What is the best backgammon software?

[M ANSARI]

Hehehe ... that is really funny. The other day I was asking my mom how she like Jellyfish and she also claimed that it "cheats". I guess when you see the computer deciding the roll of the dice you tend to feel that it is sometimes cheating. Funny how that feeling does not come in effect when the person who is playing wins.

[M ANSARI]

LOL ... that is really funny. The other day I was asking my mom how she like Jellyfish and she also claimed that it "cheats". I guess when you see the computer deciding the roll of the dice you tend to feel that it is sometimes cheating. Funny how that feeling does not come in effect when the person who is playing wins.

[George Tsavdaris]

LOL ... that is really funny. The other day I was asking my mom how she like Jellyfish and she also claimed that it "cheats". I guess when you see the computer deciding the roll of the dice you tend to feel that it is sometimes cheating. Funny how that feeling does not come in effect when the person who is playing wins.

Your mother said another thing. That she believes JellyFish 3.5 cheats.

I was answering to the fact that JF 3.5 cheats with the dice rolls, meaning it controls the dice in such a way that it gets good rolls in favor of it. But this isn't happening and there is a way to prove it. It had to do with the "internal dice generator" of Jellyfish and how it produces the rolls.

It uses a SEED number and a COUNTER. And when the pair of seed-number and the counter-number is the same Jellyfish produces a specific die roll. And before each move you see the values of SEED and COUNTER. Also you can set them anytime you want to any number you want.
So it can't manipulate the dice rolls or else you will be able to see it. E.g if with seed=45644 and counter= 4 it produces a 44, then after the game you can test the seed=45644 and counter= 4 in another position, etc....

But your mother or anyone else may suggest a more sophisticated way of cheating. Cheating not by manipulating the die, but by knowing the next die roll for the opponent or even for it(in the next turn) and playing accordingly in its turn.
But there is a way to prove this isn't happening also:
With Jellyfish you have the option to define the die rolls of the game by yourself. So if you think that Jellyfish knows the next die roll for the opponent in a position it has to play a move, then just setup the same position(although freeware version doesn't have a setup feature it's actually easy to do) and put a different die roll for the opponent.
It will play the same move! Even if it's disastrous for it. So it doesn't know the next rolls!

I can't think of another way of cheating so Jellyfish 3.5 doesn't cheat!

[Albert Silver]

I remember the Jellyfish series was very strong and seemed like a good screen etc.

Jellyfish light version 3.5 is free. I often lose to it and I wonder if it does not cheat with dices.

I read that's usual to think that computer cheat at backgammon, simply because they pley well

A lot of software let you to do manuel dice roll, may you can try that

It is one of the most common accusations, and stems from an insufficient understanding of odds and backgammon strategy as a whole. Top notch strategy is simply a matter of playing your checkers so as to both maximize your potential to win and minimize your opponent's. What this means is that my best play will not only leave fewer good rolls available to my opponent, but leave my position so I have more good rolls available after. To an opponent who does not understand this, and thus has fewer rolls that help him, it will seem like a neverending streak of bad luck. It is very common for good players to count the dice combinations to make decisions. Since players like GNU are as good as it gets, this is exacerbated, and will lead to an impression that it cheats.