Mental Improvement
Improvement in Scrabble, or anything, is always an interesting subject. There are so many subareas of any one area to improve in, and in such a deep area as Scrabble, each subarea is itself quite fascinating. While I occasionally get bored with improvement in an area--if strategy starts to seem degenerate, or studying becomes tedium--I soon pick up the reins where I left off, once again zealously and curiously delving into the fray.
This essay will consider the psychological approach to Scrabble, rather than other aspects, because of its generality. Specific skills can be studied more closely (even with a psychological lens, if one likes), and decent algorithms can be developed for improving them. On the other hand, abstraction of Scrabble psychology gives a general framework, not only for Scrabble, but for other games.
DISCLAIMER: I have negligible background in the science of psychology, so this is just a combination of my observations and reasoning. Professional opinions are much appreciated in the comments.
One of the hardest areas to improve in is tournament conduct. To prepare for this, you need live games. The average (Berkeley) club session is about the length of the average one-day, so that's taken care of, but preparing for multidays is especially challenging. Even in one-days, I face problems beyond club. Many of these problems are reminiscent of my first tournament. I still have trouble managing time, regularly wasting 5 minutes only to make the first play I thought of. I still have poor board vision and rack vision (most recently missing plays like IGLU and Q(O)PH). I still get tired and/or apathetic near the end of tournaments. I still come up with thinking routes that seem dumb in hindsight, by me or someone else. While some of this behavior can be improved by working on specific areas (board vision, strategy), it is nontrivially affected by one's state of mind.
By contrast, I'm a good spectator, at least when I'm really focused. I come up with what I think are decent strategic ideas outside of the Scrabble game. Sometimes I come up with them inside the Scrabble game, but this is rarer. There are, I think, several reasons for this:
a) When you spectate, you don't have to worry much about time trouble. Even quickly finding a play is easier because you have less pressure from the clock.
b) Knowing that there are others observing, or at least in the room, all trying their asses off, can provide some similar pressure to a.
c) Disconnecting a game from a tournament is *hard*. By contrast, an annotated or observed game isn't so connected. In some cases, one might focus far too much on the big picture (the tournament, standings, pairings, mistakes in previous games, etc.), rather than on the moment at hand (what are you going to play?). In short, the macro scale has too much impact on the micro.
d) What about competitiveness between players? The defining difference of a tournament from spectating is high competitiveness. Part of this was addressed in b and c. As for the rest, namely the personal competitiveness players A and B feel when sitting down to play. This is quite different for different people, since many take Scrabble very personally. Doing this is generally a bad idea, since play should stay consistent outside of the situation. Of course, there are exceptions to this, for example, being lazy in the endgame can save energy that will be more useful in the next game.
So why this distinction between spectating and playing? Because these are the settings in which we consume Scrabble content, comparison and contrast gives us more insight on each. Of course in the short term, one would rather be a good player than a good observer, but strong observation skills boast big long term benefits.
In light of the list above, how can a good observer (like me) learn to be a good player?
All the points above follow a certain pattern of caring. While caring about a tournament game is important, your mind should feel free and light during the game. Keeping a nice presence of mind is key, so you don't freeze up, focus too hard on mistakes, etc.
Don't take things personally, following Faulkner's excellent advice: "Always dream and shoot higher than you know you can do. Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself." As a strong spectator, I'm great with most of the advice, but the second sentence gives me problems.
Okay, now what about the other direction? How can a good player learn to be a good observer?
While a good observer needs to care less, a good player needs to care more, specifically about observing. If a good player wants to become a better player, they should have good observation skills to accompany their strength in tournaments, or else they won't improve enough from tournament to tournament.
In sum, the amount of care one puts into Scrabble is extremely important for one's ultimate performance. While this sounds simple and obvious, the details of this statement, as presented above, are critical. Additionally, it seems like we could generalize this to a broader field of competitive games.
Thanks for reading! Comments, especially those that attack or strengthen the argument, are strongly encouraged.
This essay will consider the psychological approach to Scrabble, rather than other aspects, because of its generality. Specific skills can be studied more closely (even with a psychological lens, if one likes), and decent algorithms can be developed for improving them. On the other hand, abstraction of Scrabble psychology gives a general framework, not only for Scrabble, but for other games.
DISCLAIMER: I have negligible background in the science of psychology, so this is just a combination of my observations and reasoning. Professional opinions are much appreciated in the comments.
One of the hardest areas to improve in is tournament conduct. To prepare for this, you need live games. The average (Berkeley) club session is about the length of the average one-day, so that's taken care of, but preparing for multidays is especially challenging. Even in one-days, I face problems beyond club. Many of these problems are reminiscent of my first tournament. I still have trouble managing time, regularly wasting 5 minutes only to make the first play I thought of. I still have poor board vision and rack vision (most recently missing plays like IGLU and Q(O)PH). I still get tired and/or apathetic near the end of tournaments. I still come up with thinking routes that seem dumb in hindsight, by me or someone else. While some of this behavior can be improved by working on specific areas (board vision, strategy), it is nontrivially affected by one's state of mind.
By contrast, I'm a good spectator, at least when I'm really focused. I come up with what I think are decent strategic ideas outside of the Scrabble game. Sometimes I come up with them inside the Scrabble game, but this is rarer. There are, I think, several reasons for this:
a) When you spectate, you don't have to worry much about time trouble. Even quickly finding a play is easier because you have less pressure from the clock.
b) Knowing that there are others observing, or at least in the room, all trying their asses off, can provide some similar pressure to a.
c) Disconnecting a game from a tournament is *hard*. By contrast, an annotated or observed game isn't so connected. In some cases, one might focus far too much on the big picture (the tournament, standings, pairings, mistakes in previous games, etc.), rather than on the moment at hand (what are you going to play?). In short, the macro scale has too much impact on the micro.
d) What about competitiveness between players? The defining difference of a tournament from spectating is high competitiveness. Part of this was addressed in b and c. As for the rest, namely the personal competitiveness players A and B feel when sitting down to play. This is quite different for different people, since many take Scrabble very personally. Doing this is generally a bad idea, since play should stay consistent outside of the situation. Of course, there are exceptions to this, for example, being lazy in the endgame can save energy that will be more useful in the next game.
So why this distinction between spectating and playing? Because these are the settings in which we consume Scrabble content, comparison and contrast gives us more insight on each. Of course in the short term, one would rather be a good player than a good observer, but strong observation skills boast big long term benefits.
In light of the list above, how can a good observer (like me) learn to be a good player?
All the points above follow a certain pattern of caring. While caring about a tournament game is important, your mind should feel free and light during the game. Keeping a nice presence of mind is key, so you don't freeze up, focus too hard on mistakes, etc.
Don't take things personally, following Faulkner's excellent advice: "Always dream and shoot higher than you know you can do. Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself." As a strong spectator, I'm great with most of the advice, but the second sentence gives me problems.
Okay, now what about the other direction? How can a good player learn to be a good observer?
While a good observer needs to care less, a good player needs to care more, specifically about observing. If a good player wants to become a better player, they should have good observation skills to accompany their strength in tournaments, or else they won't improve enough from tournament to tournament.
In sum, the amount of care one puts into Scrabble is extremely important for one's ultimate performance. While this sounds simple and obvious, the details of this statement, as presented above, are critical. Additionally, it seems like we could generalize this to a broader field of competitive games.
Thanks for reading! Comments, especially those that attack or strengthen the argument, are strongly encouraged.