As some of you know, I was on a bit of a Facebook Scrabble bender earlier this year.
During the peak of this bender, I picked up a book at a yard sale: Word Freak, by Stefan Fatsis. I have been trying to read it ever since. It’s about life on the Scrabble tournament circuit.
Usually if I’m not sure whether to buy a book or not, I close my eyes and open it randomly and point to a paragraph and read it. If the paragraph speaks to me, I buy it. I must have forgotten to do that with this book, because I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have passed the random paragraph test.
There’s a level of obscurity in the book that I just can’t wrap my head around. Here’s an excerpt from Page 55, which is the page I’m currently stuck on, after 3 months of reading.
“Didn’t you see AGUEWEED on this rack?” Eric asks. “I’m going to have to write you up for that play.”
Marlon blurts out, “TETRASPORIC is TRICERATOPS.”
“What’s nice is ATOP,” Matt says. He means that if the word ATOP were on the board, you could wrap letters around it to make TRICERATOPS.
“Oh shit,” Marlon says, “And I nearly played ATOP thinking it would close the board.”
We all laugh.
Ok, did anybody get that? Because I read it four times and typed it once, and I’m still wondering why they all laughed.
I don’t like to abandon books. I usually plough through to the end, unless it’s a library book and I run out of time, but I’m going to make an exception for Word Freak. If anyone wants it, let me know – it’s yours.
Altogether I’ve played 287 Facebook Scrabble games, of which I’ve won 227. I had tapered off quite a bit actually, but then they introduced the ratings scheme. The ratings scheme is not retroactive; it only applies to games started in the last few weeks. It renewed my enthusiasm for the game, since I’m into metrics and way deep down I’m more competitive than I like to admit.
So I started playing in earnest again. Now, several weeks later, my rating is 1518 (1200 is where you start – you lose points when you lose games, and vice versa. And the rating of your opponent is factored in – if you beat a higher-ranked player, it’s worth more points.)
The ratings scheme has altered the way some people play. There’s one guy – I don’t know him personally, but we generally play about 3 games a week – who will no longer finish games he’s losing, because it’ll bring his rating down. My respect for this guy has plunged to zero, and I have no respect for his rating either, because I know how he got it. I’m competitive too, but I’m not petty enough to weasle out of a loss!
There’s always a lot of discussion on the Scrabble discussion board about people who use cheating tools. These tools would no doubt help you win, but I think they would take all the fun out of the game in the process. They would be useful for people who like winning more than playing.
I wonder how people who cheat reconcile it in their own minds. Do they feel like they’ve earned their victories and accomplished something? Or do they know they didn’t, and are just happy to have other people think they did?
Tags:
Zoom, quitting a game doesn’t stop you from losing. If you resign you lose, and if you just stop playing your opponent can claim the win after 7 days. So there is no escape.
Signed,
Also addicted
You’re right to a point Robin. The game is still lost either way. However: this guy just stops playing. I can force a forfeit after 7 days, and it will be counted as a loss for him, and a win for me, but our respective ratings will not be affected by it.
P.S. I’m not sure how a resignation – as opposed to a forced forfeit – is treated by the ratings system.
These are important matters which must be resolved Zoom. Why do you believe that a forced forfeit or a resignation doesn’t affect the ratings? Did you see that in the rules somewhere?
It’s true that if he just stops playing, you have to wait seven days to get the win. But I think you still get it.
P.S. I don’t think it’s funny either.
Robin, I believe it because I’ve seen it with my very own eyes. And then I checked out the Scrabulous discussion group for confirmation. (There’s nothing written in “the rules” which are about three sentences long, lol.)
I didn’t laugh either. but in the spirit of the swap box, if you post the book to me I’ll post one back to you.
and it’ll be a book I liked (don’t want to damage my reputation
Just because you didn’t notice a change in your ratings when you forced the forfeit doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect it. They only update the ratings every hour, so it could affect it later.
I know it only updates hourly. The forfeits had no effect, either immediately or within hours. Then I checked the Scrabulous discussion board to see if anybody else was discussing it. And they were.
Nursemyra, I would be happy to send you Word Freak. Email me your address and I’ll put it in the mail next week!
I tried an experiment. Carefully noted my rating and then claimed a forfeit from somebody who hadn’t played for a week. There was no change in my rating so you’re right about that part Zoom.
Next time I feel like resigning a game I’ll run the experiment on that part too. I do sometimes resign when I know I’m beaten, finding no virtue in slogging on to certain defeat.
I carried out the second part of the experiment. In a game against zoom, as it happened. I resigned right near the end, but first I wrote down both of our ratings.
Zoom’s rating went up a bit because of another game she won in the meantime. Mine didn’t go down. So I conclude that by resigning, I avoided any effect on my rating.
It’s not fair and I think it’s a bug. Until it’s fixed, don’t resign. It’s cheating.
Zoom says she wasn’t playing any other games. I don’t understand why her rating went up when I resigned but mine didn’t go down. My experiments are at an end and the results are inconclusive.
Onelook.com metadictionary allows you to put in * and ? wildcards for word searching among its many dictionaries.
tOM