Scrabble | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Scrabble:: News:: Re: Jilted Hasbro CEO Laughs Coldly As Scrabble Destroys Another Relationship

bobxyzp — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:11:23 +0000

I was just about to post this! Gotta love the Onion.

Thread: Scrabble:: News:: Jilted Hasbro CEO Laughs Coldly As Scrabble Destroys Another Relationship

adamw — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:30:52 +0000

"Bitter, maniacal laughter sounded from the eternal winter of Hasbro CEO Mortimer Z. Hassenfeld's office chambers Monday as yet another relationship fell to the diabolical machinations of his company's popular board game Scrabble." A hard truth revealed!

New Image for Scrabble

chaosbreaker — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:01:54 +0000

by chaosbreaker

"Ask Championship Player" -- getting sugestions from Quackle. www.qua...

]]>

New Image for Scrabble

chaosbreaker — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:20:28 +0000

by chaosbreaker

Quackle, open source Scrabble AI does not come with the official board...

]]>

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: How Much is a Bingo Worth?

chrisjwmartin — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:24:22 +0000

by chrisjwmartin

Randy Cox wrote:
So what I think I'm seeing is that the individual player gets about 50 extra points per bingo AND that the board as a whole only gets a 40 point advantage. Therefore, I'm guessing that the opponent suffers those extra lost 10 points. Thus, the bingoing player should net a 60 point advantage, right (50+the other player's loss of 10)? I guess I could argue the other side that the non-bingo player still scores about average but that the bingoing player also has lower scoring turns either before (setting up for) or after (due to new random letters) the bingo. Thoughts?

Perhaps I've misunderstood your methodology, but to me it would appear that the 10-point gap can't be explained by the bingoing player having bad surrounding turns, since you have already established that the bingoing player scores 50 points more across the game per bingo. That 50 points already includes any bad surrounding turns.

What you're saying is that, where a is the score of all (both) players, b is the bingoing player's score, c is the competing player's score, n is the number of bingos the bingoing player scores and x is the effect on the competing player's score of each bingo:

[c] a = b + c
a + 40n = (b + 50n) + (c + xn)

a + 40n = (b + c) + (50n + xn)
40n = 50n + xn
40 = 50 + x
-10 = x[/c]

I think that that proves that your initial hypothesis, that the competing player loses 10 points for every bingo that is played, is correct.

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: How Much is a Bingo Worth?

Whymme — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:46:05 +0000

by Whymme

You should have added a dummy variable, indicating who plays. If the bingos are mostly played by the same person, and that person scores significantly better than the other person, it might just be possible that the bingo player is better at the game than the opponent, and that his or her scoring better has not so much to do with the seven letter words as with the better skill.

I don't believe that laying a seven letter word gives you an advantage of more than 50 points. Because when you lay that word, you open up possibilities for the other player. When you play defensively, that other player may have more problems laying down words or reaching bonus squares. The 50 point bonus is especially put in to encourage players to put down long words and so break open the board. That bonus is a compensation for the added scoring possibilities that you give your opponent.

Reply: Scrabble:: Rules:: Re: Scoring Questions

Whymme — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:36:03 +0000

by Whymme

belial1134 wrote:
Thanks guys. I just thought it seemed like a cheap way to score points if I placed race, then the next player did trace (granted they wouldn't get the scoring bonuses if there were any) but it just seemed like an easy way to get some points...

Actually, it's a poor way to score points. As was said in the thread, it's better to have the T be part of a word that is laid down vertically (if RACE was horizontal). That way both words score, the T scoring twice.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

GreyLord — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:36:31 +0000

by GreyLord

Nice review.

I personally enjoy scrabble, though I find that it's not normally due to how good one's vocabulary which determines how good one is at the game. I find it's more of tile placement, can you place the letters just right to force the others to play theirs so you can get the triple letter score, or double the value of the word?

The dictionary of course always seems to be a must, as arguments will get fierce unless everyone agrees upon a common dictionary between them before hand, but overall, I think Scrabble is a great game of luck and strategy. However, I can understand why MANY will not enjoy scrabble either. Sometimes the luck seems to outweigh the strategy, or at other times the strategy outweighs the luck.

I'm not really one that enjoys a game where another is constantly guessing at what a word is, but everyone has their own way of playing.

I think the review filled in all the facets of the game, which is good, and it fully explained why the user didn't enjoy the game...very pertinent to many others.

He also stated ideas of how it may be improved for those who already have the game and have found they don't like it.

Definately a thumbs up to the reveiw from me.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Whymme — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:26 +0000

by Whymme

kendahlj wrote:
The luck of the draw is huge and it can take too long.

I don't agree. As I said, to counter the "can take too long", use a chess clock.

Luck of the draw is not as huge as you think it is, but you can eliminate it by using a common rack and shared turns. All players play on the same board at the same time, with the same letters. Each turn, all players state how many points they can make, and the person with the highest score gets that score, and his play gets added to the board. Then new letters are drawn and a new turn begins.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

indigopotter — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:46:22 +0000

by indigopotter

Harv wrote:
Apparently Upwords (still in print and cheap) is a better version of Scrabble. The board is smaller than Scrabble's, so fills up within a few turns. The letter tiles can be stacked on top of each other, so that you can put a 'p' on top of 'trail' to make 'pail'. If memory serves, this means that if I put down a high-scoring word, my opponent can score highly by modifying my word.

Technically, you couldn't replace two letters (tr in trail) with one letter (p in pail), but could replace mail with pail ;)

I have Upwords, and before I got Option, was my preferred Scrabble alternative, if I was going to play a tile word game. Letters on the bottom level are worth two points each, and once stacked are only worth one, so going from mail to pail, you'd actually get fewer points with pail, but tiles can be stacked 5 high, so once the stacking gets greater, you can starting racking up points.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Friendless — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:07:56 +0000

by Friendless

WildWords is a good Scrabble-relative which allows you to make long words. Upwords is a good game but I find it about as challenging as Scrabble, and imagine that between experienced players (which I am not one of) that it will become just as tense.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Harv — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:40:09 +0000

by Harv

indigopotter wrote:
Take a look at Option - it rewards long words, not short, obscure ones, and has added strategy in matching colors or flipping tiles. I felt like I was able to "stretch my legs" and think in different ways. It was a fun thrift find for us!

Apparently Upwords (still in print and cheap) is a better version of Scrabble. The board is smaller than Scrabble's, so fills up within a few turns. The letter tiles can be stacked on top of each other, so that you can put a 'p' on top of 'trail' to make 'pail'. If memory serves, this means that if I put down a high-scoring word, my opponent can score highly by modifying my word. This evens the playing field between 'geniuses' like me and what I like to call 'stupid people'. I have two copies of this game and have only played a few times though, so couldn't really compare the feeling of it to Scrabble.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Harv — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:35:30 +0000

by Harv

GROGnads wrote:
:p Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME :surprise:

'Admiral Ackbar' is a proper noun.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Harv — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:31:52 +0000

by Harv

Randy Cox wrote:
This is a roundabout way of asking if you use the US or UK challenge rules. I've never understood the UK one, where you don't lose a turn for a failed challenge, only if you play a bogus word.

Urgh, I've never heard of the official challenge rules - I don't think I've ever read the rulebook to Scrabble, I've just played using the rules hard-wired into my homo sapiens brain.

We just play that if you make a false challenge, you opponent gets all the money under 'Free Parking'. :)

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

GROGnads — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:25:41 +0000

by GROGnads

:p Admiral Ackbar "It's a TRAP!" GAME :surprise:

]]>

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

XanderF — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:14:49 +0000

by XanderF

Friendless wrote:
Of your suggestions:

1) A cheat sheet
2) Use of a Scrabble dictionary
3) Timer
4) Drawing open tiles
5) Exchanging tiles on the board

1, 2 and 3 are regularly done, and 5 is occasionally done. However number 4 is a game-breaker.

As an alternative to '4'...actually, it's more of a replacement for the 'must lose turn to discard/replace'...

...what if that was just part of the turn break? IE., currently a turn is:
- Place your tiles on the board (for points), or discard them outright (no points)
- Draw an equal number of replacement tiles

Instead, change this to:
- Place your tiles on the board (for points)
- Draw a number of replacement tiles equal to those played plus one
- Return any one tile to the bag

Wonder how that would play? I would suppose the inability to dump/refresh entire hand would be limiting, but the ability to make partial fixes to a 'poor' hand might balance that?

What about another alternative - stick with the stock place/draw mechanic, but also allow anyone to, at any point in their turn, draw and replace as many tiles as they want at a cost in points. Say, 10 points for every out-of-order draw/replace. And this doesn't interrupt the turn - they can still continue their turn and place scoring tiles on the board (for example).

This latter would also be a good opportunity for balance. 10 pts for every tile draw/replace for an expert, maybe 5 pt for an amateur, and 1 pt for each tile drawn/replaced for a n00b?

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

chrisjwmartin — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:33:58 +0000

by chrisjwmartin

I would like to point out two things. One, 634th out of 5,388 is a great ranking, putting it in the top 12% of games, even before expansions and games with too few ratings are included. And two, I am not a Scrabble fanboy, but that doesn't stop me from having respect for a solid example of the wordgame genre and for the people who enjoy it.

Oh, and one final point: remember the Fifth Commandment.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Friendless — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:17:04 +0000

by Friendless

kendahlj wrote:
I wonder why Scrabble is only ranked 634th...

Frankly, it's because most of the users at this site really don't get it. However your review has been read by a whole bunch of fanboys who do get it, and they don't agree with your opinion.

Now, why would I be so mean as to say you don't get it? Of your suggestions:

1) A cheat sheet
2) Use of a Scrabble dictionary
3) Timer
4) Drawing open tiles
5) Exchanging tiles on the board

1, 2 and 3 are regularly done, and 5 is occasionally done. However number 4 is a game-breaker. It would hugely slow the game down as people needed to find two words in 17 letters rather than one word in 7. Good players would be aiming for a bingo every turn rather than just a couple a game. Your mom would still whup you.

Given that your advice on changes to the game is the equivalent to a 10 year old advising the president, it's no wonder you've been treated with mirth and derision. Don't play the game if you don't like it, but don't come into fanboy territory spouting words of wisdom if you're not prepared to take some flak.

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: Anybody got the Deluxe "Lazy Susan" edition to unload?

smitty1966 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:14:25 +0000

by smitty1966

Thanks Chris- if no one has an old copy to get rid of, I might have to buy one new.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

indigopotter — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:06:08 +0000

by indigopotter

Take a look at Option - it rewards long words, not short, obscure ones, and has added strategy in matching colors or flipping tiles. I felt like I was able to "stretch my legs" and think in different ways. It was a fun thrift find for us!

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

kendahlj — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:28:30 +0000

by kendahlj

Am I to understand that because Scrabble has been around a long time and has "staying power", everyone should love it? That makes little sense...but then again Monopoly has been around nearly as long and is the top ranked game at this website.

To each his own and Scrabble will always have its fanboys. For the record, I never said it was a bad game or that I hated it. I just don't enjoy it and I'd rather not play it when I have so many other games that enjoy more. The luck of the draw is huge and it can take too long. I wonder why Scrabble is only ranked 634th...maybe people enjoy different things in a game and maybe a few people even enjoy games that don't necessarily make you feel stupid if you don't have a huge vocabulary.

TiGrr wrote:
chrisjwmartin wrote:
Overall, chess is just too dull for me these days. It needs some modernizing. It needs to be spiced up. It's still a classic. But it's aged - it just doesn't have the staying power of a game like Railroad Tycoon, which has been out for FOUR YEARS!!!

Ahahahaha! You sir, have made my day :)

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

TiGrr — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:46:57 +0000

by TiGrr

chrisjwmartin wrote:
Overall, chess is just too dull for me these days. It needs some modernizing. It needs to be spiced up. It's still a classic. But it's aged - it just doesn't have the staying power of a game like Railroad Tycoon, which has been out for FOUR YEARS!!!

Ahahahaha! You sir, have made my day :)

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Whymme — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:12:20 +0000

by Whymme

kendahlj wrote:
1) Vocabulary - as a journalist and avid reader I think I know a lot of words. But they aren't weird words. In order to do really well in this game (or to play competitively) you need to know some of those more obscure words. You really need to know all the two-letter words especially.

As people said, cheat sheets.
Something that I'd like to try sometimes is using a puzzle dictionary. Here in the Netherlands you can buy crossword puzzle dictionaries; you can look up the description of a word (as given in crosswords) and then the words that apply. If someone puts down a word, he has to look it up in the puzzle dictionary - and he can only find the word if he knows the description.
Problem is that the puzzle dictionaries that I found don't have that comprehensive a vocabulary, actually.

kendahlj wrote:
2) Time - playing against someone who takes forever to play a word can be excruciating.

An hourglass would be nice - but a chess clock is better.

kendahlj wrote:
3) Luck of the draw - if you've ever drawn a handful of vowels you know how frustrating this can be. And if you exchange them, you score zero points and when playing against someone evenly matched, that's often a tough penalty to come back from. Furthermore, if you draw the majority of the high scoring letters and the Ss, you will usually win.

There are ways of playing in which you don't get hit too hard by unlucky drawing. A bit of rack management is required; just try to keep a few vowels and a few consonants on your rack at the end of your turn. Even if that means not taking the highest possible score in a round; by taking a lower score but keeping one or two vowels and consonants, you have a better chance of scoring again in the next round - and getting a better score over two rounds than if you just took the maximal score in one round, and then had to change letters.

There is an interesting Scrabble variation in which all players play with the same letters. There is a common board, and each player gets the same letters. All players puzzle about possible words at the same time, and when that time is over, each one has to say how much he would score. The player with the highest score places his word on the board and gets those points. Ties can be resolved by choosing the word at random, by coinflip or dice roll, and giving all participants who had a high score, that number of points.
The disadvantage of this variant is that tactical plays (not opening bonus fields, rack management) are not rewarded. It is all about the points in this particular round, and consequences be damned.Still, it is a nice alternative way to play Scrabble, and theoretically it could be played, over the internet, with thouands of people.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Whymme — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:52:48 +0000

by Whymme

bombcar wrote:
Unlike Go there's no easy way to handicap the better player.

The better player starts with -100 points would be a good one. Or instead of 100 points, just the difference between the two scores from last game (assuming a two player game).

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

chrisjwmartin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:52:43 +0000

by chrisjwmartin

Chess is a game that my dad wants to play every time he comes to visit. He grew up playing the game and still enjoys it. I, on the other hand, have moved on to bigger and better games, like Guillotine. But I oblige him, since that is the kind of supercilious son I am.

This visit, we played a game. I fell behind quickly when he took my queen within a few turns and due solely to bad luck (I had all of my pawns taken before I even got one of his), I never caught up. Hardly two words were exchanged between us the entire game and I felt a bit unsatisfied as we packed up the game. Chess is no longer fun for me.

The game is simple - move your pieces and take your opponent's pieces on a board. I won't go into further details on the rules, as there are plenty of other reviews that cover that and I think by now, everyone knows how to play, even if some of us don't know how to play very well.

There are certain problems that hurt this game for me:

1) Thought - as a hotshot marketing executive, who came up with the Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man, and avid contributor to board games websites, I think I know a lot. Not a lot of anything in particular, but I'm sure I'm basically a genius, mostly because my dad tells me I am after he beats me at chess again, even if he does have this weird smile on his face when he does so. But I don't know irrelevant stuff like "how to play chess". In order to do really well in this game (or to play competitively) it turns out you need to know pointless things like how to play the game. You really need to know how the pieces move especially - watch out for those crazy knights.

2) Time - playing against someone who takes the time to work out how to show up my uselessness can be excruciating.

3) Luck - if you've ever been fools mated you know how frustrating this can be. Furthermore, if you keep your good pieces and take your opponent's good pieces, you will usually win. This is clearly a broken strategy.

So can this game be fixed? Here's a couple of things I suggest that might improve game play:

1) A cheat sheet - print out a copy of all the piece moves and give it to the players. This would even the playing field immensely. Maybe give everyone a list of openings to consult at whim. In fact, screw it: why shouldn't everyone get a chess computer? It's just not an even playing field for me to play someone who's bothered to learn how to get really good at the game.

2) Use of a rulebook - the challenge rule which lets you challenge your opponent's move is pretty good. I enjoy making an illegal move and then holding my breath to see if my dad is going to challenge me. He usually does and once in a while I luck out and it actually is a legal move because of some weird "onpason" rule. (That's another one they should put on the cheat sheet.) But in a sense, that also hurts the game. I should never be rewarded for making an illegal move, though I still do it, because cheating my dad isn't really cheating because he's so old and only plays games that are totally beneath me. So I suggest allowing the use of a rulebook X number of times per game. If you have some decent pieces but can't find a way to use them because you're a crap chess player, toss in a rulebook token and grab the rulebook and see if you can find a move. We've actually used this variant and it's enjoyable, if you don't use it every time. It's possible that the "Deep Blue makes all my moves" variant (see point 1) will make this one a bit obsolete.

3) Timer - adding a three-minute timer for the whole game is a must. My dad hates it but he will take forever without it. The fact that I couldn't come up with a decent move if I had a million years, let alone a fourth minute, isn't really the point here. The point is that I don't play games with my dad because I love and respect him and want to spend time with him: I play because I want to beat him into the dirt and prove that I am a better man than he is.

4) Choosing spare pieces - I've never tried this but I think there might be something to it. Have a sideboard with several (10 maybe) pieces on it. After you've lost a piece, you don't pick randomly from the bag, you pick from the available pieces. This would change the game drastically, but it would ensure I got some extra queens after I lost all those pawns. It might also introduce additional elements of strategy, as you could plan ahead more than one turn knowing that you could play as badly as you liked and you could still get a queen out of it. Please don't take my admission that I am not good enough plan ahead more than one turn the wrong way - ultimately, isn't there something deeply suspicious about someone who wants to actually plan how to win a game? It's probably related to that whole taking time to work out a strategy thing.

5) Swapping pieces on the board - I played a house rule with someone once who allowed you to convert their queen to your side if you still had yours. This wasn't great as I usually lose my queen before I remember this variant is in effect (maybe I should add it to the rulebook???) but it was interesting. Maybe also allow exchanging any piece on the board. Including the king, though it's possibly I would have lost my king through normal play before I remembered the rule.

Overall, chess is just too dull for me these days. It needs some modernizing. It needs to be spiced up. It's still a classic. But it's aged - it just doesn't have the staying power of a game like Railroad Tycoon, which has been out for FOUR YEARS!!! I think playing the game is a decent mind challenge, like a logic problem. But I never liked those either, because those are not for people as clever and enlightened as me either - in fact, I bet my dad likes retarded stuff like that too. Spice chess up with some variants and while I'd still rather play Guillotine, I could at least stomach this one a little better...

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

kendahlj — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:43:27 +0000

by kendahlj

Geosphere wrote:
Quick review synopsis:

I lost. Game must suck.

I win regularly. And I never said it sucked. I just said I don't enjoy it much anymore for the reasons I listed.

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: Anybody got the Deluxe "Lazy Susan" edition to unload?

northwesterner — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:06:02 +0000

by northwesterner

I found the deluxe "Onyx" edition at a Borders(or barnes and noble, I can't remember which). And it had the lazy susan. Little spendy, but decent quality.

Thread: Scrabble:: General:: How Much is a Bingo Worth?

Randy Cox — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:42:12 +0000

by Randy Cox

Just how much value is there in playing all seven letters from your rack in one turn?

The answer seems obvious--50. After all, you get a 50 point bonus for doing so. But there are plenty of times where some shorter word generates more points than a bingo, so the 50 extra points doesn't necessarily mean you performed 50 points better than you would have without that play.

You may play seven 1-point letters and get something like 58 points. But you may have been able to play four of those common tiles elsewhere and get 20 or so (e.g. parallel words). In that case, the bingo was worth 38. Right?

I really don't know. I do know that S/He Who Plays More Bingos tends to win more often. But just how much is that big bonus worth in real points?

Well, I keep track of our plays and went back and analyzed our scores for all games in May (30 days, 30 games). One way to look at the value of the bingo might be to see how much difference it makes in the final outcome of the game. Makes sense, right. If the winning player tends to win by about 80 points, how much of that was the (often, but not certain) extra bingo?

]]>
According to the numbers, our average game was decided by about 66 points plus an extra 22 for each excess bingo the opponent had. In this case, we're just assuming that one player is going to win by about 66 points. Well, that's a failing assumption, since a good portion of that 66 points is made up from bingos. Therefore, I'll tentatively say this one isn't much of a valid way to look at things. (You'll note that the R-squared figure is pretty low, too).

So let's just tackle it the way that seems most logical. Look at each person's score and number of bingos. That should tell us something.

]]>
And this does show that a bingo is worth about 50 points atop our base average bingoless score of 295. This sure is looking like the right answer.

But what effect does your bingo have on the overall board. I mean, if you have seven great letters, what are the odds that your opponent will have great letters? Probably not that great. As such, your great play might be followed up by a sub-par play by your opponent. So what happens when we graph total board score (both players combined) against total number of bingos?

]]>
This seems to say that the board gains only about 40 points for each bingo played.

So what I think I'm seeing is that the individual player gets about 50 extra points per bingo AND that the board as a whole only gets a 40 point advantage. Therefore, I'm guessing that the opponent suffers those extra lost 10 points. Thus, the bingoing player should net a 60 point advantage, right (50+the other player's loss of 10)? I guess I could argue the other side that the non-bingo player still scores about average but that the bingoing player also has lower scoring turns either before (setting up for) or after (due to new random letters) the bingo. Thoughts?

I realize that the numbers don't directly show me this. It does show that a one-bingo advantage game should be about a 89-point victory. Is 60 of that spread made up of the extra bingo? Are the other 29 points just the typical swing in a game score? I really don't know. I do know that our average game had a 0.6 bingo differential in favor of the winner and an average spread of 80.2 points. Let's see (from the first graph): 66.7+.6*22.5 = 80. That's about right, but you'd expect it to be, wouldn't you?

Anyway, I don't have an answer, but I'm going to say that a bingo is worth about 60 points. No, 50. No, 40. No, 22 1/2. Yeah, that's it. 22.5. The rest is just luck and non-bingo skill. :)

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Geosphere — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:35:29 +0000

by Geosphere

bombcar wrote:
there's no easy way to handicap the better player.

Sure there is.

You only get 90% of your score. Or 80, or as needed.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Geosphere — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:34:36 +0000

by Geosphere

Quick review synopsis:

I lost. Game must suck.

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: Anybody got the Deluxe "Lazy Susan" edition to unload?

smitty1966 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:28:26 +0000

by smitty1966

Thanks for the reply Jon, but I need tthe letter tiles (most of them) for the project too.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

bombcar — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:13:01 +0000

by bombcar

The online "regular" games actually work pretty well - the two letter words are listed, and it won't let you play an invalid word, and turns can take as long as you want.

However, it does become un-fun. Unlike Go there's no easy way to handicap the better player.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

wwscrispin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:04:33 +0000

by wwscrispin

I think it is one of the better classic games so maybe "salvaged" is a strong word. I have used some of these suggestions and I do think they remove some of the annoyances from the game.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Randy Cox — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:58:13 +0000

by Randy Cox

Harv wrote:
Randy Cox wrote:
Harv wrote:
My wife and I play without any dictionaries - Scrabble or otherwise. If you play a word, you have to be able to give a definition of it yourself, otherwise you can't use it.

That wouldn't work for me. I'd plunk down "CUSTROID" and say, "Small egg pie served is a special dish." Or something like that and reach in the bag to draw 7 new tiles after recording my bingo. :)

Yeah, well, my wife and I are morons so that'd be fine. :)

Actually, we do allow dictionaries for one purpose only: to prove that your word exists and that it means what you say it does! I.e., if I put down 'custroid' and claim it's a delicious dessert eaten exclusively by people called Randy, and it turns out to be a native american tribe (try googling 'custroid'), I couldn't use it.

Mmm, custroid...

So if it's a word and you got the definition wrong, you lose the challenge. But if it is a word and your wife challenges and you actually got the definition right, does she lose a turn? In other words, do you use challenge rules, or just force the person to "play fair".

This is a roundabout way of asking if you use the US or UK challenge rules. I've never understood the UK one, where you don't lose a turn for a failed challenge, only if you play a bogus word.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Harv — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:51:16 +0000

by Harv

Randy Cox wrote:
Harv wrote:
My wife and I play without any dictionaries - Scrabble or otherwise. If you play a word, you have to be able to give a definition of it yourself, otherwise you can't use it.

That wouldn't work for me. I'd plunk down "CUSTROID" and say, "Small egg pie served is a special dish." Or something like that and reach in the bag to draw 7 new tiles after recording my bingo. :)

Yeah, well, my wife and I are morons so that'd be fine. :)

Actually, we do allow dictionaries for one purpose only: to prove that your word exists and that it means what you say it does! I.e., if I put down 'custroid' and claim it's a delicious dessert eaten exclusively by people called Randy, and it turns out to be a native american tribe (try googling 'custroid'), I couldn't use it.

Mmm, custroid...

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Randy Cox — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:27:47 +0000

by Randy Cox

Harv wrote:
My wife and I play without any dictionaries - Scrabble or otherwise. If you play a word, you have to be able to give a definition of it yourself, otherwise you can't use it.

That wouldn't work for me. I'd plunk down "CUSTROID" and say, "Small egg pie served is a special dish." Or something like that and reach in the bag to draw 7 new tiles after recording my bingo. :)

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: Anybody got the Deluxe "Lazy Susan" edition to unload?

Randy Cox — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:22:53 +0000

by Randy Cox

Yeah, I'd love one for making a Montage game, too.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Harv — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:13:11 +0000

by Harv

My wife and I play without any dictionaries - Scrabble or otherwise. If you play a word, you have to be able to give a definition of it yourself, otherwise you can't use it.

Played for fun, Scrabble should be a test of your vocabulary, not a test of your dictionary. The only reason I can see to use a dictionary is if you have real trouble with spelling, i.e. are dyslexic etc.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

kendahlj — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:47:44 +0000

by kendahlj

Great suggestions, Randy. I especially like the idea of using a chess clock. I think I am going to get one and keep it with the Scrabble game. I really think that the length is the biggest killer for me and this would really increase the enjoyment.

I do think you get better at this game the more you play (same with any game I guess) and that's another problem for me since the only time I play is with my mom.

I will probably introduce Scrabble to my kids eventually since I think it's a brain game, meaning the more you play, the smarter you get.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

nedpatrick — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:41:01 +0000

by nedpatrick

My wife and I usually play with an open dictionary rule, i.e. either one of use can look through the scrabble dictionary whenever we want. I like this way because not only does it even the field but you actually learn the definitions to those bizarre words.

We've also tried playing without a board, which I enjoyed. I've always wanted to try some of the wrap-around board variants.

Reply: Scrabble:: General:: Re: Anybody got the Deluxe "Lazy Susan" edition to unload?

quozl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:40:25 +0000

by quozl

I have one without tiles.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

thepackrat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:19:53 +0000

by thepackrat

Sure. Bananagrams and Typo.

B>

Thread: Scrabble:: General:: Anybody got the Deluxe "Lazy Susan" edition to unload?

smitty1966 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:17:58 +0000

by smitty1966

I'm looking for the revolving board edition for trade or sale. (I'd love to find it at a thrift store). Even if a few letter tiles are missing, I'd still take it. (This is for a project I'm working on).
Thanks!
-Smitty

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

Randy Cox — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:02:01 +0000

by Randy Cox

We play every night these days and, interestingly, we use some of the variants you mention.

1) We each have some cheat sheets. We mostly use the 2-letter cheat sheet which I uploaded to the files section here. We also printed the cross-tables cheat sheet which is quite useful, especially for the 3-letter words.

2) We play with dictionary access at all times. I used to never do this, but now we do it because it works--you learn a lot of stuff. Now, we don't go hunting for words. We look at our racks and, if we think something might be a word, we look it up. Kills the fake word strategy but, as you state, that's rewarding chicanery rather than teaching you new Scrabble words.

3) We try to move along. Our games average around an hour (2-player; much much faster with more players). If it's a real problem, a chess clock works well (and we have used that for awhile). If you give each player 25 minutes, as they do in tournament Scrabble, it moves players along (10 points per minute, rounded up, are deducted if you go over your time allotment). When we played with a clock, our average game length was closer to 45 minutes.

As to the one-point tiles, they are the best for producing 7-letter words. Granted, if six of them are vowels (a problem I had for three turns last night, but then my wife had the problem later), it's tough. But that's where the cheat sheet ("vowel dumps" section) comes in handy. Nonetheless, remember that trading letters for 0 points is usually better than playing two of those tiles for 3 points and still not significantly altering your rack contents. Turns of 0, 20, and 20 is much preferable to 3, 4, and 18 as you slowly dig out of that vowel hole.

As to esses and power tiles (J,K,Q,X,Z) determining the winner--we haven't seen this to be the case. Granted, those esses and blanks help--a lot--but they aren't the major factor in winning. In most of our games, victory goes to the player with the most bingos (7-letter words). This past month, in 30 games, when one player out-bingoed the other, the one with more bingoes won 11 times and lost twice. And if the bingo difference was 2 or more, it was a lock (7-0). So, trading letters to get that bingo is often the favorable option. Better yet, play one of those vowel dumps (MIAOU or OIDIA are good ones) and get some decent points while essentially cycling through your rack.

Anyway, I don't think of it as a vocabulary game (my vocab isn't all that great and I'm a horrible speller). It's a math game where you use combinations of straight and curvy tokens to generate points. After all, that's why the Malaysian players who can't speak English excel at the game--they approach it as a math game with special tokens, not unlike Ra or any other game we play.

I hope y'all give it a try with the modifications and that you begin to enjoy it. It's a classic.

Review: Scrabble:: A classic, but can this game be salvaged?

kendahlj — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:29:21 +0000

by kendahlj

Scrabble is a game that my mom wants to play every time she comes to visit. She grew up playing the game and still enjoys it. I, on the other hand, have moved on to bigger and better games. But I oblige her, since she is always keen to learn a new game and I can get some of my unplayed games to the table when she visits.

This visit, we played a game. I fell behind quickly when she used all 7 letters on her first turn and due to poor tile drawing (I had all 1 point letters for the first five turns), I never caught up. Hardly two words were exchanged between us the entire game and I felt a bit unsatisfied as we packed up the game. Scrabble is no longer fun for me.

The game is simple - pick letter tiles and play words on a board. I won't go into further details on the rules, as there are plenty of other reviews that cover that and I think by now, everyone knows how to play.

There are certain problems that hurt this game for me:

1) Vocabulary - as a journalist and avid reader I think I know a lot of words. But they aren't weird words. In order to do really well in this game (or to play competitively) you need to know some of those more obscure words. You really need to know all the two-letter words especially.

2) Time - playing against someone who takes forever to play a word can be excruciating.

3) Luck of the draw - if you've ever drawn a handful of vowels you know how frustrating this can be. And if you exchange them, you score zero points and when playing against someone evenly matched, that's often a tough penalty to come back from. Furthermore, if you draw the majority of the high scoring letters and the Ss, you will usually win.

So can this game be fixed? Here's a couple of things I suggest that might improve game play:

1) A cheat sheet - print out a copy of all the two-player words and give it to the players. This would even the playing field immensely.

2) Use of a Scrabble dictionary - the challenge rule which lets you challenge your opponent's word is pretty good. I enjoy putting a false word down and then holding my breath to see if my mom is going to challenge me. She usually does and once in awhile I luck out and it actually is a word. But in a sense, that also hurts the game. I should never be rewarded for guessing a word. So I suggest allowing the use of a dictionary X number of times per game. If you have some decent letters but can't find a word, toss in a dictionary token and grab the dictionary and see if you can find a word. We've actually used this variant and it's enjoyable, if you don't use it every time.

3) Timer -- adding a three-minute timer is a must. My mom hates it but she will take forever without it.

4) Drawing open tiles - I've never tried this but I think there might be something to it. Have a sideboard with several (10 maybe) tiles face up. After you've played your tiles, you don't pick randomly from the bag, you pick from the face up tiles. This would change the game drastically, but it would ensure you would never be stuck with all vowels or no vowels. It might also introduce additional elements of strategy, as you could plan ahead more than one turn knowing what tiles were available to you after you'd played. I think you would have to ditch the exchange your tiles for new tiles rule (unless these were picked from the bag).

5) Exchanging tiles on the board - I played a house rule with someone once who allowed you to take the blank if you had the tile it was interesting. This wasn't great but interesting. Maybe also allow exchanging any tile on the board, as long as the word remained the same.

Overall, Scrabble is just too dull for me these days. It needs some modernizing. It needs to be spiced up. It's still a classic. But it's aged. I think playing the game is a decent mind challenge, like a crossword puzzle. But I never liked those either. Spice the game up with some variants and while I'd still rather play Railroad Tycoon, I could at least stomach this one a little better...

Reply: Scrabble:: News:: Re: Scraboulous Back?

bombcar — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:46:34 +0000

by bombcar

Lexulous works but the rules are now different enough from Scrabble that it really doesn't feel like the same game.

New Image for Scrabble

heirodule — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:21:13 +0000

by heirodule

Pillows, made by a friend. There are more in the bag.

]]>

New Image for Scrabble

K_I_T — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:43:21 +0000

by K_I_T

Scrabble - Deluxe Travel Edition

]]>

New Image for Scrabble

Randy Cox — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:07:27 +0000

by Randy Cox

Wheres Waldo - 1977 board w Protiles and Original Dark Wood

]]>

New Image for Scrabble

Randy Cox — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:00:14 +0000

by Randy Cox

Protiles

]]>

Thread: Scrabble:: Strategy:: Quack, Quack -- Using Quackle as an Analysis Tool

Randy Cox — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:34:12 +0000

by Randy Cox

I first met my wife, Rachel, in a Charades game. A year later, when we started sparking (you know, you can learn all of life's necessary lessons and proper terminology by watching The Andy Griffith Show)... Where was I, oh yeah, our first "dates" were playing games of Scrabble at a convention. I think she won the first four games we played and was losing the fifth with four "I"s on her rack when we abandoned that game. Point is, we like Scrabble.

Well, since we got married, we have occasionally played the game but recently, we've started playing a lot. In the past 34 days, we've played Scrabble on 31 of them and on another day, we played Presidential Scrabble instead. I made the mistake of reading Word Freak and got interested in the nuances of this game. My wife was more than happy to play against me (she's the superior player, though she will never admit that).

First thing we did was to dispense with challenges. We allow each other to look up words to see if they are valid before laying the tiles. In a cutthroat game, I wouldn't do this (after all, I'm a very good bluffer) but when you're a) playing casually and b) trying to get better at the game, playing bogus words or guessing as to whether something is a word or not isn't very helpful. The next thing I did was to download Quackle, a nifty free computer version of Scrabble (thanks to BGG for providing me with that link). I would use that program to do a post-mortem on the games and see where I could have gotten a bingo (using all seven-letters in my rack).

So, after two-dozen games, I asked my wife to jot down her tiles before each play. Then, I would go back and enter these into Quackle so that I could get analysis on both of our plays. After a couple of games, I went so far as to ask her to enter her racks directly into the computer during the game, along with her plays. This slowed down our games a little, but the ability to analyze games was worth it.

And that's what this post is about--our one-week experiment with logging the games and analyzing our results.

Now, Quackle gives you some interesting things to look at. For each turn of the game, you can analyze the "best" play based on the computer looking ahead two turns (your opponent plus your next move). For instance, I may see the word CALVE and play it, but the computer may look ahead two turns and say that the net effect of me playing CALVE is not so good. Even though it's worth 19 points to me, if you factor in the letters left in my rack and the board position and the tiles remaining in the bag, it may be worth only 13.3 net points over the next two turns. The word VITAE might have been worth 38.8 points (raw score of 34). Thus, my play, in the mind of Quackle, is 25.5 points worse than optimal.

This is fascinating stuff. Well, to me it is. To my wife (and me) much of the fun of the analysis is to find words you missed, particularly bingos. Seeing that the software comes up with a word like VITAE or HABU or BENDWISE isn't really all that engaging. But seeing that you just couldn't come up with the anagram ARSENAL, even though you kept seeing ARSE is where you start to find your weaknesses. This analysis tool has shown us many things.

Here's a recap of our first six games this past week. (you may need to click on the "+" to see the image if you're interested)

]]>

I don't expect you to digest all this, or even read it. But what is on each section is the final board (Rachel in red, me in blue), the final score including remaining letters for one player, breakdown of vowels and troublesome letters each player got, and then the stats. Percent Efficiency is my favorite calculation. See, if you look at how far off of the "best" choice we were over the course of a game, you can see how efficient we were at finding the anagrams. For instance, in that first game, I scored 325 points and left 196 on the table, so to speak. My wife left 223 on the table, but scored 362. So if you compare score to score plus missed opportunities, we both came out with a 63% efficiency in that first game. I also listed something I call "Perfect." Every now and then, I luck up and find the same word that the computer considers "best." I call that a perfect turn. Because it's a lot easier to do that at the end of the game, I also calculate "Perfect 1st 10" meaning number of perfects found during the first 10 rounds of the game. That's the number in parentheses.

I'm not often perfect (13 times in the first 6 games). But only 5 of those have come during the first 10 rounds of those 6 games (5 out of 60 plays, I found the "best" solution). Rachel found the perfect spot in 9 of those 60 plays. And finally, I list the three biggest "misses" we each had during the course of the game. Sometimes, this is missing a bingo. Sometimes it's playing TAXI instead of GAULT. The missed bingos are much more interesting. And agonizing.

So, over the first six games, I noticed some patterns. First off, I just don't know a lot of words: VITAE, UVEAL, MEZE, VALKYR, ZYME, VITAMER, ALDRIN, KAMI. What's all that? I don't feel so bad when I miss one of those. But I noticed that I often want to cycle through letters to get a fresh rack. Apparently, that's a rookie mistake. I view each turn as a new game, for the most part. I want to see what new gems are out there. So I play CLAWING, using six of my tiles, when WAD and a remaining rack of CGLN? (?=blank) is the far better move. I also tended to be mesmerized by the power tiles (Q, X, J, and Z), though I rarely used them optimally. I also dropped blanks for little gain far too often. I also fear the C. I really need to study up on a lot of "C" words, particularly those ending in C, as far too often I just avoided parts of the board with that vile letter sitting there.

My wife says that she's begun to look to use the ING and S differently. Rather than looking only for words ending in those strings, she looks to jumble them up more. This is particularly true when she has both--as is evidenced by her play of SIBLING, rather than trying to find a hook for BILLINGS, her first thought (game 5).

But most of what I've noticed is that I notice more. I actually thought of ETUI last night, even though I have no idea what the word means. I had remembered it as a good vowel dump from the cheat sheet we use. This is happening more often these days, so I guess practice does pay off. I've also learned not to fear the Q because of the silly word QI that gets you out of so many jams.

What I mostly learned, though, is that good letters help a hell of a lot. My wife won the first five games (one was very close) and I never had more blanks or esses than she did. That doesn't mean she was lucky, because she does show a better efficiency than I. But it does show that if you get good tiles, you will do better. In our sixth game, which I finally won, I just got great letters. It was hard not to see some of the words available to me (I had an 83% efficiency).

Anyway, we worked through these six games and then yesterday, our first ever Netflix video arrived in the mail--Word Wars, a documentary about Scrabble. So we played our seventh game with that in the background.

For this game, I'm showing more detail. After all, it's our final game in the series and I happened to win again. But I didn't deserve it.

In the image below, I include the normal data plus a list of our racks and word plays by round. The words in the middle are the suggested "best" options by the 2-play quick algorithm. I highlighted the leader in bold face and you'll see that I was losing (rightly so) up until the final turn. You'll also notice that Rachel made "perfect" moves (no "best" alternative shown, because she found the best) four times to my two. We each had one bingo. By all rights, you'd think she should have won. She even had a much better efficiency than I did.

]]>

So, what gives? Well, I used Quackle to do a longer analysis. See, you can generate reports based on full-blown evaluations. It can do a post-game analysis where at each turn, the game is played out several hundred times to see which words win more often than not, regardless of how "good" the move was based on the 2-ply lookahead.

When I ran that analysis, I saw that I blew my opening move and from that point on, my chance of winning was always less than 50% on each "best" play. I also found that the full simulation changed eight of my (and 8 of Rachel's) best plays. Nonetheless, I had little chance to win (even if I had made that first proper bingo). That is, until the next to last turn when Rachel just had crap to work with. When she had AINNO to my DEI, and a five point lead, it was over. My final play would catch her and the deduction for having tiles left in hand would mean she couldn't win. So, bad luck and my one extra turn (I started and ended the game) were the deciding factors. Not, in this case, game play ability.

Here's a picture of the chance we had of winning during each turn of the game. You can see that Rachel's "actual" line hugs closely to her "best" line for most of the game, meeting at three points (one of her "perfects" disappeared when the simulation chose NINJA over the earlier snap decision "best" pick of JO). My lines meet only once (WHEE). I do question this type of analysis, though, as I just can't see refusing my HIVELESS bingo in favor of "HI" at position 2N for 20 points. Maybe the numerous simulations showed an 8.73% better chance of winning that way, but I just can't turn down those 64 points. It's just wrong.

]]>

Anyway, thanks for indulging me in this little bit of analysis. I suspect that if you're not a big fan of Scrabble, you stopped reading a long time ago. But if you do enjoy the game and you'd like to see where you come up short, using Quackle might be something you'd enjoy.

P.S. We played again after this series was over--without logging board positions or racks. You know, we played the old fashioned way, just keeping score. I won the game, amazingly enough, and we finished in 62 minutes which was a good bit quicker than our prior game. And while I was a little interested in whether or not I missed a bingo, I can't say that I missed the Quackle analysis all that much. So, while it's interesting to see where you missed, it's also quite enjoyable just to play the game and see where the ~~chips~~ tiles fall. If you're interested in getting a lot better, go with Quackle. If you play with your family to kill a little time, maybe the extra effort isn't worth it. It all depends on just how much of a geek you are. :)

New Image for Scrabble

echelon — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:09:59 +0000

by echelon

Board of the Greek edition

]]>

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Why Scrabble is not a geeks choice

silasthecat — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 06:58:41 +0000

by silasthecat

I want to throw in my recommendation to providing all players with an accessible short word list.

Online scrabble allows everyone to access the two letter word list, this is very important in leveling the playing field, both for new players and those like myself who know the lists (I want to win because I played better strategy, not because I knew more tricks).

While there's an undeniable advantage to knowing obscure 3+ letter scrabble words, the two letter options have figured into EVERY game I've played. Assuming uneven skills of players, I would consider an accessible word list to be a requirement for potentially fun play.

That said, Scrabble has its issues, and this review did a good job of outlining them. I don't agree with several points (I would advise against playing any word game if one is hung up on "optimum play", a state which is virtually impossible in a system that utilizes an entire language of options). I am a wordsmith and a competitive gamer, but I want to play games that are fun for everyone, and in Scrabble it's very tough to find even competition.

However, one-on-one with a word list and an agreed upon dictionary, Scrabble has its time and place.

Reply: Scrabble:: Sessions:: Re: Scrabble on the XBox

col_w — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:11:48 +0000

by col_w

Randy Cox wrote:
you won't see each other's racks and you'll have a great interface for placing letters. :)

Seeing each other's racks might end up with a great interface.

Reply: Scrabble:: Sessions:: Re: Scrabble on the XBox

Randy Cox — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:29:44 +0000

by Randy Cox

I suggest tonight that you play the boardgame with K. They you won't see each other's racks and you'll have a great interface for placing letters. :)

Session: Scrabble:: Sessions:: Scrabble on the XBox

funkhauser — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:15:06 +0000

by funkhauser

My girlfriend K. is a reluctant gamer. Still, I manage to get her to sit down for a game now and again. Last night, it was a game of Scrabble... on the XBox.

Hasbro has a series of board games out for XBox Live's downloadable games service, XBL Arcade. Most of the offerings so far have been pretty lame, but when I saw that they'd launched Scrabble for it, I was pretty excited. I dropped the 800 points ($10) for it and looked for an online opponent.

And no one was playing!

Tragic.

So, K. got recruited. She claimed she hadn't played in years, but I coaxed her a bit and we started the game.

It wasn't a particularly interesting game. I won 285-260, which is a lowish score for me. I spent most of the game trying to build my rack towards bingos, but by the time I found TANNERS and PATINAS on consecutive turns, the board was too clogged to actually play them.

I did manage QI with the Q on a triple word score. Decent points, but it earned me a rather painful whack on the shoulder. All in all, though, we had fun. K. was pretty pleased that she managed to keep the game close but she felt she could do much, much better. Reluctant gamer though she may be, that tenacity is what makes her a good opponent.

I do want to talk about the overall quality of the XBLA implementation of the game, though. It's a bit disappointing.

One of my biggest complaints about computer adaptations of board games is clunky interfaces. It can be especially bad on consoles where slow cursor movement can just kill the flow of the game. XBLA Scrabble is guilty of this. Placing your word on the board can be awfully slow at times. Slow cursor movement also makes selecting letters for blank tiles a bit irritating as well.

My other primary gripe is the camera. You get a nice-looking, fully zoomed-out view of the board while you think over your move. Unfortunately, as soon as you pick a letter to place, the game zooms in to an almost unusable level. The tiles you can see sure look nice! Too bad important ones are often just offscreen!

I'm not sure how the game decides where to zoom in at, but far too frequently it's on the other side of the board from where you want to play. You end up stuck trying to orient yourself on the board before plodding square-by-square to the area you actually wanted.

There are two other minor issues that may not impact all players. First, by default, the game marks the words you play as valid or invalid. This kills the bluffing aspect of playing phony words, but it also devalues good word knowledge. I suspect, though, that this is turned off in "Tournament Mode".

Second, when playing with multiple players on the same system, as K. and I were doing, each player's letters are visible during their turn. That may not be such a big deal to casual players, and it's not an issue when playing others online. What annoys me about it is that there was no way for me to study my own tiles while K. took her turn. She gets to see my tiles anyway, so why not give me a small display of my own rack?

I might sound a little negative towards Scrabble on XBLA, but it’s not a terrible implementation. I’d certainly rather sit on my couch to play others online than set in front of a computer monitor and play a non-standard board on Lexulous. Hopefully more Xbox Live users will start playing, because access to opponents is the big draw for me here. When it comes to playing face to face, I’m definitely sticking to the board-and-bits version of the game.

File: Scrabble:: Two-letter word cheat sheet

Randy Cox — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:31:36 +0000

by Randy Cox

Two-letter word cheat sheet for Board Game: Scrabble ]]>

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

The Abstractionist — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:58:42 +0000

by The Abstractionist

Whymme wrote:
And here again you don't see what is important; those hardcore players have probably spent more time studying all those two-letter words than the words with difficult letters. There's only a couple of tiles with difficult letters in the game, and so only few opportunities to score with them. A good knowledge of two-letter word combinations scores many more points.

The value of the two-letter word doesn't generally lie in the word itself (barring the unusual circumstance in which your opponent has foolishly allowed you to play something like "XI" with the "X" on a triple word score, and even then, there may well be an even better play somewhere on the board). No, the two-letter words come into their own by allowing you to place one word alongside another. The two-letter words act as glue, and in the process often approximate the effect of a double word score.

For example, "SOMBER" played against "PRIOR" in the following layout:

:S::O::M::B::E::R:
:P::R::I::O::R:
:I:
:N:

scores as follows: 14 points for "SOMBER" (because the "B" and "R" landed on double letter spaces), 6 points for "SPIN," 2 points for "OR," 4 points for "MI," 7 points for "BO," and 2 points for "ER," for a total of 35 points. Of these, the only one likely to be obscure to anyone would be "BO," which is a related word to "BEAU."

This is a decent though not exceptional play with no especially high-value letters involved. But, on that board, with that rack, it was the highest-scoring combination possible.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

Whymme — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:42:23 +0000

by Whymme

BTW, the real problem with the game, to me, is that it is very language-dependent. The level of vocabulary is important when playing in a foreign language; unless you have a good command of that language, you are likely to miss common words that no native speaker would.

Each scrabble board is also tuned to some language; the frequency and value of letters changes between languages, because some letters are used less often in one language and another. And that means that my Dutch Scrabble board is not calibrated for an English language game with my foreign friends.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

Whymme — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:29:39 +0000

by Whymme

cheapasgamer wrote:
There is a bit of luck involved in pulling good tiles- it's possible to get a rack of nothing but vowels, or all Xs and Qs and Zs- but there are mechanics to shuffle your tiles back into the bag.

There's less luck and more skill involved than you think. If you get a rack of nothing but vowels, that is probably because the previous turn you put all those R's and S's and N's and other consonants on the board. If your rack has AEINSST, and seeing 'RAY' on the board, you decide to make that into "STrayS", then don't complain if you draw three more vowels. Sure, it's a bit of bad luck that you drew those vowels, but nobody forced you to put almost all the consonants on the board. You should have looked for a way to keep one or two vowels and one or two consonants on the rack, instead of putting away almost all consonants. That leaves you a lot less vulnerable to bad draws. ASTray would have been a lot better than STrayS, because, whatever you'd draw next, your rack would at least have had two vowels and two consonants.

cheapasgamer wrote:
The real problem with Scrabble, for me at least, stems not from the mechanics but from the reality of play. In any group of friends, there's probably one person with a better vocabulary, and that person has an insurmountable edge that strategy can do little against. You could try very hard to aim for those Triple Word Scores, but you still have to make the words to get there.

So the real problem with chess is that there's probably someone who is a better chess player than you? And football is boring because some teams are better than others?
Besides, vocabulary is a lot less important than you think. If someone gets to a triple word score, it is not because of his greater vocabulary, but because the player before him opened the possibility to get there.

cheapasgamer wrote:
This is compounded by the hardcore Scrabble players, who own a Scrabble-brand dictionary, and actually know how to make use of those Qs and Xs and Zs. In any given game they're likely to play a half-dozen words they've memorized but don't know how to define or use in a sentence. You either memorize a bunch of words to compete, or you lose.

Half a dozen words? A standard game has one Q, one X and one Z. If the player draws each of those letters (I let you work out the chance for that in a four player game), he can only make a maximum of three words with that - so half the half a dozen words that you claim.
The hardcore Scrabble players who have memorized dictionaries tend to play against players of their own skill. And here again you don't see what is important; those hardcore players have probably spent more time studying all those two-letter words than the words with difficult letters. There's only a couple of tiles with difficult letters in the game, and so only few opportunities to score with them. A good knowledge of two-letter word combinations scores many more points.

cheapasgamer wrote:
The biggest strike against the nature of the game, however, is that any player can just slap an "S" tile (or a blank) down on most any English word to pluralize it, and thus to claim a bunch of points. You just played CAZIQUE and think you're so smart? Wait 'til the guy next to you makes CAZIQUE+S with a blank tile. It's very difficult to keep liking Scrabble once you see these sorts of plays in action.

I agree - that is very bad play. That player should have used the opportunity to lay down a word containing the S, instead of just putting a single S there. As another poster said, just putting the S there nets relatively few points; CAZIQUE must have scored some double- or triple letter or word scores, just putting an (S) (the blank tile, used as an S) behind it scores only the single value of those letters. Now, if the (S) was part of a word like RA(S)CALS, that would gain points. Eight points for the letters in RASCALS, points for bonuses, twenty-seven points for QAZIQUE(S), plus fifty for using all letters. Much better. And, by the way, very much in the nature of the game - the game designer explicitly mentioned this possibility in the original rules.

cheapasgamer wrote:
There's also the downtime. If everyone is really trying for a high score, each player can take several minutes placing a word. With 4 people playing, the space between your turns can easily drag past 10 mintes, and a game can last hours. You might consider house rules limiting this after a while.

Downtime, yes. I usually play this with my girlfriend, in a two-player game. That works well, and you can spend the time the other player is thinking to look for possibilities yourself. With four players, too much of the board will have changed by the time it's your turn again. With more players, I'd be more interested in Duplicate Scrabble (look it up).

cheapasgamer wrote:
Everyone should play this game once just for the experience, but as far as I'm concerned, once is probably enough. Regardless of your taste in games, there is something out there for you that's better than this.

From what you've said, I doubt that once has been enough for you. At least, enough to make a good judgement. Several points in your review show that you haven't yet grasped the tactics, strategy and possibilities in the game, and that makes your advice a poor one.

New Image for Scrabble

Brisse — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:39:16 +0000

by Brisse

Giant game of Scrabble enjoyed in the summer sun at a norwegian game c...

]]>

New Image for Scrabble

franktidwell — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:52:05 +0000

by franktidwell

Fullshot of keyboard modded with Scrabble tiles

]]>

New Image for Scrabble

franktidwell — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:51:57 +0000

by franktidwell

Keyboard modded with Scrabble Tiles

]]>

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Why Scrabble is not a geeks choice

Randy Cox — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:10:05 +0000

by Randy Cox

Friendless wrote:
The Abstractionist wrote:
(a) whatever dictionary you have at hand, (b) all of the dictionaries you have at hand (I own a small collection of them)

It does work much better if both players have a fair idea of what's in the dictionary, particularly the 2 letter words. Otherwise the owner of the dictionaries has a huge home ground advantage.

I grew up playing standard Scrabble. Two players. Three. Four. Didn't matter. But one thing we did was to play official challenge rules. You know--if you guess that something might be a word, you find out when someone challenges and you look it up in the Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary.

Then I met people who actually allow folks to look in dictionaries before playing their word(s). Yes! They allow cheating. I was appalled. How could one allow such in a competitive game?!?

Well, I was wrong. Recently, I have come to realize that in parlor room Scrabble, it's not about whomping up on others and showing off one's superior word knowledge. It's about playing the tiles you have efficiently and trying to win with strategy and tactics, not trivial knowledge.

So, play with a chess clock (25 minutes for each of the 2 players). And allow players to look at Scrabble Cheat Sheets (2-, 3-letter words, vowel dumps, etc). But still adhere to time restrictions to move the game along.

And you know what? It works. The games are still intense and exciting and, wonder of wonders, we learn some things. Those 3-letter words start to stick. Some of those 6-letter bingo stems actually start to enter into your memory. And that means that you play faster in the future and, should you ever play a real competitive tournament game, you might just hold your own.

I was amazed that something that I was so opposed to is actually a better way to both play and learn. I imagine that for those with Scrabble angst, this might help them overcome their reservations and enjoy the game more. And isn't enjoying the game the whole point?

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

Randy Cox — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:21:42 +0000

by Randy Cox

I don't understand this. It's like saying, "The player who understands routes and networks has a decided advantage in Power Grid" or "The player who understands probability has an advantage in Liar's Dice." Well, duh. Does that make Power Grid and Liar's Dice crappy games? Of course not.

One can excel at parlor room Scrabble without having the better vocabulary. After all, it's a math game, not a word game. The little symbols on the tiles are just there to limit which plays you can make, like the colors on the Ticket to Ride cards. You get enough of the ones that fit together and you see if it nets enough points or advances your position. That's it.

It's a great game and the standard complaints -- "waaaah, he's better than I am" and "people can take too long to make a play" apply to just about every game out there.

New Image for Scrabble

echelon — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:28:26 +0000

by echelon

Greek edition - Front of the box

]]>

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

The Abstractionist — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:00:01 +0000

by The Abstractionist

And the designer of Scrabble very intelligently limited the supply of the letter 'S' for exactly this reason. There are only 4 of them. Too many of these plays and there are no more left. Bummer, dude... you used them up!

You get stomped. You lose. You cry like a baby. Pathetic.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

thatmarkguy — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:28:33 +0000

by thatmarkguy

Aside from Scrabble-vets who have memorized the 2-letter word list, as a casual-game level, vocabulary is not nearly as important as many nonplayers make it out to be. Bad Scrabble players lose in casual games a lot more often because they fail to find the common word their letters can be anagrammed to make, rather than by lack of knowledge of a rare word. If you really think vocabulary accounts for an imbalance in the playing field, I suggest playing with a children's dictionary as reference. The good players will still find the grade-school-level words on their rack, and the bad players still won't.

You realize that the premium spaces are only valid on the turn the tiles are placed on them, right? CAZIQUE earned player A a lot of points because it probably had something like a double-letter on the Z or the Q and a triple-word - the guy who plays the S on it just gets the face-value tile points. CAZIQUE might have been worth 111 points to its original player (Z or Q doubled, then the whole word tripled)... the player adding an S on the end just gets 28 for it.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

GamerAtom — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:03:46 +0000

by GamerAtom

cheapasgamer wrote:
. This is one of those games that a lot of people would rather play againt a computer

The AI for this game on a computer or console is far cheaper than any real opponent I've ever played. Having the entire scrabble dictionary at it's finger tips makes it very common to see it play 2 letter words or Q with no U words you've never heard of before. That's my experience with scrabble on PSP.

Reply: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Re: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

Sorrellbo — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:03:26 +0000

by Sorrellbo

While Scrabble is not one of the greatest games out there, I do enjoy it quite a bit. One thing many people fail to recognize/remember/etc. is that Scrabble is very much a tile laying game first, word game second. By this I mean you have to make sure you are not setting your opponents up to score big points. Don't just throw a word out there if it allows your opponent to use the triple word score next. Now I realize sometimes you are limited in your plays and you also don't know what your opponents tiles are, but you have to use strategy in your word placement.

Review: Scrabble:: Reviews:: Scrabble is Like a Box of Monopoly- You Know Exactly What You're Going to Get

cheapasgamer — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:07:57 +0000

by cheapasgamer

This is normally where one would describe the mechanics of the game they're reviewng. In truth, Scrabble is a bit like Shakespeare (or, as the title states, Monopoly), in that it's just required reading (at least in the United States). If you've never played this game, know that it is accomplished by drawing random letter tiles out of a bag and using them to play words for certain point scores. The rest is best left for you to contact some family member who will inevitably have this game and arrange a playthrough. If that fails, your local thrift store or any number of online stores will have some version of the game for cheap.

From a technical standpoint, Scrabble isn't that bad. There is a bit of luck involved in pulling good tiles- it's possible to get a rack of nothing but vowels, or all Xs and Qs and Zs- but there are mechanics to shuffle your tiles back into the bag. The high point values for tougher letters also mean that dropping one well-placed Z could net you a great word score, as you can use other letters on the board and aim for a Triple Word Score or what have you. This partially, but by no means completely, neutralizes the draw problem.

The real problem with Scrabble, for me at least, stems not from the mechanics but from the reality of play. In any group of friends, there's probably one person with a better vocabulary, and that person has an insurmountable edge that strategy can do little against. You could try very hard to aim for those Triple Word Scores, but you still have to make the words to get there. This is compounded by the hardcore Scrabble players, who own a Scrabble-brand dictionary, and actually know how to make use of those Qs and Xs and Zs. In any given game they're likely to play a half-dozen words they've memorized but don't know how to define or use in a sentence. You either memorize a bunch of words to compete, or you lose.

There's also the downtime. If everyone is really trying for a high score, each player can take several minutes placing a word. With 4 people playing, the space between your turns can easily drag past 10 mintes, and a game can last hours. You might consider house rules limiting this after a while.

The biggest strike against the nature of the game, however, is that any player can just slap an "S" tile (or a blank) down on most any English word to pluralize it, and thus to claim a bunch of points. You just played CAZIQUE and think you're so smart? Wait 'til the guy next to you makes CAZIQUE+S with a blank tile. It's very difficult to keep liking Scrabble once you see these sorts of plays in action.

So in the end, Scrabble winds up falling victim to its own mechanics. There is a solid game in there, but finding people exactly at your level to play against, who won't play cheaply, and then waiting out the downtime, can ruin the experience. This is one of those games that a lot of people would rather play againt a computer, or online with turn-timers, unless they really enjoy arguing with family about whether or not to allow "McJob" in just because they have an old dictionary it doesn't appear in.

Everyone should play this game once just for the experience, but as far as I'm concerned, once is probably enough. Regardless of your taste in games, there is something out there for you that's better than this.