Todd Rogers banned from Twin Galaxies and records removed

[Shawn]

Fist fight!

 

Double exposed dick pics!

[MaximRecoil]

I'm not going to address all of this other than to say I had a personal computer then and I had friends who did too. Most of us had lots of copied software and getting our hands on an art program was no big deal. I knew even more people with 2600's. We could have easily pulled this off.

 

You guys never fabricated a score to send to Activision, right?

 

You keep saying it's too uncommon, but I never said Activision was getting a fake photo from every kid in America.

 

Yeah, lots of uncommon things needing to come together. For example, assuming you never sent fake pictures to Activision, the uncommon element missing in your case is the mindset. For your theory you need three kids in three different states who:

 

1. Have a home computer

2. Have a storage device for it

3. Have a paint program

4. Are computer savvy

5. Have good copying/drawing skills

6. Have the mindset and motivation to cheat in order to get an Activision patch and possibly a mention in the newsletter

7. Have the idea to create the digital image from scratch on a home computer and display it on their TV

8. Had all these things within the window between two subsequent issues of a quarterly newsletter

 

I was just saying it would have been possible for me and some others I knew, and I also knew kids who were always lying/bragging who would have done it if they could. It was never meant to be more than a theory.

 

Yes, it's certainly possible. There are lots of possible explanations, but none of them I've heard or can think of seem particularly likely. That includes the explanation that they legitimately got a 5.51; that doesn't seem particularly likely either, in light of what we know about the game code today. It would be a lot easier to come up with a likely explanation if it was only Todd with a 5.51 in the Activision newsletter. What makes it a strange case for me is the two others who had 5.51 published before Todd did, and not only that, but it was in the same issue, meaning one didn't see the other's 5.51 published in order to get the idea.

Edited February 10, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Supergun]

One thing I would like to say is this.

 

Unlike with Barnstorming & Freeway, where hackers put together a version of the rom where the barns were removed (Barnstorming) and the traffic was removed (Freeway), whereby allowing the player to have a "perfect run" (fastest possible time in Barnstorming & highest possible score in Freeway), the Dragster scenario is VERY DIFFERENT for me. It doesn't PROVE anything.

 

Neither Ben Heck, nor any other person or computer assisted tinkering method is able to conclusively prove anything with Dragster. Too many variables such as the timing of the shifting, popping wheelies, easing off the acceleration, etc. No computer can conclusively prove one way or the other anything because it's not capable of recreating every possible scenario.

 

In Freeway for example, if your literally already holding the joystick up as you hit reset, and you NEVER let go, then there is a 100% undeniable maximum number of times that you can cross the road before the timer runs out. PERIOD. The human element can "mess up", and perhaps cause a lower score, but no human element can increase it. AN UNDENIABLE FACT. It makes sense. It is logical. It is final.

 

I just don't get that with any of the Dragster analysis. No computer could ever convince me that a 5.51 is NOT possible, but, a human COULD convince me that it IS possible, by achieving it right before my eyes.

 

It's easier to prove the Dragster score as POSSIBLE rather then prove it to be impossible.

[Mingy Jongo]

One thing I would like to say is this.

 

Unlike with Barnstorming & Freeway, where hackers put together a version of the rom where the barns were removed (Barnstorming) and the traffic was removed (Freeway), whereby allowing the player to have a "perfect run" (fastest possible time in Barnstorming & highest possible score in Freeway), the Dragster scenario is VERY DIFFERENT for me. It doesn't PROVE anything.

 

Neither Ben Heck, nor any other person or computer assisted tinkering method is able to conclusively prove anything with Dragster. Too many variables such as the timing of the shifting, popping wheelies, easing off the acceleration, etc. No computer can conclusively prove one way or the other anything because it's not capable of recreating every possible scenario.

 

In Freeway for example, if your literally already holding the joystick up as you hit reset, and you NEVER let go, then there is a 100% undeniable maximum number of times that you can cross the road before the timer runs out. PERIOD. The human element can "mess up", and perhaps cause a lower score, but no human element can increase it. AN UNDENIABLE FACT. It makes sense. It is logical. It is final.

 

I just don't get that with any of the Dragster analysis. No computer could ever convince me that a 5.51 is NOT possible, but, a human COULD convince me that it IS possible, by achieving it right before my eyes.

 

It's easier to prove the Dragster score as POSSIBLE rather then prove it to be impossible.

Just because the math is slightly complicated doesn't mean it can't be proven. It has been explained over and over by many people that have looked into the game's code on the TG forum alone, let alone probably dozens of other places where this has been discussed, that given the parameters of the speed/distance/time/acceleration and inputs that the game recognizes, the optimal time is 5.57, just like how one can use calculus to prove or disprove that the dimensions of a solid of a specified shape and volume minimize surface area.

Your claim that "No computer can conclusively prove one way or the other anything because it's not capable of recreating every possible scenario." is patently false -- one can prove that specific inputs/strategies will always be sub-optimal by looking at the math behind it (for example, the number of wheelies needs to be 3 or less), and of the options remaining, their results when various combinations are used can be calculated.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Mingy Jongo

[Thomas Jentzsch]

One thing I would like to say is this.

 

Neither Ben Heck, nor any other person or computer assisted tinkering method is able to conclusively prove anything with Dragster. Too many variables such as the timing of the shifting, popping wheelies, easing off the acceleration, etc. No computer can conclusively prove one way or the other anything because it's not capable of recreating every possible scenario.

I knew that people would come up with that argument. Proving the non-existence of some is soon getting impossible with too many parameters.

 

So I created a simplified scenario which ignores almost all complications. It only does the shifting at the latest possible time (since any shift slows down the progress for all coming frames) before the engine blows. All other parameters are either ignored or set to most optimistic values.

 

And even then 5.54 was the best result, definitely not 5.51.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Thomas Jentzsch

[Mingy Jongo]

As for the argument stemming from the two other 5.51 scores published, Bayes's Theorem makes swift work of that hypothesis -- The odds of nearly any other coincidence or chain of events involving mistakes or cheating leading to those scores being printed is far likelier than the idea that something in the way the game's code was executed got jiggled in a way that altered the mechanics of the game without glitching anything else, but only a few times in the early 80s and has never been able to be replicated since, which is the only other explanation that doesn't involve breaking the laws of physics given the mathematics involved.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Mingy Jongo

[Supergun]

Please don't take offense, because with all due respect, Jentzsch, I acknowledge that you are a genius here, but the only thing that you & Mingy Jongo proved since my post, is my point!

 

Here you have two people claiming "math" & "computers" as they're infallible proof, and yet they both came up with different numbers! HAHAHA! It's literally laughable!

 

In math, there is only ONE right answer! So one of your "computer math expert analysis" gives us 5.54 & the other 5.57. !!! Which one is it?! And with having a variance, coincidentally within .03 of one another, as 5.51 also just happens to be, all it does is continue the doubt!

 

I'm sorry guys. But wether or not Todd Rodgers is a cheater, may or may not be true. And wether or not he cheated on Dragster, may or may not be true. But wether or not 5.51 is possible, has NOT been proven one way or the other.

 

Go back to your stupid algorithms & emulation computers & Ben HACKdom hacks & fuzzy math. NONE of it has computed properly yet & NONE of it has proven or disproven 5.51

[+stephena]

Go back to your stupid algorithms & emulation computers & Ben HACKdom hacks & fuzzy math. NONE of it has computed properly yet & NONE of it has proven or disproven 5.51

 

Sounds like a bunch of real anti-intellectualism here. Just because you don't understand the math doesn't mean that it isn't valid. Mathematics and algorithmic analysis are real tools used by professional software developers. If you don't understand it (or want to), then by all means, continue to stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la all day.

 

And BTW, when you start a sentence with "With all due respect, but", one can usually ignore everything that comes before the "but".

[Supergun]

Two "experts" just stated above two different times as what they each called the best possible time. Both experts sited mathematics as they're undeniable proof. Yet two different answers.

 

So they're "math" (formula, algorithm, computer, insert whatever you want here) is WRONG. They're are NOT two possible right answers. Only ONE. (according to math when you limit yourself to it & eliminate the human element)

 

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not on either side. I'm not here to prove or disprove if the scores were cheated. Just if they were possible. And so far, it has not been proven either way. And the MATH being used is OBVIOUSLY not the same by all the parties involved.

[MaximRecoil]

 

Sounds like a bunch of real anti-intellectualism here. Just because you don't understand the math doesn't mean that it isn't valid. Mathematics and algorithmic analysis are real tools used by professional software developers. If you don't understand it (or want to), then by all means, continue to stick your fingers in your ears and sing la-la-la all day.

 

And BTW, when you start a sentence with "With all due respect, but", one can usually ignore everything that comes before the "but".

 

He's right that it's impossible to prove that 5.51 is impossible. Omnigamer himself said as much:

 

There is no way to definitively prove that a 5.51 did not happen. The best we can do is determine the conditions which could have possibly led to a 5.51. The best available evidence does not support a 5.51 under typical operating circumstances, or even many atypical circumstances. Without even a clear account of the conditions behind the event, the task of accusers is on the same level of disproving the existence of Bigfoot.

 

http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/175364-Dispute-Dick-Moreland-Atari-2600-VCS-Dragster-NTSC-Game-1-Difficulty-B-Fastest-Time-Player-Todd-Rogers-Score-05-51?p=914809&viewfull=1#post914809

 

Likewise, Ben Heck was careful with his wording:

 

I did perform more testing, and consulted with Omni to make sure I was entering his data correctly into my system.

 

I couldn't achieve anything better than a 5.57, nor can I disprove a 5.51.

 

But I can confirm that his spreadsheet models correctly predicted all tested behavior on real hardware.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/274915-todd-rogers-banned-from-twin-galaxies-and-records-removed/page-2?do=findComment&comment=3948336

 

The same goes for Thomas Jentzsch:

 

Nevertheless, based on my current knowledge, I have strong doubts that 5.51 is possible with the dumped NTSC ROM.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/269192-todds-551-dragster-score/page-3?do=findComment&comment=3835433

 

And:

 

If you assume that any analysis may have flaws (emulator incorrect, hardware glitches,... neutrinos striking, god's will... whatever!), then it becomes completely impossible to disprove (or prove!) anything by analysis. So unless you are willing to accept certain reasonable constraints, any discussion about evidences resulting from analysis becomes pointless. That's fine, but it should be clearly stated at the beginning and not asked for it.

 

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/269192-todds-551-dragster-score/?view=findpost&p=3839626

 

One of the reasons it's impossible to prove that a 5.51 is impossible is because the number of possible input combinations in a ~5½-second game of Dragster is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe. There is no way to test them all, nor even a significant percentage of them. Of course it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that the vast majority of those possible input combinations are dead ends, but it's still an assumption, not proof. And even if you could test every possible input combination, that would only constitute proof for that particular Atari 2600 with that particular Dragster cartridge during that particular round of testing, and wouldn't even take into account the possibility of e.g., glitches.

 

People like to simplify things when they retell a story, and they also like to make conclusive statements. Omnigamer's statement...

 

"The best available evidence does not support a 5.51 under typical operating circumstances, or even many atypical circumstances."

 

... while being perfectly accurate, is hard to remember or correctly paraphrase if you don't have an aptitude for lawyer language, and also doesn't have the desired impact of, "5.51 was proven impossible!"

Edited February 10, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Here you have two people claiming "math" & "computers" as they're infallible proof, and yet they both came up with different numbers! HAHAHA! It's literally laughable!

 

In math, there is only ONE right answer! So one of your "computer math expert analysis" gives us 5.54 & the other 5.57. !!! Which one is it?! And with having a variance, coincidentally within .03 of one another, as 5.51 also just happens to be, all it does is continue the doubt!

I strongly suggest to improve your reading skills.

[+5-11under]

I think anyone who hasn't looked at and studied and played with the spreadsheet really needs to do so. It looks like it's accurate compared to the ROM (confirmed by a couple of smart people, in the least), and you can 1) try to find methods to improve the score, and 2) see that there's very few frames where there's no acceleration in the 5.57 score.

 

It may not convince 100%, but it gives at least an understanding of what's happening in the game.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

He's right that it's impossible to prove that 5.51 is impossible.

No, he is not. If you simplify the model far enough like I did, then you get a good enough evidence.

 

With this model, 5.54 is the optimum, that can be easily proven. And since all simplifications are only working into the direction of a better time, it is also proven that the complex model cannot go below the time of the simple model (5.54). So 5.51 is proven to be impossible.

 

What cannot be proven is if the complex model allows 5.54 or 5.57.

 

Attached again the sheet. Just look at the last tab named "Simplified".

Dragster_JTZ.zip

Edited February 10, 2018 by Thomas Jentzsch

[Supergun]

Pointing out autocorrect anomalies & grammatical errors doesn't answer my question nor make you look smarter. It's off topic, unrelated, childish immature behavior, and appears more as a dodging tactic and a waste of time.

 

Not that it matters what my reading & writing skills are as they are unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

Again, how can we be expected to blindly accept the findings of the so called experts & their computers if at least two of them came up with conflicting answers?

 

That's it. That is all there is to ask.

So ANSWER it.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Again, how can we be expected to blindly accept the findings of the so called experts & their computers if at least two of them came up with conflicting answers?

 

That's it. That is all there is to ask.

So ANSWER it.

Please point out where we differ. Where is the conflict?

[MaximRecoil]

No, he is not.

 

Yes, he is, and I've already explained why.

 

 

 

If you simplify the model far enough like I did, then you get a good enough evidence.

 

You're not seriously suggesting that your model is an infallible representation of the entirety of possibilities, are you? Not even Omnigamer did that.

 

 

 

With this model, 5.54 is the optimum, that can be easily proven. And since all simplifications are only working into the direction of a better time, it is also proven that the complex model cannot go below 5.54 too. So 5.51 is proven to be impossible.

 

What cannot be proven is if the complex model allows 5.54 or 5.57.

 

See above, and I'll go ahead and quote you again, with "bolding":

 

 

 

If you assume that any analysis may have flaws (emulator incorrect, hardware glitches,... neutrinos striking, god's will... whatever!), then it becomes completely impossible to disprove (or prove!) anything by analysis. So unless you are willing to accept certain reasonable constraints, any discussion about evidences resulting from analysis becomes pointless. That's fine, but it should be clearly stated at the beginning and not asked for it.

 

I'll also add that the idea that "any analysis may have flaws", isn't an assumption, it's a fact.

 

Now I'll quote Omnigamer again, with bolding:

 

 

 

There is no way to definitively prove that a 5.51 did not happen. The best we can do is determine the conditions which could have possibly led to a 5.51. The best available evidence does not support a 5.51 under typical operating circumstances, or even many atypical circumstances. Without even a clear account of the conditions behind the event, the task of accusers is on the same level of disproving the existence of Bigfoot.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

You're not seriously suggesting that your model is an infallible representation of the entirety of possibilities, are you?

Of course not.

 

But following your argument would invalidate almost any scientific evidence. Besides a few math problems, very little can be 100% proven or especially disproven. Therefore for centuries science has agreed, that the evidence must come close enough to 100% to be generally accepted.

 

And IMO the evidence here is definitely close enough.

[MaximRecoil]

Of course not.

 

But following your argument would invalidate almost any scientific evidence.

 

No, it wouldn't. Scientific evidence doesn't officially masquerade as proof; it is only called proof when people play fast and loose with the word "proof". Scientific evidence doesn't need to prove anything in order to be valuable/useful.

 

 

 

Besides a few math problems, very little can be 100% proven or especially disproven.

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Therefore for centuries science has agreed, that the evidence must come close enough to 100% to be generally accepted.

 

And IMO the evidence here is definitely close enough.

 

You're talking about standards of proof, which is a different thing than simply "proof". For example, the standard of proof in a criminal trial in the United States is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil trial, the standard of proof is lower, i.e., "preponderance of the evidence". If flat-out proof were required in order to secure a conviction, no one would ever be legitimately convicted of a crime.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

You're talking about standards of proof, which is a different thing than simply "proof". For example, the standard of proof in a criminal trial in the United States is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil trial, the standard of proof is lower, i.e., "preponderance of the evidence". If flat-out proof were required in order to secure a conviction, no one would ever be legitimately convicted of a crime.

Wording aside (English is not my first language), IMO what is good enough to sentence people to jail (or even death) should be more than good for a gaming record. Don't you agree here?

 

If there is any "reasonable doubt", I would like to see it. Unlike the evidence for the record, all evidence against it are fully transparent and can be challenged.

[MaximRecoil]

Wording aside (English is not my first language), IMO what is good enough to sentence people to jail (or even death) should be more than good for a gaming record. Don't you agree here?

 

If there is any "reasonable doubt", I would like to see it. Unlike the evidence for the record, all evidence against it are fully transparent and can be challenged.

 

Yes, I believe that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof has been met in this case, and that it is a strong enough standard of proof to warrant the invalidation of a video game record.

Edited February 10, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Supergun]

And all I'm trying to prove is that the "human element" can be a factor in some of these matters.

 

Take for example, Decathlon. Another 2600 Activision game, mind you. I'll never forget the first time I "glitched" the score display on the Pole Vault. I was in shock. And my friends, at first, didn't believe my records on that game, and accused me of cheating. It wasn't until I showed them what the game does on it's own, until they finally believed me.

 

Do you think Shigeru Miyamoto envisioned kids completing SMB in under 5 minutes? Of course not. There are countless examples from Atari to Nintendo where over exhuberant and/or bored kids discovered things in these games that the programmers never intended. Bugs, glitches, anomalies, etc.

 

Dragster played on a heavy sixer or a light sixer or a 4 switch, a Vader, a junior, a Coleco Gemini, a Sears model, with an original hex joystick, a newer joystick, etc. DOZENS of variables!

 

There is no way that a couple of computer guys are ever going to convince me that there is no reasonable doubt here. It's not crystal clear (YET) as it was with Freeway and Barnstorming.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

After insulting Mingy Jongo and me first, you are now evading the answer to my request.

 

No further comment necessary.

[CapitanClassic]

Just making sure my math is right here, but the reason all possible cases cannit be tested is that the possible permutations are in the range of 18 trillion.

 

6 possible joystick states.

Button UP/Down * Joystick Left/Neutral/Right

 

30 frames per second when JOY status is checked * 5.5ish seconds.

 

165 P 6 = 18 trillionish

 

I dont think it is necessary to test all test cases, because Todd already proved himself a liar by stating he started in 2nd gear, which the game code shows is impossible.

[Supergun]

After insulting Mingy Jongo and me first, you are now evading the answer to my request.

 

No further comment necessary.

I NEVER insulted either of you. If anything, I began by COMPLIMENTING you.

Did you even READ what I wrote? Or did you skim it & make false assumptions?

 

Furthermore; Are you BLIND?

 

SCROLL UP.

Two posts. One by you, one my Jongo.

Starting at 3:12am (Jongo states 5.57 as the optimal time & you state 5.54 in the next post)

 

TWO DIFFERENT TIMES GIVEN BY TWO DIFFERENT EXPERTS. One post right after the other. AND DON'T EDIT IT OUT NOW!!!

 

Are we done here?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

TWO DIFFERENT TIMES GIVEN BY TWO DIFFERENT EXPERTS. One post right after the other. AND DON'T EDIT IT OUT NOW!!!

 

Are we done here?

No need to edit anything.

 

Maybe you should really try to reread and UNDERSTAND (does shouting work for you?) my post from above.

 

Hint: There is a reason given why the times differ.