Skip to main content

Scrabble Player ≠ Brainiac

I love Scrabble. I play Words With Friends on Facebook quite frequently and am quite good - I'd say that I win about 8 of every 10 games I play. However, while I think a person may need some intelligence to play the game well, I don't think as some seem to that those whom are good at this game are the brightest of the bright.

To consistently win at Scrabble, one needs the following: A decent vocabulary, a fairly good memory, the ability to strategize and luck.

The more one plays Scrabble, the more "Scrabble words" they're going to learn - you know, those words you see in the game of Scrabble that you don't see anywhere else, such as: Xi, xu, za, jo, qi, qat, zoea, etc. One may hold a significant advantage over their opponent initially when it comes to overall vocabulary, however, the more they play - so long as the opponent has a decent memory, the more that vocabulary gap will lessen. At this point, vocabulary plays a smaller factor in the outcomes of the games and the factors which increase in significance are strategy and luck. A good deal of strategy needs to be used in Scrabble - so that one person can maximize their use of colored squares while minimizing their opponents use for them. Then there are some games where it doesn't matter how well one strategizes, he/she is consistently stuck with crummy letters, it feels as if the letter-tile gods are against them and there's little to no chance they'll win. It's difficult to do a whole lot with 6-7 consonants, 6-7 vowels or a combination where a maximum of three words can be formed (and they're all 2- or 3-letters in length).

This is one reason why I prefer Boggle over Scrabble and why I think it can be a better measure of a person's being "the brightest of the bright". In Boggle, both players are given the same grid of letters from which to work and they must showcase a certain amount of speed with the timer running. This isn't the case in Scrabble. The two players are stuck with different tiles from which to work. There may be some games when the two players have roughly equal tiles, but for the most part, one is stuck with an inferior line-up of letters to the other.

I compare it to baseball. In Boggle, the two teams have an equal number of players, equal number of balls, strikes and outs to work with. Everything is equal in terms of quantity, so at the end of the game, (most times) the team whom played better will come out as the victor. In Scrabble, there would be times when one team was afforded metal bats while the other was stuck with wooden ones. While, mathematically-speaking, there is a chance the team with the wooden bats could come out with the victory, the odds are definitely not in their favor.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"