Why I'm Playing Chess This Month Instead of Scrabble

[walterzuey]

There's too much luck in Scrabble.

1 Nigel Richards 19.0-2.0 +1342
2 Dave Wiegand 17.0-4.0 +1254
3 Adam Logan 16.0-5.0 +1096http://scrabble-assoc.com/tourneys/2009/nsc/build/standing/index.htmlRead more... )

Comments

Mt Rushmore

[meldeiry]

seriously. And last year's top 3. Top 6 even. Same guys every year.

Staggering, really. Is it that they make fewer mistakes, or is it some positional brilliance, or that they find stuff like CARDIOID and DECAGONAL?

I'm just awestruck. WOW...

Re: Mt Rushmore

[copyright1983]

I think it's all of that, and more.

I'll use Wiegand as an example, because I know his game best (having been the victim a few times in his annotated games, as you've seen). He knows the words--ALL the words--pretty much cold; and if he knows it, he finds it. (Go back over any stretch of 100 of his games, and you can probably count the missed bingos on two hands.)

When you reach that point, as Joey Mallick once said in a post, it becomes a choosing game rather than a finding game. Years of experience have brought Dave to the point where he makes the right choice virtually every time.

Some people claim he's just lucky, that he never seems to have a bad rack. Well, when you're that good, there are fewer bad racks.

(All that said about Dave, if Nigel holds on to win this, I think the debate over "best player in the world" is settled.)

Mike

Re: Mt Rushmore

[noctilucas]

I think the debate over "best player in the world" is settled

I'd say it's still hard to say without seeing a high number of games among only the very top players, though. Nigel does very well againt BriCap, but not quite as well against Wiegand, who is winless against Gibson, who is winless against Trey. And Logan has only a small number of games with them all. I'd LOVE to see a 30-game top-8 or top-10 tournament (if determined by consensus, JKB would probably also get a nod in).

Re: Mt Rushmore

[copyright1983]

Fair enough point; the notion of how we define "best" is part of the debate. I look at it this way: If Nigel wins, he'll be the two-time defending US champion (not in his native lexicon), as well as the defending Worlds, WPC, British, and King's Cup champion. That trophy case is hard to ignore.

That said, an event like that would be awesome. Eight players, 28 games, full round-robin each day, all games annotated. Doesn't matter where they hold it, I'd volunteer to annotate.

Mike

[chaithedog]

I heard-- maybe just a rumor-- that Nigel studies for a non-SOWPODS event by studying only the Chambers words. That way the words he knows that are no good in ours are freshest in his memory. So, when Brian played SULPHITIC# against him in the final round last year, off it came.

[jasonkb]

haha how else would he (one) study?!

[adbploink]

My head just hurts. THAT is why I play poker.

Interesting endgame

[anonymous]

I'm wondering how much Nigel actually foresaw whe he played BI in the endgame? Did he foresee DECAGONAL as his going-out play? And did Nigel see that if Mallick plays DEIL at 6D for 18 (threatening to go out next turn with TUFA at 2L) that he goes out with CADES or DACES at 5A and wins by 1 point?!? If so, wow, he deserved to win that game even though he was out-bingoed 2-0.

By the way, Quackle's Speedy Player top picks are usually inaccurate, especially in the endgame. The only way to determine best plays each turn is to run the Quackle simulator.

Re: Interesting endgame

[jalapic]

100% he saw DECAGONAL. Also, if Joey blocks it, he still has other winning sequences.

[gijoel666]

There is a large luck factor going for Nigel here. Several, more than a handful, of his opponents have made horrible misses or errors in judgment to give him games he should not have won. What that suggests may be worth wondering is whether Nigel's luck is in fact the radioactive fallout of an intimidation factor.