Would you trade the COC for the WSC?

[Matthew Green]

Craig Beevers' decision to turn down the COC (which he almost certainly would have won) for Scrabble commitments raised some eyebrows. Plus Kirk's controversial status update got some people a bit riled as well, raising Scrabble vs Countdown animosity to an all-time high ('high' being very slightly higher than non-existant).

If you had been in Beevers' position, would you have done the same?

[Jon Corby]

What was Kirk's controversial status update?

[Marc Meakin]

What was Kirk's controversial status update?

God knows.

[Charlie Reams]

Countdown then Scrabble. It's much easier that way.

For Corby:

[Marc Meakin]

Maybe Having finished 8th in the WSC, I reckon that it pretty much answers it.

[Charlie Reams]

Maybe Having finished 8th in the WSC, I reckon that it pretty much answers it.

You finished 8th in the WSC? Well done mate.

[Marc Meakin]

Maybe Having finished 8th in the WSC, I reckon that it pretty much answers it.

You finished 8th in the WSC? Well done mate.

So that should be, finished 8th at the WSC, then?

[Kirk Bevins]

Maybe Having finished 8th in the WSC, I reckon that it pretty much answers it.

8th in WSC or 1st in COC? It doesn't answer it.

[Derek Hazell]

Although I respect Craig's ability to make the best decision for himself, from the outside it appears easier to have "finished" one thing at a time. He could have got as far as it was possible to get with Countdown, and then moved on to spending however much of the rest of his life trying to do the same with Scrabble. As it is, if he manages to reach his ambition in becoming World Champion, then it would be much more difficult, if not impossible to return to Countdown again. Not only because he might not be offered a place again, but also because there would be even more "unlearning" to do. Plus he must have already "polluted" his mind quite badly in order to win the Countdown series, so at that time a small amount of further pollution would have been negligible.

Despite all that, it is admirable to be able to "learn" one dictionary, and an amazingly underrated feat to be able to do one and then another. To learn one, then unlearn it, then learn another, then unlearn it, then relearn the first again would be immense.

[Marc Meakin]

Maybe Having finished 8th in the WSC, I reckon that it pretty much answers it.

8th in WSC or 1st in COC? It doesn't answer it.

Well in my opinion anyway.
I still think finishing 8th at a global event at the 1st attempt is a better achievement than winning at COC
Although I suppose if Countdown went global and the COC winner could be called the best in the world then maybe my opinion would differ.

[Marc Meakin]

Although I respect Craig's ability to make the best decision for himself, from the outside it appears easier to have "finished" one thing at a time. He could have got as far as it was possible to get with Countdown, and then moved on to spending however much of the rest of his life trying to do the same with Scrabble. As it is, if he manages to reach his ambition in becoming World Champion, then it would be much more difficult, if not impossible to return to Countdown again. Not only because he might not be offered a place again, but also because there would be even more "unlearning" to do. Plus he must have already "polluted" his mind quite badly in order to win the Countdown series, so at that time a small amount of further pollution would have been negligible.

Despite all that, it is admirable to be able to "learn" one dictionary, and an amazingly underrated feat to be able to do one and then another. To learn one, then unlearn it, then learn another, then unlearn it, then relearn the first again would be immense.

I would like to see Craig have another go at the COC (or maybe a special game against, say, Kirk in one of Damo's special shows).

[Alec Rivers]

Isn't someone meant to post a comment at this point criticising the lack of poll options and calling the author's prejudicial tendencies into question?

[Jon Corby]

As for Kirk's assertion, Martin G did some kind of analysis about luck in Scrabble here. I would like to see it completed properly, with a larger sample and also whether the guy who goes first has much of an advantage. Any takers?

[James Doohan]

Isn't someone meant to post a comment at this point criticising the lack of poll options and calling the author's prejudicial tendencies into question?

Yeah, where's Phil?

[Derek Hazell]

Although I suppose if Countdown went global and the COC winner could be called the best in the world then maybe my opinion would differ.

Well I suppose Craig is young enough that an interest in Countdown could become global in his lifetime (particularly now that Apterous is encouraging foreign players to get interested in a very similar game).

[Jon Corby]

Anyway, in answer to the original question posed in the OP:

If you had been in Beevers' position, would you have done the same?

NO WAY. Wouldn't have missed CoC for the world. I went there knowing I was very unlikely to win, but doing Countdown was just so much damned fun that (for me) it's not about winning at all, just being part of it. Of course, as it turned out, there was the added coolness of being the first ones on the new set with Jeff & Rach, plus the camaraderie between all the contestants blah blah blah
TBH it baffles me that anyone would pass it up.

Of course, this kind of attitude is probably part of the reason why I'm not competing at anything at the sort of level Craig is, or actually achieving anything of any note at all. But, meh.

[Ben Wilson]

I suppose I'm in as good a position as any to answer this one, so here goes...

As I stand as a Scrabble player right now (top-end intermediate), I'd likely prefer the c of c than serious Scrabble study to improve to wsc standard. C of C is a fantastic event to participate in and more than just a little prestigious, and the amount of work it takes to improve to become top ten in the country is just staggering.

However, if I were already wsc-standard, like Craig, I would think twice about that. The WSC isn't just the pinnacle of a global pastime with literally tens of thousands of participants worldwide- it's the pinnacle of a pastime that has a $15 000 top prize attached to it. And the causeway championship, going on this week, has a whopping $20 000 top prize. If I could realistically compete for both- which Craig's 8th place kinda suggests was the case- then I wouldn't want to harm my chances by exposing myself to a foreign dictionary and a whole different method of play.

Fwiw I voted for the bottom option, given that's what I've been doing the last 6 years (with mixed success).

[Michael Wallace]

As for Kirk's assertion, Martin G did some kind of analysis about luck in Scrabble here. I would like to see it completed properly, with a larger sample and also whether the guy who goes first has much of an advantage. Any takers?

I've got something in the pipeline, plz don't tell anyone

[Jon Corby]

However, if I were already wsc-standard, like Craig, I would think twice about that.

I understand what you're saying, but when it boils down to it, CoC is 3 days. You don't *have* to do any extra boning for it if you don't want to. You can just turn up, have fun (and probably still win it regardless in Craig's case) and then go back to Scrabble. Can't you?

[Charlie Reams]

I've got something in the pipeline

TMI dude.

[D Eadie]

I totally agree with Kirk. It's very strange to have a World Championship of anything whereby the contestants / participants don't have a level playing field.

This years competition is littered with participants from countries where English IS NOT their first language. Makes perfect sense. I'd love to see a tournament whereby all the Brits and Americans play in the Indonesian language.

I still maintain that to find the best Scrabbler overall, you need to be using the same letters. The purists will argue against me, the fact remains, i cannot think of any other event / competition / sport / pastime, where one player can have such a HUGE advantage over another, based on pure luck. The nearest i can think of is the side winning the toss at Test Cricket, but that isn't a strong enough comparison.

I worked with Mark Nyman for years, we played Scrabble, i lost the majority of times, but prob beat him 20 times or so. He was a former World Champion, this shouldn't happen, but it does. IT doesn't matter how good you are. If you've got a rack of AAIOLEU, there is nothing you can do to counter-act your opponent who's just played PROVOKE for 92 or whatever. You;d never beat Phil Taylor at darts, Steve Davis at snooker, but any man on the street can beat a World Champion?

Hmm.

The game in this link, was in the WORLD final, best of 5, yet this guy was slaughtered by over 300 pts, largely because he picked nothing out of the bag worth having, while his opponent got all the best tiles.

http://www.wscgames.com/cgi-bin/showgcg ... f2;turn=26

If they had played with the same tiles, playing duplicate Scrabble, all the tactics etc are ALL retained in the game, but the one element that vanishes is luck, yet they insist on playing this stupid method that will always be subject the 'luck' claim.

Boring, boring, boring.

[Chris Corby]

.. Agree with much of what Damian says although players are not on a level playing field you do tend to get the same poeple in the top ten after a world championship. Same with poker. The players get different cards yet it is the same players who are consistently feature in the world's top ten. Skill must feature a lot more than luck surely. Going back to Matthew's initial post, surely Craig can enter the Scrabble championships year after year if he wishes, whereas he will only get one shot at CofC. Therefore, no contest.

[Ben Wilson]

I totally agree with Kirk. It's very strange to have a World Championship of anything whereby the contestants / participants don't have a level playing field.

This years competition is littered with participants from countries where English IS NOT their first language. Makes perfect sense.

You mean like the guy who won the world championship?

No one's denying that luck plays a part in Scrabble and a few days ago there was an enormous argument over the merits of a best-of-5 final with most players thinking that aside from its value as a spectacle, it really wasn't worth much in determining the final winner when compared to the 24-game preview.

Stewart Holden once told me that over a lengthy tournament against players of roughly the same skill, 25% of games will be unwinnable, 25% of games will, barring some serious mental cock-ups, be unlosable, and 50% of games will be a test of skill. It's just the nature of the game- and it's no coincidence that matchplay has been the favoured standard in the UK for well over 20 years now whilst duplicate has never been given a real chance.

EDIT: It's also no coincidence that the ten finals over the years have only had 13 different finalists in them when if it were truly down to luck it'd be 19/20.

[D Eadie]

The guy in the final lost by 370 pts. That's absurd and probably his biggest defeat ever i'd bet.

With the letters you pick out, you could potentially play a max game in terms of pts scored in relation to plays available, but still lose badly to an opponent who misses several maxes, but can play QI across a triple letter square and rake in 62 pts.

Can any Scrabble bofffin explain to me why duplicate Scrabble isn't seriously considered as a viable alternative to the raggy-fest of grabbing tiles out of the bag and hoping to land both blanks during the game?

As for Craig and different dictionaries, i think that's bollocks. You can win Countdown without needing to play obscure words or words that you might be unsure of in terms of validity. Take into consideration that your opponent declares first half the time, then you're left with minimal risk factors.

[D Eadie]

Stewart Holden once told me that over a lengthy tournament against players of roughly the same skill, 25% of games will be unwinnable, 25% of games will, barring some serious mental cock-ups, be unlosable, and 50% of games will be a test of skill. It's just the nature of the game- and it's no coincidence that matchplay has been the favoured standard in the UK for well over 20 years now whilst duplicate has never been given a real chance.

EDIT: It's also no coincidence that the ten finals over the years have only had 13 different finalists in them when if it were truly down to luck it'd be 19/20.

So it's clearly possible that a player could have a run of 'unwinnable' games and therefore be a victim of fortune. If the games are played to duplicate rules, then 100% of the games will be down to skill, skill alone and nothing else at all.

The reason the tournaments are run to matchplay rules and not duplicate, which in terms of fairness is the obvious no-brainer, is because Nelkon and co have to abide by the wishes of Spears / Mattell to help flog board games. You can't play duplicate at home with the board game, it's too tricky to set up in terms of matching racks like for like etc, but for a World Championship, it should never be down to luck, unwinnable games or the luck of the 'draw', but it is, and for me at least it renders the whole thing a preposterous waste of time.

[Ben Wilson]

The guy in the final lost by 370 pts. That's absurd and probably his biggest defeat ever i'd bet.

He also didn't do himself any favours by playing IR* halfway through that game, and half of that winning spread came from a nine-timer towards the end of the game when he was opening the board looking for a way back in. Luck? Perhaps, but the fact remains 90% of even serious Scrabblers wouldn't have known the word Pakorn played to get that 180-point move (I certainly didn't).

A lot of Scrabble is about 'making your own luck'- the intricacies of rack management, tactical play on either an aggressive or defensive level. A while ago Charlie wrote a bot to play computer Scrabble that had a perfect vocabulary and always, without fail, picked the highest-scoring word. I could beat it pretty much 50% of the time. Luck isn't nearly as big a factor in the game as skill, and it's as simple as that.

[D Eadie]

You've already conceded that 25% of games are unlosable, 25% are unwinnable, and 50% are down to skill.
So effectively 50% of the games are actually based on skill, 50% are based on luck.
Enough said. You may as well start tossing coins IMO.

[Charlie Reams]

Can any Scrabble bofffin explain to me why duplicate Scrabble isn't seriously considered as a viable alternative to the raggy-fest of grabbing tiles out of the bag and hoping to land both blanks during the game?

I quite like duplicate Scrabble but it is a very different game. It largely eliminates the tactical element -- there's no point in balancing your rack, managing the board space, creating set-ups and so on, you just need to score the most points. That's an interesting problem but it's not the same problem. In terms of crowd spectacle I think matchplay is much more exciting, and the luck is just something you have to deal with in your mental game, just like kicks in snooker, deflections in football etc.

[Derek Hazell]

As for Craig and different dictionaries, i think that's bollocks. You can win Countdown without needing to play obscure words or words that you might be unsure of in terms of validity. Take into consideration that your opponent declares first half the time, then you're left with minimal risk factors.

Oh sorry, I had thought from reading loads of other threads on here that that part was accepted wisdom.

[Charlie Reams]

As for Craig and different dictionaries, i think that's bollocks. You can win Countdown without needing to play obscure words or words that you might be unsure of in terms of validity. Take into consideration that your opponent declares first half the time, then you're left with minimal risk factors.

Oh sorry, I had thought from reading loads of other threads on here that that part was accepted wisdom.

It is for pretty much everyone except Damian

[Clive Brooker]

...i cannot think of any other event / competition / sport / pastime, where one player can have such a HUGE advantage over another, based on pure luck. The nearest i can think of is the side winning the toss at Test Cricket, but that isn't a strong enough comparison.

It may not be quite the example you're looking for, but I think the course of a cricket match/series can also be profoundly influenced by pure luck. Suppose that at lunch on the first day of a Test Match there are 2 wickets down. Neither should have been given out, but on 2 other occasions a batsman was given not out when he should have been out. The simplistic reading of this situation is that the luck has evened out, but in reality the course of the game could have been entirely different had the correct decisions been made.

[Matt Morrison]

...i cannot think of any other event / competition / sport / pastime, where one player can have such a HUGE advantage over another, based on pure luck. The nearest i can think of is the side winning the toss at Test Cricket, but that isn't a strong enough comparison.

It may not be quite the example you're looking for, but I think the course of a cricket match/series can also be profoundly influenced by pure luck. Suppose that at lunch on the first day of a Test Match there are 2 wickets down. Neither should have been given out, but on 2 other occasions a batsman was given not out when he should have been out. The simplistic reading of this situation is that the luck has evened out, but in reality the course of the game could have been entirely different had the correct decisions been made.

[Paul Howe]

I don't like Scrabble that much, which is a shame as a game combining elements of word finding and strategy should be super interesting to me. The issues for me are:

1)Individual games are too prone to luck, as covered above. Obviously the better player will emerge over a long series of games, but for individual game results to be subject to so much volatility is frustrating, and it takes a very long series indeed to discriminate between small differences in ability.
2)You could assign each word a probability that, on any given turn, it will form part of the optimal play. For scrabble, this probability distribution is too concentrated, and it would be desirable to make it closer to uniform. Every scrabbler will recongise the phrase "high probability words" and I think its a shame that such words exist. You might sniff a contradiction here as building a large vocabulary is the most important determinant of success, but this is subject to returns that diminish too quickly, even if those returns do give you an edge on your opponent.
3)I'm not sure the strategic element is really that deep, and certainly suborbinate to vocab building. This is a tricky claim for me to make as I haven't played scrabble at a high enough level to fully appreciate the nuances. I feel confident making it though as a) it seems possible for new players to get to the top very quickly but deep strategic sophistication should take years to build, and b)some of the tactical analyses I've read on uk-scrabble don't seem especially profound. You can read similar analyses of chess and go games and be literally grinning from ear to ear at the subtlety and technical power of the thought process that goes into constructing strategy (if you're a nerd like me anyway ), but I just don't get the same buzz off scrabble.

In short, if we were to design a wordfinding/strategy game from scratch, we could probably come up with something much better than Scrabble, but we're stuck with it for historical reasons. I'm sure you could even make scrabble more interesting though by fiddling with some of the parameters.

An interesting problem is to see if it's possible to come up with a pure skill (i.e. everyone has the same resources, no luck is involved) word game that still has deep strategy. There's duplicate scrabble, but as Charlie says it's not especially interesting strategically.

[Kai Laddiman]

buzz off scrabble

Nice subliminal message there.

[Charlie Reams]

An interesting problem is to see if it's possible to come up with a pure skill (i.e. everyone has the same resources, no luck is involved) word game that still has deep strategy. There's duplicate scrabble, but as Charlie says it's not especially interesting strategically.

How about something like:-

1) The tiles are shuffled but are then turned face-up and drawn in a fixed order, so each game is different but not random within itself. You always know what tiles are about to come up.

2) Everyone plays a turn and then enough tiles are drawn that they would (if distributed appropriately) take everyone back to a rack of 7. However the tiles are not given directly, but rather players "bid" a number of points for each tile that is drawn; the winning bidder takes the tile, and has that number of points deducted from their score (maybe a Vickrey auction would be fairer). So if the blank comes up, players are likely to bid 15-20 points, which is then an interesting exercise in trying to get your money's worth. Negative bids would be allowed.

You'd probably need to tweak some other rules but that might be a start.

[Craig Beevers]

The guy in the final lost by 370 pts. That's absurd and probably his biggest defeat ever i'd bet.

That's like picking out a frame of snooker where Ronnie O'Sullivan beat someone 147-0. Individual games, particularly the blowouts which you will get aren't particularly important. It's no different to snooker that sometimes an individual game is taken completely out of your hands and there's nothing you can do. But in the end if you go over a longer period the better performance will win out. That is the purpose of a proper, longer tournament in Scrabble (everyone accepts the best of 5 finals are a crapshoot, but getting there in the first place isn't).

On a more general note I am not someone who enjoys doing anything half-arsedly. That includes the complete shit I'm playing at Causeway. Merely making up the numbers has a very limited appeal to me. I want to make the best of myself, not just get to a certain level then sit on my arse like the seemingly endless list of UK sportsmen.

[Kirk Bevins]

That's like picking out a frame of snooker where Ronnie O'Sullivan beat someone 147-0.

No it's not...if Ronnie is potting ball after ball, his opponent just sits there and watches. At least in Scrabble you see the "Ronnie O'Sullivan" nail ZEUGMAS for 93 but you get to reply to it (albeit with FOR/ZO/ER for 24). The level playing field is the main factor...in darts you can play Phil Taylor who says hits a 180 and, although this doesn't impede on your throw (apart from the psychological factors), you have your own chance to hit back with a 180. If you're not good enough then that's your problem. In Scrabble I've not got my own chance to hit back with ZEUGMAS as I just picked up FORQIII.

[Charlie Reams]

That's like picking out a frame of snooker where Ronnie O'Sullivan beat someone 147-0.

No it's not...if Ronnie is potting ball after ball, his opponent just sits there and watches. At least in Scrabble you see the "Ronnie O'Sullivan" nail ZEUGMAS for 93 but you get to reply to it (albeit with FOR/ZO/ER for 24).

Wait, so you're saying it's worse to have some (small) chance to fight back than to have none at all?

[Gavin Chipper]

As for Craig and different dictionaries, i think that's bollocks. You can win Countdown without needing to play obscure words or words that you might be unsure of in terms of validity. Take into consideration that your opponent declares first half the time, then you're left with minimal risk factors.

Oh sorry, I had thought from reading loads of other threads on here that that part was accepted wisdom.

It is for pretty much everyone except Damian

And Ross Allatt:

Re: Goodbye


--- In c4countdown@yahoogroups.com, "Stewart Holden" <sholden@a...>
wrote:
> Dear Countdown friends,
>
> Today's news that the Champion of Champions series has been
postponed
> is a great disappointment. Michael Wylie told me that Richard is
> suffering from a lung infection; I wish him the very best for a
quick
> recovery.
>
> Unfortunately, the news that a Champions series will not be filmed
> until at least November has left me in a very difficult and unhappy
> position with regard to Countdown. For the reasons explained below,
I
> have made the decision not to compete in any future Countdown
events.
> I wish to make it clear that the cancellation of next week's
> recordings is not the cause of my departure; I had already made the
> decision several weeks ago that Countdown and I would be parting
ways
> after May 2005. The fact that I will never take part in a Champions
> series is unsatisfactory, but I hope you will understand my reasons
> for retiring at this point.
>
> The main reason that I am closing the book on Countdown is simply
> because of the constant effort required to distinguish which words
> from the Scrabble word list are allowed by the ODE and which are
not.
> Dozens of competitive Scrabble players have appeared on the show
over
> the years and nearly all have tripped up by having words disallowed
> for this reason. I spent a lot of time during Series 51 studying
the
> ODE in order not to make these mistakes and I enjoyed this
studying.
> It made a nice break from Scrabble and I feel fortunate that the
hard
> work paid off when I went back for the finals of my series.
>
> It probably sounds conceited but I am a very competitive person and
I
> feel very frustrated if I can't give something 100% of my energy.
> People have said not to study for a future Champion of Champions
> series and to just 'go along and have fun', but I simply don't work
> like that and would feel very unsatisfied if I took that route. I
> went in for Countdown in the first place with the sole intention of
> winning the series and I would be unhappy if I couldn't treat a
> Champion of Champions series with the same respect and committment.
>
> For this Champion of Champions I have found it very difficult to
> reinvoke the enthusiasm for doing the same level of study again,
> feeling somewhat 'been there, done that' towards Countdown but at
the
> same time being angry with myself for not feeling that competitive
> edge towards it. Having revised the ODE again and brushed up on my
> number skills, I was intending to go along next week, give it my
best
> shot and then, regardless of the results I would be happy to have
> Countdown out of my life so that I could get back to focusing on
> Scrabble. I've spent too long trying to remember which word is in
> which book rather than doing what I really want to do, which is
> simply learn words. The prospect of being in this state of
> 'dictionary limbo' for at least another six months could not be any
> less attractive to me.
>
> I qualified for the 2003 World Scrabble Championship in Kuala
Lumpur,
> Malaysia; playing in that event was one of greatest experiences of
my
> life. Winning Countdown was an even more enjoyable experience, but
> the effort I put into doing so is the main reason that I failed to
> qualify for the 2005 WSC (qualification being based on performance
at
> Scrabble tournaments throughout 2004). That event will take place
on
> 16th-20th November 2005 in London and could very well clash with
the
> expected recording date of Champion of Champions; even though I am
> not playing in this WSC, I thoroughly intend to be there to root
for
> the England team and soak up the atmosphere of the first World
> Championships to be held in London since 1995.
>
> The other news which has confirmed my decision to retire is much
> happier than anything I've mentioned so far; some of you will know
> this already from chatting online, but I'm pleased to announce that
> my wife Julie is expecting our first baby in early December. If
> nothing else convinces you that a Countdown Champion of Champions
in
> November might be best avoided, perhaps that will!
>
> I'm pleased that the c4countdown forum established by myself, Ben
and
> Gary has been such a success. With very few wobbles, "c4c" has
become
> the largest and most respected Countdown forum and I'm pleased to
> have been a part of that. Soo Reams has been offered my position as
a
> list moderator and has accepted. I will still be a reader but will
> probably only check in once in a while, just to vote for myself in
> polls re water sipping and so forth.
>
> So I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I'm sorry that when
> the Champions series does take place it won't have every recent
> series winner taking part, but with so many committments (and an
even
> bigger one around the corner!) something's got to give and I would
> rather make a firm decision than struggle on; trying to juggle too
> many projects and not doing any of them justice.
>
> I have met some fantastic people through Countdown over the past
two
> years - everyone at Yorkshire Television has been professional and
> friendly to the hilt. The people I met at the COLIN event were
superb
> and I'm sure the people who couldn't make it to that event are just
> as great. I've also had some excellent conversations and online
games
> with people via MSN Messenger, and I'll miss the banter and
> friendship that goes with it. I wave goodbye to all things
Countdown
> knowing that it is in good hands and that I'm leaving behind a
first
> class bunch of people.
>
> Take care,
>
> Stewart

All football fans have watched in disbelief this year as Liverpool
have played wretchedly in the league and yet turned into world
beaters in Europe. The ball is the same, it's still 11 vs 11, the
pitch is the same size but the mindset and the confidence in the same
team between the two formats has been amazing. I haven't heard Rafa
Benitez say to anyone "well, we seem to be struggling in the league
so we'll not bother playing in that any more and we'll just play in
the games where I think we can do well". Yet this is the logic we're
expected to swallow in this decision. It smacks of "it's my ball and
I'm taking it home with me".

We all hope to do well on Countdown and maybe some people prepare
more assiduously than others but at any time we've got to be prepared
to face up to the possibility of victory and defeat in any given
game. We all do everything we can to avoid defeat of course, but when
it comes (and it's only a select few who it won't come to) we have to
accept it with the same grace as we would a victory. That's true for
ALL of us, all the more so for someone with such an outstanding
pedigree at Countdown as you. If you can't face up to the possibility
of not performing to the best of your ability and you can't face up
to the possibility of defeat then I think the less of you for it.
The fact is that with your outstanding pedigree and natural
confidence that you must have a great chance of winning, whenever it
is filmed. The desire to win and a competitive nature are not bad
things in themselves (in fact the reverse) but, taken to extremes,
they can lead to unattractive characteristics (ie: J P McEnroe in
his "pomp" - although I can't imagine "you cannot be serious" being
shouted at DC when a word is rejected).

Most of the words that most of the people come up with to win rounds
of Countdown most of the time are not words where Scrabble-based
knowledge could ever be a stumbling block ie: they're words which
people use in common parlance. I can't believe that you would have
got tripped up to the extent it would have affected a result.

I think that you're depriving the immediate C4 community, and the
wider Countdown audience, of witnessing for one last time one of the
great Countdown players for reasons that are selfish and wrong. Of
course you're entitled to do whatever you want, just as we all are,
but I wanted to pass on my feelings on the matter. It would be a
shame if you were to think back in ten years time and regret your
decision - it's two days out of your life and leaves years ahead to
play Scrabble to your heart's content.

Ross

ps - if you think that your Scrabble tournament attendance is going
to increase from December then it's time to wake up and smell the
nappies! Good luck for that - it's a fantastic experience and a great
challenge.

[Gavin Chipper]

Until I read what duplicate Scrabble was I could only guess. I thought it might be something like this:

Two games of Scrabble are played simultaneously by the same two players. The tiles are put in a random order face down, but the same order for each game. Instead of picking tiles out of the bag, the players pick the next tiles along the line but they pick from the opposite end in each game and the opposite end to each other within each game. And they each play first in one of the two games.

[Gavin Chipper]

It's interesting what people say about the luck element, that better players will still win in the long haul. But looking at the standings at the WSC, it's very close. Both players in the "crapshoot" had 18 wins out of 24, the next player down had 17, and the following five (including Craig) had 16. Now, it might not be an entirely accurate representation, but it would be interesting to see how often the top two make the final if you ran a simulation where they have an 18/24 chance of winning each game and everyone else being assigned the probability equivalent to the proportion that they actually did win. I imagine it would be fairly volatile. Part of me wonders if spread is actually a more representative measure of skill.

Edit - but anyway to me this suggests that luck can play a part in the long preliminary section virtually as much as in the "crapshoot".

[Marc Meakin]

I have an idea (copywright Jason Larson)
How about a game of scrabble where all the vowels and consonants are put in seperate bags and also each move has a 30 second limit.
This would combine elements of both games.

[Kirk Bevins]

Wait, so you're saying it's worse to have some (small) chance to fight back than to have none at all?

Huh? Where do you draw that conclusion from? Having a chance to fight back (e.g. Scrabble) is better than snooker where you could potentially have no chance. All I was arguing was the 147-0 argument from Craig didn't stand.

[Marc Meakin]

I have just discovered a Scrabble version of Goatdown http://scrabblefamily.blogspot.com/2009 ... abble.html

[Kirk Bevins]

I have just discovered a Scrabble version of Goatdown http://scrabblefamily.blogspot.com/2009 ... abble.html

Isn't that more like Touchdown, where you can change any letter for one of your choice (i.e. a blank)?

[Ben Wilson]

I have just discovered a Scrabble version of Goatdown http://scrabblefamily.blogspot.com/2009 ... abble.html

Isn't that more like Touchdown, where you can change any letter for one of your choice (i.e. a blank)?

Indeed that variant of Scrabble is what Touchdown was almost entirely based on.

[Marc Meakin]

I have just discovered a Scrabble version of Goatdown http://scrabblefamily.blogspot.com/2009 ... abble.html

Isn't that more like Touchdown, where you can change any letter for one of your choice (i.e. a blank)?

Oh yeah I meant Touchdown.

[Paul Howe]

An interesting problem is to see if it's possible to come up with a pure skill (i.e. everyone has the same resources, no luck is involved) word game that still has deep strategy. There's duplicate scrabble, but as Charlie says it's not especially interesting strategically.

How about something like:-

1) The tiles are shuffled but are then turned face-up and drawn in a fixed order, so each game is different but not random within itself. You always know what tiles are about to come up.

2) Everyone plays a turn and then enough tiles are drawn that they would (if distributed appropriately) take everyone back to a rack of 7. However the tiles are not given directly, but rather players "bid" a number of points for each tile that is drawn; the winning bidder takes the tile, and has that number of points deducted from their score (maybe a Vickrey auction would be fairer). So if the blank comes up, players are likely to bid 15-20 points, which is then an interesting exercise in trying to get your money's worth. Negative bids would be allowed.

You'd probably need to tweak some other rules but that might be a start.

Cool idea. I'm not sure if bolting on an auction is the purest solution, but it would be interesting to see the kinds of strategies that evolve, and whether changing the bidding mechanism materially affects the dynamics of the game.

[Charlie Reams]

Cool idea. I'm not sure if bolting on an auction is the purest solution, but it would be interesting to see the kinds of strategies that evolve, and whether changing the bidding mechanism materially affects the dynamics of the game.

That was the easiest way I could think of to resolve the inherent imbalance in the usefulness of different letters, i.e. let the players resolve it for you.

[Gavin Chipper]

Until I read what duplicate Scrabble was I could only guess. I thought it might be something like this:

Two games of Scrabble are played simultaneously by the same two players. The tiles are put in a random order face down, but the same order for each game. Instead of picking tiles out of the bag, the players pick the next tiles along the line but they pick from the opposite end in each game and the opposite end to each other within each game. And they each play first in one of the two games.

Unless I hear anything to the contrary, I assume that simultaneous reverse Scrabble will be used in the next World championships. I'll discuss money later.

[Jon Corby]

On a more general note I am not someone who enjoys doing anything half-arsedly. That includes the complete shit I'm playing at Causeway. Merely making up the numbers has a very limited appeal to me. I want to make the best of myself, not just get to a certain level then sit on my arse like the seemingly endless list of UK sportsmen.

Do you never do anything just because it's fun?

What do you do for a living?

Have Gillette been in touch yet about you replacing Tiger Woods?