randomized scrabble

[tylerdurden]

I know very little about scrabble, but while out doing some christmas shopping, I saw a "super scrabble" or something similarly gimmicky-sounding that had a "quardruple word score" which I'm pretty sure isn't in "real" scrabble.

This got me thinking, how much does the configuration of the board dictate your strategy? Would there be value in a randomized board, where the bonus multipliers were scattered in different locations? How about if the letter distribution (and/or point values for each letter) were randomized?

The main point to Fischer's randomized chess is to remove the crutch of pre-planned opening books and force players to rely on "pure" skill. Does this translate into scrabble at all?

[GMan42]

Interesting. I think if the point values were randomized, someone with a more well-rounded knowlege of the official word list would fare better than the typical mid-level player that might memorize just the 3/4 letter JQXZ words. Really good players get a lot of their points from making the 7-letter "bingos" though, so this wouldn't make as much of a difference. As far as randomizing the bonus squares, I don't think this would make a huge difference other than possibly giving a huge advantage to whoever goes first/second (just based on whether there are a lot of 2x/3x squares near the middle).

Super Scrabble is fun, but don't expect to finish a game quickly. The first time my wife and I played, the final score was something like 1000-800.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I think if the point values were randomized, someone with a more well-rounded knowlege of the official word list would fare better than the typical mid-level player that might memorize just the 3/4 letter JQXZ words.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. I was actually thinking of something more along the lines of randomizing the number of each letter available in the grab bag, then adjusting each letter's point value accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
Really good players get a lot of their points from making the 7-letter "bingos" though, so this wouldn't make as much of a difference. As far as randomizing the bonus squares, I don't think this would make a huge difference other than possibly giving a huge advantage to whoever goes first/second (just based on whether there are a lot of 2x/3x squares near the middle).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. When I first thought of this, I didn't think it would have much effect either way, since the bonus squares that are available to you are somewhat dependednt on your opponent's choice of where to play and what letters he used, in addition to the letters in your rack.

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]

The main point to Fischer's randomized chess is to remove the crutch of pre-planned opening books and force players to rely on "pure" skill. Does this translate into scrabble at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a decent scrabble and chess player. I don't think the idea transfers over well. This is because there already is significant randomness in scrabble so that no game is similar to another. This is not true for chess, which is why shuffle variants have come about.

Also, letters are supposedly assigned their value based on how difficult it is to use them. A 'Q' is obviously the hardest letter to throw down so it's score should be much higher than an 'E'. This should be regardless of how many 'Q's or 'E's are in the grab bag. The idea behind this is to reduce the variance of the game.

For example, if you create a random grab-bag that contains half Q's and an even distribution of other letters for the other half, then according to your idea the 'Q's would be worth less because there are more of them. However, this just serves to massively increase the variance of play. Someone could get screwed very badly by continually picking up 'Q's and no 'U's. This would be somewhat mitigated by a 'Q' always being worth more than other letters (so if the player manages to use it then they get a lot of points), which is why the value of a Q has been assigned as 10pts and is held constant. Note that Fischer Random chess merely spices up the game and possibly creates some problems for someone who relies on memorization in the opening or maybe the middlegame, but it doesn't really make it significantly more likely that an amateur can defeat a grandmaster. In your 'pvn Random Scrabble" version it would make it much more likely for players to defeat superior opponents.

Also,

[ QUOTE ]
how much does the configuration of the board dictate your strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Strategy relies heavily on board configuration, however I feel there is little need for further randomization because the random element already exists in selecting letters from the grab bag. If I play first I might throw down 'QUEENS' as my first word and start it with the 'Q' one off the pink center (so it's a little harder for my opponent to use the surrounding bonus tiles) or I might draw completely different letters and then play 'VEX' and center it exactly for similar reasons. After just one play the board configuration is extremely varied. After 3 or 4 turns the board congurations are almost limitless even among master players. This is certainly not true in chess.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
This got me thinking, how much does the configuration of the board dictate your strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]
The boundaries play into strategy a lot -- and would be an interesting variable to play with if you are experimenting with variations.

BTW - Speaking of variations on Scrabble -- has anyone else tried Kings Cribbage? Great game. Kings Cribbage.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The main point to Fischer's randomized chess is to remove the crutch of pre-planned opening books and force players to rely on "pure" skill. Does this translate into scrabble at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a decent scrabble and chess player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two newly scrabble-legal words are "za" and "qi". This is silly. That's all I have to say.

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]


Two newly scrabble-legal words are "za" and "qi". This is silly. That's all I have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?? That makes the 'q' and 'z' ridiculously powerful. Link?

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Two newly scrabble-legal words are "za" and "qi". This is silly. That's all I have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?? That makes the 'q' and 'z' ridiculously powerful. Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

My regular bridge partner is a relatively high level tournament scrabble player. This is secondhand from him. Here's a link from yahoo:
http://www.bellaonline.org/articles/art36967.asp

[XChamp]

thanks a lot. When I called myself 'decent' at scrabble I meant it. I can beat any non-serious player but the tournament types just rollllll over me.

[GMan42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Two newly scrabble-legal words are "za" and "qi". This is silly. That's all I have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious?? That makes the 'q' and 'z' ridiculously powerful. Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about "ridiculously powerful"...The international word list (combining the US and British lists) has had 2-letter Q and Z words for a while, and a lot more 2-letter words in general. Just makes for a different type of game--it's harder to "shut the board down" when you have a lead.