c4countdown

I thought I'd say that me and Ben Wilson are both doing the Peterborough Scrabble tournament this Saturday the 29th. By chance I have a charity tournament on the 30th, so I'll be playing 10 games of Scrabble in 48 hours.

Unfortunately I live in one of the worst places in the country for ABSP Scrabble tournaments - West Yorkshire. After looking at the ABSP calendar, there are all of zero ABSP tournaments in my region, bar the semi-final and final of the national championships which are qualification only, so I can't just turn up and play in them.

Anyway me and Ben will both be in division #1 so we might play each other.

Martin

Good luck to you and Ben on Saturday.

Sometimes living in a non-tournament city/region isn't too bad. Sometimes you have nice journeys to venues and also meet up with people on the way and have a laugh or two.

True but I don't really have the money at the moment while I'm a student. If I become a teacher like I want to do I'll obviously have loads of time and hopefully enough money to do tournaments during the summer, Easter, etc.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:True but I don't really have the money at the moment while I'm a student. If I become a teacher like I want to do I'll obviously have loads of time and hopefully enough money to do tournaments during the summer, Easter, etc.

Martin

I can relate to that, with being unemployed. I can't even really afford to go down to Warrington to play scrabble and its only about £10. Obviously, once working again I can focus on going to more Scrabble tournaments and even getting COLIVER ready for April next year.

I'm slightly luckier in that the East Midlands are an absolute hot bed of Scrabble activity- unfortunately it also means that whilst I'd be a local expert in some places, here I'm a little lower in the food chain.

And 10 games in 48 hours? Try doing 24 (rated!) games in 24 hours...

Ben Wilson wrote: And 10 games in 48 hours? Try doing 24 (rated!) games in 24 hours...

I wasn't boasting I was just pointing out that I'd mismanaged the situation a little.

By the way do you know who's going? You're the only person that I know about.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote: By the way do you know who's going? You're the only person that I know about.

Martin

I got the list online, I don't think there's anyone on that list that I know apart from Mark Hollingsworth, who I invited to travel with us and never got back to me, apparently he decided to travel on his own. He's not exactly the "communicative type" mind you. Quite a lot of Countdown contestants in there, oh and I've met Alec Webb but only once.

Martin

I played 80 Scrabble games in a day before. It was fun.

Will there be any live coverage games that will be shown online move-by-move like with the WSC in Mumbai last year?

Joseph Bolas wrote:Will there be any live coverage games that will be shown online move-by-move like with the WSC in Mumbai last year?

I think only the North American championships which use the North American (and Thailand) dictionary, but still I usually like to follow them. I suspect they are in August or close to it.

Martin

http://www.centrestar.co.uk has a good archive of move-by-move games between top players- nothing on live coverage yet, though that's not to say it won't be there in the future (certainly it handled the NSC final more thn adequately).

Ben Wilson wrote:http://www.centrestar.co.uk has a good archive of move-by-move games between top players- nothing on live coverage yet, though that's not to say it won't be there in the future (certainly it handled the NSC final more thn adequately).

Awesome .

I've just got back from the tournament, I thought Ben might have already written a reply to this. I won three and lost three, beaten by the mercurial tournament winner Ben Wilson who won 5 games out of 6 +640 (ish) in spread (score A - score B). I had a really good time, but due to the fact I don't have much money and I don't like taking trains, it may be a while before I do another one.

I do have the notes of my game versus Ben, although he has better ones. The game come down in a large part to me trying ARQUEs on a triple for 75 points - however Ben challenged and it's not good so I took the letters back. Can anyone get a 7 letter bingo from AAEUQR?, I couldn't at the time, I'm about to look now. Anyway Ben played will and never looked like losing from that moment onward.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote: Can anyone get a 7 letter bingo from AAEUQR?
Martin

I just checked; AQUAFER is the only one (no places for an 8).

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:I've just got back from the tournament, I thought Ben might have already written a reply to this. I won three and lost three, beaten by the mercurial tournament winner Ben Wilson who won 5 games out of 6 +640 (ish) in spread (score A - score B). I had a really good time, but due to the fact I don't have much money and I don't like taking trains, it may be a while before I do another one.

I do have the notes of my game versus Ben, although he has better ones. The game come down in a large part to me trying ARQUEs on a triple for 75 points - however Ben challenged and it's not good so I took the letters back. Can anyone get a 7 letter bingo from AAEUQR?, I couldn't at the time, I'm about to look now. Anyway Ben played will and never looked like losing from that moment onward.

Martin

Sounds like you had a good day though. Well done to Ben for winning.

Will there be any games/photos etc posted on sites like Centrestar and Facebook?

Errr no not really since we didn't bring a camera, unless Ben has some.

Martin Gardner wrote:Errr no not really since we didn't bring a camera, unless Ben has some.

No worries. If the games get posted, what I can do is recreate the board and take pictures of the board after the final play . I like studying pictures of the board after the final play as I think it helps in a way learning unusual words and also how to place words, if that makes sense.

Heres what I mean: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3 ... pid=367425

Right no not like that...

Just for the information, I won 3 games out of 4 this afternoon to finish my weekend with 6 wins out of 10. It was a good laugh but to be honest I'd rather have had a lie in. Still I don't have another tournament for months now, so next weekend I can have a lie in! My high play in all 10 games was OCTUPLE on a triple for 98 points, making ARC into ARCO.

Martin

Just to finish up on this, I also won a bottle of Martini in the raffle for £1!

My next tournament figures to be Shipley in September for two reasons. 1) I should have a brand new shiny student loan that week and 2) It's about 20 minutes drive from here. I could persuade Marjorie from my club to go there and I could get a lift.

I'll try and get some Countdown content in there : including charity tournaments, I've now lost to two Countdown Series champions at Scrabble; Ben Wilson at Liz Barber. Also there were three Countdown Series champions at Peterborough; Ben Wilson, Steve Balment and John Ashmore.

My rating is now 170 but only 12 games, you need 15 games to be 'partially rated' and 30 or more to be 'fully rated' - so at one tournament a year I should be fully rated in about 2011!

Martin

There is a new Scrabble application on Facebook, which focuses on the Tournament and Club List dictionary, which seems like a good way to practice, however there doesn't seem to be an option to play against a computer.

I see in Sandi Toksvig's column in the Sunday Telegraph, that to day is the birthday (born 1899) of the inventor of Scrabble, Alfred Mosher Butts. Crazy name, crazy guy.

For more about Alfred Butts, read Word Freak. It's really good.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Word-Freak-Hear ... 324&sr=8-1

Ginger Jono wrote:For more about Alfred Butts, read Word Freak. It's really good.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Word-Freak-Hear ... 324&sr=8-1

Yep. Best book about Scrabble by far.

Ginger Jono wrote:For more about Alfred Butts, read Word Freak. It's really good.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Word-Freak-Hear ... 324&sr=8-1

I read this a few years ago, tis good. One of the things I remember is the description of the Scrabblers playing a game that went something like this (bare in mind I've probably muddled up a lot of the exact details)

You have a big pile of letters, from which each player tries to make words by grabbing letters and forming a word in front of them. The goal is to finish with the most words, and you can steal words from your opponents by adding letters from the big pile to make anagrams. When the letters in the pile run out the player with the most words (or maybe most total letters) wins. You'd probably need some restrictions, like only being able to form new words of a certain length so the entire pile doesnt rapidly disappear, and various other tweaks to make it a workable game, but the reason I mention it is that it might be a cool idea for an exhibition game at a future Countdown tournament.

Paul Howe wrote: You have a big pile of letters, from which each player tries to make words by grabbing letters and forming a word in front of them. The goal is to finish with the most words, and you can steal words from your opponents by adding letters from the big pile to make anagrams. When the letters in the pile run out the player with the most words (or maybe most total letters) wins. You'd probably need some restrictions, like only being able to form new words of a certain length so the entire pile doesnt rapidly disappear, and various other tweaks to make it a workable game, but the reason I mention it is that it might be a cool idea for an exhibition game at a future Countdown tournament.

Ah yes, Anagrams. Would probably be explosive if played with the highly friendly Countdown letter distribution. Good idea.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Paul Howe wrote: You have a big pile of letters, from which each player tries to make words by grabbing letters and forming a word in front of them. The goal is to finish with the most words, and you can steal words from your opponents by adding letters from the big pile to make anagrams. When the letters in the pile run out the player with the most words (or maybe most total letters) wins. You'd probably need some restrictions, like only being able to form new words of a certain length so the entire pile doesnt rapidly disappear, and various other tweaks to make it a workable game, but the reason I mention it is that it might be a cool idea for an exhibition game at a future Countdown tournament.

Ah yes, Anagrams. Would probably be explosive if played with the highly friendly Countdown letter distribution. Good idea.

'Tis often played after-hours at Scrabble tournaments too. I remember at a tournament in February getting massively beaten up by several Grandmasters at the game. I went 5/8 the following day though, so it couldn't have been all bad.

Possibly, you could argue that ABSP ratings are too static, I think BW went from 159 to 162 when he won his tournament. If this were a tournament in France he'd be about 190. I hate the French rating system, basically win and losses don't matter, you put the players in order before the start of the tournament, like this :

2300
1900
1800
1750
1700
1300
1200
700
600

And you subtract your rating from the rating of the person that was predicted to finish in the place you were in. So the player ranked 1200 finishes 2nd, that figure is 1900-1200 = 700. Now you multiply this difference by 2/3 if it's positive and by 1/2 if it's negative. So if the 1900 finished 3rd from bottom, it's (1200-900)x1/3 and for the other player it's (1900-1200)x2/3. This figure is the rating change, plus a bonus (up to 250 points) if you finish in the top 4. You can get some massive points changes doing this, I for instance in two tournaments have done 600 -> 1024 -> 1415. If I win my next tournament I could be about 1800, or if I finish last, about 1200. I wouldn't say the ratings are meaningless, but if you lose to someone ranked 1200, they could have been ranked 1600 after the previous tournament, or they could have been 750. Unsurprisingly, you don't evern have to win half your games to go up (I haven't) and someone beats the highest ever rating after almost every tournament.

Martin

When you are playing a tournament for the first time, what is your UK rating and how is it worked out?

Joseph Bolas wrote:When you are playing a tournament for the first time, what is your UK rating and how is it worked out?

For the first time it's very simple, if you beat your opponent you get their rating + 50, if you lose you get their rating - 50, if you tie you get their rating. You simply add these figures then take an average and that's your first tournament rating.

After that first tournament things are a bit more complicated. Your most recent games are weighted more. you can get situations where the ratings difference between two players can be over 40 and so what happens is as far as the calculation is concerned the difference is fixed at 40 - so if a 190 played a 130 then as far as the calculation is concerned the 190 is playing a 150 and the 130 is playing a 170, so you always gain rating if you win or always lose rating if you lose.

Craig Beevers wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:When you are playing a tournament for the first time, what is your UK rating and how is it worked out?

For the first time it's very simple, if you beat your opponent you get their rating + 50, if you lose you get their rating - 50, if you tie you get their rating. You simply add these figures then take an average and that's your first tournament rating.

So if I was to beat a 100, I would be 150, but where does the average come into it? It's only one rating, so the average would still be the same (150) wouldn't it?

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:When you are playing a tournament for the first time, what is your UK rating and how is it worked out?

For the first time it's very simple, if you beat your opponent you get their rating + 50, if you lose you get their rating - 50, if you tie you get their rating. You simply add these figures then take an average and that's your first tournament rating.

So if I was to beat a 100, I would be 150, but where does the average come into it? It's only one rating, so the average would still be the same (150) wouldn't it?

If you played in a one-game tournament, yes. Oddly these are quite rare.

Well if you're rated zero (no games played) and you beat two players ranked 150 and then lose to a player ranked 200, that's

150 + 150 + 200

then

+ 50 + 50 - 50

which is 550

550 / 3 = 183, which I believe is always rounded to the nearest number.

So over 100 games it's the total of your last 100 opponents' ratings, +50 for each win, -50 for each loss, then divide by total number of game (100). So if you win 50 and lose 50, it would just be the mean of your opponents' rating because it's 2500 - 2500 = 0.

Martin

So if you only played stellar players and lost every game you'd still have a pretty good rating?
eg you play 100 players rated n (where n is a high rating) and lose every time.
Your rating is (n-50)x100/100=n-50

dinos_the_chemist wrote:So if you only played stellar players and lost every game you'd still have a pretty good rating?
eg you play 100 players rated n (where n is a high rating) and lose every time.
Your rating is (n-50)x100/100=n-50

Yes, but if that were the case you wouldn't be playing stellar players for long. Also, for ratings purposes, you 'offocially' never play someone who's more than 40 points different from you in rating- e.g. if I (rated 155) played a player rated 106, it'd be rated for me as though I played a 115-rated player, and for them as though they were playing a 146-rated player.

Ben Wilson wrote:

dinos_the_chemist wrote:So if you only played stellar players and lost every game you'd still have a pretty good rating?
eg you play 100 players rated n (where n is a high rating) and lose every time.
Your rating is (n-50)x100/100=n-50

Yes, but if that were the case you wouldn't be playing stellar players for long. Also, for ratings purposes, you 'offocially' never play someone who's more than 40 points different from you in rating- e.g. if I (rated 155) played a player rated 106, it'd be rated for me as though I played a 115-rated player, and for them as though they were playing a 146-rated player.

So when you play a game in that condition you still focus though on the 155/106 rankings when working out the new rankings, or does it not matter even if you used the 146/115 rankings to work out the new rankings?

Ben Wilson wrote:you 'offocially' never play someone who's more than 40 points different from you in rating

Is that the adverb from "offal"? If not it should be.



Okay, I realise I am not contributing anything constructive to this thread.

Charlie Reams wrote:Okay, I realise I am not contributing anything constructive to this thread.

Get out before the admin guy finds out. He won't be happy.

Not sure if I've already said this, but it's interesting that the people who organise our club don't play ABSP tournaments because they consider it "playing for money". I thought this was bollocks at first until I realised that the tournaments I play in are £4 each and an ABSP tournament in £14.50. The reason for this is that they give away the difference in prize money. I mean, with 60 players £10 * 60 that's 600 extra, most of which goes back as prize money. So technically it could be considered by some to be a form of gambling.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:Not sure if I've already said this, but it's interesting that the people who organise our club don't play ABSP tournaments because they consider it "playing for money". I thought this was bollocks at first until I realised that the tournaments I play in are £4 each and an ABSP tournament in £14.50. The reason for this is that they give away the difference in prize money. I mean, with 60 players £10 * 60 that's 600 extra, most of which goes back as prize money. So technically it could be considered by some to be a form of gambling.

Martin

Ah- but is it technically gambling if there's a degree of skill involved? Imho, not a chance.

I can't really see their point about playing for money either. If I put money into a tournament I want a chance of some reward. I've recently made a poll on uk-scrabble yahoo group to this end, the results of which are proving more than a little interesting at this time.

I appreciate that and for my money playing for money is not gambling - if it were, you could included tennis tournaments like Wimbledon as gambling. My point (which in fairness, I didn't make very well) is that if you're offering someone the choice between a £4 tournament and a £14 one, you're only going to do the £14 if you think you *might* make some money back. Obviously there are other factors, travel arrangements, friendship, etc. But one thing the ABSP could do to get more members is drop the prices. IMO. I think a lot of the players at my club are not against the ratings (although I know some people who avoid ABSP tournaments to avoid being rated) but it's more that they play for fun and probably expect to win 2 games out of 6 at the most, so why pay £14 to finish 15th out of 20 when you can pay £4?

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:I appreciate that and for my money playing for money is not gambling - if it were, you could included tennis tournaments like Wimbledon as gambling. My point (which in fairness, I didn't make very well) is that if you're offering someone the choice between a £4 tournament and a £14 one, you're only going to do the £14 if you think you *might* make some money back. Obviously there are other factors, travel arrangements, friendship, etc. But one thing the ABSP could do to get more members is drop the prices. IMO. I think a lot of the players at my club are not against the ratings (although I know some people who avoid ABSP tournaments to avoid being rated) but it's more that they play for fun and probably expect to win 2 games out of 6 at the most, so why pay £14 to finish 15th out of 20 when you can pay £4?

Martin

This is a valid point- and I have entered quite a few unrated tournaments in the local area for about £5 each, but each time, I had wished they'd been rated and with a more significant prize fund- maybe tastes just differ. Nobody I know even makes a profit out of their Scrabble career- with the obvious exceptions of Nigel Richards and Gary Male.

The ABSP do frequently (well, okay, it's been a while since the last one, I'll have to have a word with Terry Kirk) hold 'new player events' with lower entry fees and relaxed rules (30 minutes per player as opposed to 25), to help ease people into tournament play. Any suggestions on how to improve these would be welcomed.

Martin Gardner wrote:I appreciate that and for my money playing for money is not gambling - if it were, you could included tennis tournaments like Wimbledon as gambling. My point (which in fairness, I didn't make very well) is that if you're offering someone the choice between a £4 tournament and a £14 one, you're only going to do the £14 if you think you *might* make some money back. Obviously there are other factors, travel arrangements, friendship, etc. But one thing the ABSP could do to get more members is drop the prices. IMO. I think a lot of the players at my club are not against the ratings (although I know some people who avoid ABSP tournaments to avoid being rated) but it's more that they play for fun and probably expect to win 2 games out of 6 at the most, so why pay £14 to finish 15th out of 20 when you can pay £4?

Martin

If these people play for fun and whatnot I can't see them forking out £15 to become a member of the ABSP. I don't think an ABSP rated tourney is viable at £4 entry without making a loss and I think most ABSP events you'll find would need to charge nearer £10 to break even without having any prizes (unless you switch them into a smaller venue with less games). I don't think changing existing tournaments is the way to go - it will make little difference to the people you're talking about and will piss off a lot of the usual entrants. New member tourneys that bridge the gap between those £4 events and the ABSP £14 ones are what's needed.

Craig Beevers wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I appreciate that and for my money playing for money is not gambling - if it were, you could included tennis tournaments like Wimbledon as gambling. My point (which in fairness, I didn't make very well) is that if you're offering someone the choice between a £4 tournament and a £14 one, you're only going to do the £14 if you think you *might* make some money back. Obviously there are other factors, travel arrangements, friendship, etc. But one thing the ABSP could do to get more members is drop the prices. IMO. I think a lot of the players at my club are not against the ratings (although I know some people who avoid ABSP tournaments to avoid being rated) but it's more that they play for fun and probably expect to win 2 games out of 6 at the most, so why pay £14 to finish 15th out of 20 when you can pay £4?

Martin

If these people play for fun and whatnot I can't see them forking out £15 to become a member of the ABSP. I don't think an ABSP rated tourney is viable at £4 entry without making a loss and I think most ABSP events you'll find would need to charge nearer £10 to break even without having any prizes (unless you switch them into a smaller venue with less games). I don't think changing existing tournaments is the way to go - it will make little difference to the people you're talking about and will piss off a lot of the usual entrants. New member tourneys that bridge the gap between those £4 events and the ABSP £14 ones are what's needed.

I can't say as I've done the maths myself, indeed the Middleton one I do twice a year is £4, but we get the room for £1 an hour ! Obviously this is not going to be the same for every tournament so £10 looks about right to me.

Martin

Martin Gardner wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I appreciate that and for my money playing for money is not gambling - if it were, you could included tennis tournaments like Wimbledon as gambling. My point (which in fairness, I didn't make very well) is that if you're offering someone the choice between a £4 tournament and a £14 one, you're only going to do the £14 if you think you *might* make some money back. Obviously there are other factors, travel arrangements, friendship, etc. But one thing the ABSP could do to get more members is drop the prices. IMO. I think a lot of the players at my club are not against the ratings (although I know some people who avoid ABSP tournaments to avoid being rated) but it's more that they play for fun and probably expect to win 2 games out of 6 at the most, so why pay £14 to finish 15th out of 20 when you can pay £4?

Martin

If these people play for fun and whatnot I can't see them forking out £15 to become a member of the ABSP. I don't think an ABSP rated tourney is viable at £4 entry without making a loss and I think most ABSP events you'll find would need to charge nearer £10 to break even without having any prizes (unless you switch them into a smaller venue with less games). I don't think changing existing tournaments is the way to go - it will make little difference to the people you're talking about and will piss off a lot of the usual entrants. New member tourneys that bridge the gap between those £4 events and the ABSP £14 ones are what's needed.

I can't say as I've done the maths myself, indeed the Middleton one I do twice a year is £4, but we get the room for £1 an hour ! Obviously this is not going to be the same for every tournament so £10 looks about right to me.

Martin

£1 an hour!!!!!!!! What is it, 'bring your own walls and ceiling' or something?

Ben Wilson wrote:£1 an hour!!!!!!!! What is it, 'bring your own walls and ceiling' or something?

Well it's a charity tournament, so the less he charges us, the more we give to charity. I don't make the rules lollll

Martin

Have Martin and Joseph ever thought about actually getting off their arses and getting a job?

I see the ABSP rating system is the same as the English Chess Federation grading system. It provides a reasonable approximation of performance if you play enough games against people of a similar ability. Obviously if you are 150 and play a string of 200s or a string of 100s, the number is not going to mean much. The trouble is that many chessplayers think the grading measures "strength" rather than "performance". And whatever you're doing if you are a 200 playing a 170, you still have to prove you're better!

The thing on prize money was interesting. Weekend chess tournaments, where you might get 5 games on a Swiss system, usually have an entry fee of £30ish. But you would usually get 3 or 4 sections, Open (self-explanatory), graded under 165, graded under 130, graded 100 for example, with say £100 first prize then 2-3 lower prizes in each section. The U130 event may have a prize for best score by a player under 115. The fees might look expensive, but if you play in a nice hotel, it tends to cost a bit.....

The thing I don't like about the Scrabble rating system is that it ignores the spread completely. In my first ABSP tournament (ran by my local club) I was put in the middle group (which my rating in club games narrowly placed me into, a few weeks earlier it would've been the bottom group) and I had 5 fairly narrow wins and one utter trouncing, meaning that I finished 2nd in the division with a negative spread. As a result I ended up in the top division for my next tournament, and I lost 5 games out of 6 (embarassingly I was wearing my Countdown top at the time....). There's a tournament in Bournemouth next month which I might do, but I haven't been enjoying the game so much recently and I've been busy with working.

Martin Smith wrote:The thing I don't like about the Scrabble rating system is that it ignores the spread completely.

I think that's by design. The idea is to encourage you to play always to win, rather than just accepting a narrow defeat when you're behind. That was my intention in excluding spread from the Countdown ratings, anyway. What happened to you sounds unfortunate but a small number people are always going to have unrealistic ratings.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:I see the ABSP rating system is the same as the English Chess Federation grading system. It provides a reasonable approximation of performance if you play enough games against people of a similar ability. Obviously if you are 150 and play a string of 200s or a string of 100s, the number is not going to mean much. The trouble is that many chessplayers think the grading measures "strength" rather than "performance". And whatever you're doing if you are a 200 playing a 170, you still have to prove you're better!

The thing on prize money was interesting. Weekend chess tournaments, where you might get 5 games on a Swiss system, usually have an entry fee of £30ish. But you would usually get 3 or 4 sections, Open (self-explanatory), graded under 165, graded under 130, graded 100 for example, with say £100 first prize then 2-3 lower prizes in each section. The U130 event may have a prize for best score by a player under 115. The fees might look expensive, but if you play in a nice hotel, it tends to cost a bit.....

The Ulster tournaments are rarely over a tenner but then that tends to be reflected in the prize money too. They also tend to be smaller tourneys but I think the last Ulster championship had around 30 + participants which is really as good as it gets (bar the fairly massive, in comparison, Target Recruitment Open a few years back).

I was able to afford a trip down to Warrington and I played a bit of Scrabble last night.

I played 4 games, won 3 of them. My scores were 301, 442, 314 and 338, totalling 1395 points with an average score of around 349 (but not sure how good that is in ABSP games). I also ended up with 4 bingo plays (3 in the 442 game):

TROuBLE = 66 points
VANITIeS = 70 points
TENURES = 64 points
VIOLeTS = 73 points

I also did miss a 5th bingo play STILLAGE which would've got me 80 points, but I suppose 4 bingo plays will do

Oliver Garner's leading Division C with two games to go at the BMSC.

http://www.centrestar.co.uk/10bmsc/html/index.html

Craig Beevers wrote:Oliver Garner's leading Division C with two games to go at the BMSC.

http://www.centrestar.co.uk/10bmsc/html/index.html

Go Ollie!

22 rounds? That's insane!

Also spotted Stewart Holden's missus ranking high in that group.

22 rounds is nowt these days, the biggest tournament internationally has 45 rounds over 5 days. UK Open is 48 over 5 - if that isn't enough there's a warm-up of 18 over 2 to bring it up to 66 in a week.

Well done to Ollie on sealing the win- fantastic performance. A division winner next year?

Cheers everyone - although I played well(ish) for the most part, quite a few of the 8 games I lost were winnable, especially on the first day. Played more sensibly on the next two days and, hey presto, I won more games. I gave my rack details of my final game against Laura Finley to Stewart Holden, and he said he might put it on Centrestar.
Edit: If you can't wait until then, here is a photo of the finished board.

Not too difficult Countdown-valid word I missed against ex-Countdown champion Steve Balment on my first rack. ABCOFS?
? = blank

COnFABS

OG

If this talk of Scrabble has given you a taste for the game, I'll be holding a rated tournament in Lincoln on the 18th of this month. There'll be seven games- which is about average for a tournament nowadays- played to standard ABSP rules and with cash prizes for at least the top 3 in each division and perpetual trophies for divisional winners. If this is you're first tournament, I'll also happily send you out a starter pack with information on tournament play, the ABSP and a laminated sheet of 2- and 3-letter words.

Entry details can be found here- http://www.absp.org.uk/calendar/lincoln2010.doc -the closing date for entries says September 10th but if I still have space afterwards I'll happily fit you in. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to shoot me off an email or a pm.

Well done Mark Meakin in winning Division B at Havering.

Oliver Garner wrote:Well done Mark Meakin in winning Division B at Havering.

Thanks Ollie, well spotted.
I was a little lucky though, I had 11 out of 14 blanks and 21 esses.
Think I must have trod in dogshit.
Btw it was my first tourney since December 2008