pieces remaining on the board.
Certainly, I did not set out to lose to myself.
I would have hoped that the engine would not suddenly roll dice that
would provide doubles to player 0 in the most amazingly opportune time,
to to roll dice that would hit my piece exactly when it became uncovered.
NO such dice would roll for player 1. NONE!!!!
In 10 games, each game with 5 or 7 points.
I am sorry, this may not be statistically significant to mathematicians.
It is extremely significant to me, as I do not have the time to put in