Talk:Scrabble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Strategy and tactics section violates Wikipedia guidelines?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook -

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.[3] If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.

I therefore suggest removing the section. It's an obvious violation of this guideline.

(Above is unsigned) ...

Just rename the section as something like "Scrabble is notable for what are called 'scrabble words' and this is because of ... and drop some the reasons and such, but don't dumb it down too much. Jok2000 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.254.94 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between having notable well-sourced strategy information and being a strategy guide. Take Chess strategy, Monopoly (game)#Strategy, or Risk (game)#Strategy as three examples. A "strategy" section is not the same as a guide. Oren0 17:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this has come up again, note the direct precedent at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chess_strategy (speedy keep). It's exactly the same thing, only this is a section of an article rather than a whole article itself. I do agree, for the record, that much of the section needs citing and some needs rewriting. Calling it original research might be a stretch because nearly all of the material in this section has been published in numerous books (it's all rudimentary stuff and books on Scrabble strategy exist) but I don't own them and wouldn't know which to cite. Oren0 (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The tic tac toe article is full of strategy. Maybe the Wik guide-line should be changed.

[edit] Old, unsorted talk

The invention date does not match with the Alfred Mosher Butts article. Research should be done to discover which is the correct date.

Although the opaque cloth bag is used by many players because of its convenience, it is not provided as standard equipment with the game. The rules suggest this option, along with the one of putting the tiles face down on the table. Eclecticology

The Deluxe version, along with a better board (with ridges to keep the tiles in place) comes with an opaque cloth bag. --Frecklefoot 14:33 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I believe the rules included with the game say that the first player to use all of his tiles gets a bonus equal to the sum of the remaining tiles of all of his opponents, and each opponent loses points equal to his own remaining tiles. This differs from what the article says, which is that the first to use all his tiles gets a bonus of twice his "opponent's" (singular) remaining tiles. Only in a one-on-one game would this have the same effect on the two players' relative scores.

Arteitle 07:43 29 May 2003 (UTC)

You're referring to the 'box rules'... the rules quoted in the article pertain to official NSA club and tourney rules (in which case, only one-on-one play is acceptable)

Brian W

This article is pretty biased towards N. America, particularly the U.S.A., for example the comparison between North American and International rules should be changed. It should either be reworded, or the International rules should be given, with N. American exceptions where applicable, or better still all the different variants listed. (This is assuming that there isn't a natural N. America/International distinction made within the game, in which case this needs pointing out at the start). If I knew more about it I would amend this, but unfortunately it's outside my current sphere of knowledge.

As a side issue, I think it would be useful to give the letter-scores for all international versions of the game, probably on a separate page. I would be happy to do this if people want to send me the info (or I could just create a blank one to be filled in). Let me know via Talk. HappyDog 02:35, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like the North American bias. Considering where the game was invented, that's as it should be. Besides, everyone else has to deal with the definite European and particularly UK bias in most other articles. 67.71.143.190 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this "Literati" that it is apparently so easy to confuse Scrabble with? I have never heard of it. Why is it mentioned here? Would anyone really get the two mixed up?

I linked to the corresponding Wikipedia page but it describes only "literati" (the common noun). — Paul G 14:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Literati is a similar word game offered on the www.yahoo.com web page under games. It is free to play and similar in that there are double and triple word and letter scoring tiles. The letter distribution is not the same and there are a total of 4 blank tiles per game vice 2 for Scrabble. Also, a different word list is used for Literati based on dictionary.com.

[edit] Inconsistent records

Aren't these two lines contradictory?

High game - 770 by Mark Landsberg (Calif.) 1993. Landsberg defeated Alan Stern 770-308, making the total 1,108 points 
the highest combined score ever recorded.

The highest competitive game score is 1,049 by Phil Appleby of Lymington, Hants, UK, on June 25, 1989 in Wormley, 
Herts, UK. His opponent scored just 253 points, giving Appleby a record victory margin of 796 points.

1049 by Phil Appleby is clearly higher than 770 by Mark Landsberg. The total is also higher (1302 vs. 1108) Pburka 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first is the North American record. The second is the world record. Interesting bit of Americocentrism that we have the American record first! Maybe this should be changed. Agentsoo 11:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Given the year and the otherwise implausible score, the 1049 presumably occurred under the "high score system", as describe thusly in the Scrabble FAQ, which lists several high scores internationally, but not this one:

The UK has a second form of Scrabble play that is waning: high-score tournaments, where only the total of one's own scores matters. Since one's "opponents'" scores are irrelevant, play in this system aims for open boards and encourages elaborate setups often independently mined by the two players.

At a minimum, clarification is required. But as the "high score system" is an entirely different game, is almost non-strategic, and has fallen almost entirely out of favor throughout the world, that score might be better deleted once we verify that it's what I think it is. That said, we should certainly strive to list real competitive records side-by-side for the two major word lists in use today.

J. Goard 21:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, hope you guys like my significant adjustments. The records section needs more investigation, and the popular references can of course be greatly expanded. ("Friends" (Ross's monkey), "Rosemary's Baby", "The Simpsons", probably half a bajillion others...)

J. Goard 00:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It must also be borne in mind that the American 770 game was played to the draconian American "double challenge" rule. The effect of this is that a high-scoring move may result in a challenge, which may be perfectly justifiable from the point of view of an opponent with limited options, and a consequent lost turn. If this happens several times the player in the lead will get several free turns, and be allowed to extend the lead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00:31, December 11, 2005 (talk • contribs) 203.120.68.73.

"Draconian" is a matter of personal opinion. Also, it's not like the American rules are being hidden from anyone. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Craziest Vidlit

This is not a well known (as far as I know) piece about Scrabble, but would it be appropriate to add the following to the references to Scrabble? Craziest

[edit] Exceptions to the word rules

If I'm not mistaken, there are some exceptions to the "acceptable word" rules, for example "bi". If this is true we should mention it.

Bi isn't an exception, it's a valid slang word (for a bisexual person). KingTT 05:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The "box rules" indicate that any verifiable slang word is acceptable in Scrabble. Of course, in tournament play the rules are somewhat different. thefamouseccles 02:34, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There are also "dirty words" like shit that aren't listed in the Scrabble Dictionary, and aren't supposed to be allowed in living room games, but are allowed in tournaments. Also, racially offensive words like abo and jewed are allowed in tournaments but were removed from the Scrabble Dictionary by Hasbro when some people complained. This is a hot topic of conversation among Scrabble players, and it ought to be mentioned. I didn't see it mentioned. Many really good Scrabble players keep a list of the "dirty words" in their Scrabble dictionary to look up challenges. I do. It's hard to explain to people why I have a list of cuss words in my purse, and when I explain that I play competitive Scrabble, they still look at me funny. :) Sarah crane 16:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bingo x2

I'm not sure if the article explains this; if it doesn't, it needs to be added, as a short sentence. If a word scores a bingo on a double-word tile, for example, is the bingo's 50 point prize affected by the tile?

On a tangent, is the word "Bingo" a trademark of anyone, and has it caused any problems when used in a Scrabble context? Wikipedia's article on gives the strong impression that it's as generic a name as, say, chess or draughts. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I have clarified the scoring of bingos in the article (Scrabble#Scoring). Bingo is not trademarked, as it refers to the generic game of bingo and the exuberant, elated cry of completing one's card. Bonus, the more descriptive and accurate international name, is not trademarked either. WAvegetarian 14:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cwm

I have 3 concerns about this sentence:

  • The word CWM is quite famous for being a three-letter word with no vowels - not even a Y, which is often used as a vowel substitute.

Firstly, Y is not just a vowel substitute, it is a vowel when it acts as a vowel, and a consonant when it acts as a consonant. In YES it's a consonant, and in TRY it's a vowel. We've all become slaves to the primary school teaching that in English there are 5 and only 5 vowels, a, e, i, o and u. That was always wrong. Y may not always operate as a vowel, but it's still a vowel sometimes.

Secondly, cwm was lifted from Welsh, and the English didn't even bother to re-spell it as something less foreign-looking, eg. coom. But they still claim it as an English word. How can this be? Oh, that's right, it's an English word that doesn't have any vowels, that must be the explanation. Well, it doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. W is certainly considered a vowel in Welsh, so how can it possibly have ceased to be a vowel when it still performs exactly the same function in cwm as it did before the English stole the word? This seems to be taking the expression "having a bet each way" too far, really. Leaving that debate aside, my view is that the W takes the -oo- sound in this case, and clearly performs the functions of a vowel, so it's a vowel. The list of vowels should read: a, e, i, o, u, y (often), and w (in some special cases).

Thirdly, is the Scrabble page the best place to be discussing linguistic matters? If cwm is generally accepted by the Scrabble experts as a valid English word, why is there a need to talk about its alleged vowellessness (my neologism for today), or to justify it any way at all? I won't make any changes until others have had a chance to have a think about these very serious matters. JackofOz 05:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


JackofOz, I think the is quite a difference between words used frequently in a language and words in the Scrabble Dictionary. OWL (North America) and OSW (U.K.) dictionaries each adopt a plethora of foreign words which aren't normally found in English. QAID (a variation of CAID) is just one example, a word with a 'Q' without a 'U'! Greek letters and Hebrew letters are also both acceptable in OWL, and KI and QI which have been in OSW for a while now (as I understand) are making their entrance into the American OWL dictionary.
You are absolutely correct when you say CWM is a Welsh word. The 'W' is indeed a vowel in the Welsh language. However, in terms of English Scrabble, people are not going to save the 'W' as a vowel to balance their rack, as the number of words where it appears as a vowel are very limited (CWM and CRWTH are maybe the only ones in the OWL). Perhaps rewording of specifying that the letter 'W' "is not a vowel in the English language" would make this part sound better?
Respelling is a tricky order and all depends on what a society decideds, but yes, it does happen often. However, what ultimately determines what spellings and variations are acceptable are the dictionary committees, which work with a major dictionary (such as Merriam-Webster's or Chambers) and choose what they feel are appropriate words. Just because a word is in the Scrabble dictionary doesn't necessarily mean you'll find it in your bookshelf dictionary, or in your spellchecker. (Of course, who's to say you can't play with your own dictionary of choice?)
Lastly, I think CWM is a great example to provide because I believe most people who will be viewing this page are going to be recreational players and novices. The page should be informative and helpful and I think most people don't realize that there are more "unusual" words that exist and that words like CWM or VAV or QAT are a great way to rid of harder-to-play consonants and better one's rack, especially if vowels are short-handed.

—Mproud 05:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Revert

I would definitely consider something called the "Official Club and Tournament Wordlist" to be a "list of" rather than "a guide to" permissible words. The correct term/jargon for a word that is played and is not in the challenge reference being used is "phony" not "illegal word." This is significant because there is nothing illegal about playing words that aren't valid. It is actually commonplace at the tournament level. --WAvegetarian 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, as careful tournament directors such as myself take pains to point out, if it's not in the Official Club and Tournament Word List (note: Word List is two words), it's not a word at all, illegal or not. -- poslfit 2006-04-17 20:26 EDT

I can't agree with that last statement - there are many words that aren't in the official Word List. That doesn't mean they aren't words, just that they aren't acceptable when that list is the official source.

[edit] References in literature, television, and film

It seems to me that the references should be ordered in sets according to whether they are literature, television, or film, and within each set the references should be ordered by dates (in the case of TV series, perhaps by the starting date). The current convention is dateless, but I think this would be a valuable addition.--Codify 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Appears this section was hived off to a separate article and then deleted ! Surely there must be a compromise somewhere. It's now disappeared altogether; can it be brought back in some form or other ? GrahamHardy (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this is madness as it was an interesting list. I have reinstated it for the moment, with some pruning and shortnening ,and also a lot of reformatting and tidying up. Unless we can have another crack at spinning it out onto a seperate page without fear of it being re-deleted, it will have to stay here for now. Advice on next steps welcomed. 87.194.252.72 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh version

Why is the Welsh version listed in the history, but no other foreign language version? Should we add other languages in there too? Sarah crane 16:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's completely gratuitous and out of place; a non-sequiteur. No. Maybe we could flesh out Scrabble letter distributions or something; make an article about foreign-language versions of Scrabble, but History is not the place for it. (No offense to the Welsh, who were nice enough to give us cwm.) —Wiki Wikardo

[edit] Merging Butts

That’s a fun headline, huh? Anyway, the dude ain’t really did nothing besides invent Scrabble (not that that’s any small feat), so I don’t see why he isn’t just part of “History.” —Wiki Wikardo 06:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Yes, inventing Scrabble is his only claim to fame. It wouldn't be terrible to merge them. But there's plenty of information about him. And he's in categories, like "board game designers" and "1899 births" that we couldn't have if they were merged. I think they're better separate. Sarah crane 12:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this occured to me when I finally got around to suggesting the merger and noticed he was in the board game category. The thing is, when you click on his name from the Scrabble article, it's almost disappointing, like, "Oh. So, that's all he did; the thing I was just reading about. um, Why?" Also, when you merge the articles, Alfred Butts will redirect here, (which is the only article that linx to him anyway) and those categories'll still be on the resulting redirect page (I won't even address how absurd it is for someone to be looking for him in 1899 births, or however the hell that's supposed to work). —Wiki Wikardo 03:59, 11 April 2006
As an encyclopedia, I think the distinction between the man and his invention, even if its his only notable invention, is a meaningful one. My problem is with the sparse biographical content. I'd prefer to see the two articles reconciled, remove everything not biographical, and mark it a stub pending research and expansion. CleffedUp 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Expanded to what? Turn-ons and turn-offs; favourite colour and if he could have dinner with any person, living or dead, who it’d be? —Wiki Wikardo 03:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No, but where Butts was born might be useful info in the Butts article, and not the Scrabble article. Or when he died, or what his ethnicity was, etc. Sarah crane 12:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm generally opposed to merging articles about inventors and their work. category:Game designers exists to talk about famous people, and the creator of the most famous word game should be in there. --Mike Selinker 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he did invent another game, simply titled "Alfred's Other Game," which was a Scrabble variant. Someone more familiar with it should include that. Шизомби (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Players that have memorized all acceptable words

It says that "it is doubtful that any player knows all the acceptable words". This is simply not true. There are many top players who have memorized the whole word list. Perhaps this could be revised with the correct number of words. For example, it IS doubtful that any player knows all the words up to the 15 letter words. But this is a lot more than 106,000 words; it's closer to about 200,000. There are a significant number of players out there that know all the 2 through 8 letter words, and even some that know up to the 9 letter words or more. Even if they'll never get to play ZYZZYVA.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.192.2 (talk)

Okay then -- who has? We're gonna need sources for this one... Andy Saunders 03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
By knowing all the words, we're just talking about strings of letters, not definition and usage, so it isn't as improbable as it might sound. Doesn't Fatsis mention in Word Freak that Cappelletto memorized the OSPD? Of course, it is hard to verify any such claims, because there is no formal testing, only tournament games in which some players seem to unerringly recognize phonies. Indeed, I believe the top international players not only know both OSPD and OSW, a few can even say which words are acceptable in one and phony in the other. --Fritzlein 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Fatsis says that he could say which page any word was on on the OSPD... 86.131.10.215 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's verifiable that anyone knows all the words, or that no one does. So such a claim should be left out of the article, imo. Sarah crane 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim should then be left out altogether because it is unverifiable. But I know for a fact that players like Brian Cappelletto, Trey Wright, Jason Katz-Brown, Kenji Matsumoto, Dave Wiegand, Robin, etc. etc. know the whole OSPD backwards and forwards.

Having just finished a tournament with Dave Wiegand a week ago, I can tell you that he never misses phonies. To be the U.S. National Champion you have to have the wordlist memorized, at least through the 9 letter long words and probably the tens as well.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus please: External links to online play sites

I agree that we shouldn't be linking to any pay for play sites, but how are we deciding which ones we are keeping? The online-scrabble.com site has just over 1000 registered users. An informal online poll on their homepage shows that over 50% of their users got there from Wikipedia! They are small and receiving the majority of referals from us. The download version requires a person to pay GBP£14.99 before they can access all the features. Can we develop a consensus on what criteria to use in regards to these links? I know of many more free online sites in the same genera as online-scrabble.com that are better known, have larger membership, and don't use Wikipedia as their main referrer. I'm sure there is a truly free download game somewhere.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this article is way past the Spam event horizon. I reckon we keep the patent link and scrabble.com, and dump the rest; if they get added back in in as references, that's great; otherwise, we keep it trimmed. Percy Snoodle 09:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone and trimmed all links that don't particularly pertain very well to competitive tournament Scrabble players (i.e. I've kept the information re: accessories, but not much else). Andy Saunders 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
On the grounds that info about accessories is available from the clubs, and that linking to such accessories is very close to if not actually violating WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided#5, and that a former dictionary linkee had now defined themself as an "accessory", I've removed them too. I think we now have a maintainable number of links. Percy Snoodle 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea. Andy Saunders 22:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should link to the ISC (www.isc.ro). It seems to be at least the most respected site that people play Scrabble on, as at least 4 former national champions play on it regularly, and many more people who regularly play in Division 1 in the US, and all over the world. There are always about 2000 people connected simultaneously. They do charge for "support service", which includes some advanced features, but base play is completely free..

I agree with this. The ISC is the place online where expert and aspiring Scrabble players go to ply their trade. I know; I know, WP:NOR, but I have personally played against Trey Wright (handle trey), the 2004 N. American Champion, as well as other internatinoally known stars like Brian Cappelletto (handle BriCap), 1998 N. American Champion and 2001 World Champion, on ISC. If we list any internet based ways to play, this one should be included.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
External links exist to add usefulness to an article that the article can't provide, and obviously people can't play Scrabble on the Wikipedia. Whether they are play for pay or not isn't relevant, and we can pick and choose what are the top such sites, however the best choice would probably be to link to Dmoz category for such things and leave it at that. 2005 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good. That way we avoid the "But you have my competitor's link." crap that we had before.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Yorker mentions Scrabble article, describes it as "masterly"

Stacy Schiff, who won a Pulitzer, praises this Scrabble article[1]. So good work. Sorry if you know about this, and sorry about it being irrelevant. Exeunt 20:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Scrabble Set

I've got a Scrabble game by Spear's Games, made in England, that has copyright from 1948 to 1955. It doesn't say who holds the copyright but it coincides with the dates in article. Will that mean the dates in the article are wrong (if Spear's Games held the copyright from 1948), or that the copyright belongs to Butts or Brunot?--Jcvamp 02:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split suggestion

With the article getting up to 49 kilobytes, it might not be a bad idea to beginning spinning off some sections into their own articles. Splitting the "pop culture references" has worked well in similar articles, is there any opposition to doing that with this article? Andy Saunders 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncommon 2/3 letter words list

I wondered if anybody has a list of 'uncommon' scrabble-allowed 2 and 3 letter words. The 2 letter word list is small enough to be useable at family-games, but the number 3 letter words is so vast that I would love to cut it down to only uncommon words:

E.g. currently my list of 3 letter words includes things like...

cab, cot, cut, did, die, fat, hay, ice, ivy, led, mad (and so on)

There are, however, words I would not have known such as...

kep, gib, gid, dae, daw awn, awl

I know that it is very subjective (who is to say what I consider 'uncommon' but any type of cut-down version of the list that only shows the odd (and potentially useful) words would be much appreciated.

Otherwise I do have a list from one of the other articles that I am considering cutting-down.

Many thanks,

ny156uk 15:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet links

If American sites are not linked to then mexican sites do not need to be linked to either, it violates and infringes the fairness policy.

First off, there is no Wikipedia:Fairness Policy. Otherwise the link would be blue. (Starting the page to prove your point is childish and silly.) Secondly, and more importantly, the American organizing body (NSA) is linked to, thus your argument/rant/? is unfounded. Both currently have links, along with Britain and Australia. Not bothering to see which national association was called the National Scrabble Association before complaining is excusable, but I can only guess as to why you only picked on the non-English association, which is "International" by the way. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source Dictionaries

"The OWL2 and the OSPD4 are compiled using four (originally five) major college-level dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster (10th and 11th Editions, respectively)."

What is meant by "respectively" in the above sentence? The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that the OWL2 is based on the 10th edition and OSPD4 on the 11th, which is clearly not true as the two differ almost solely with respect to the expurgated words and trademarks.

If the sentence is intended to mean something else perhaps it should be edited to make it clear. -gr8white

[edit] Chance/strategy

Who determines that chance and strategy should be designated as "medium" in the infobox? I'd like it to be changed to chance: low and strategy: high.

As a tournament Scrabble player, I'd like to disagree with the "chance: low" designation suggestion. One is very much at the mercy of the tiles, and there is a high degree of chance. If I can't get tiles to play with, I'm not even going to beat my ex-girlfriend. Andy Saunders 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It depends. I'm a tournament Scrabble player too, but once you get past a certain skill level, the game becomes more of a "find the best move with your tiles every turn". In that case, chance can be seen as only about 10-20% of the game, at MOST. Certainly not the 50% that "medium" would seem to suggest. As a point of reference, I'm in the low 1700s for rating. Perhaps it's different for everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.111.22.66 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Suggestion: To change the "Random chance" designation to be more descriptive. "Medium-to-High for beginners, Low-to-Medium for experts". Or maybe simpler: "Medium for beginners, Low for experts"? Can we have an informal vote on this? HumphreyW (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
My two-cents worth as an expert-level player (peak rating 1950+). "Medium" is fine as it really means relative to other games. Not completely a non-factor as in chess but not the overriding factor as in roulette. You can have endless debates about what percentage luck plays; my own feeling is that between two players with about the same skill level chance plays more of a part than between two mismatched players, at least as far as determining the winner. But no reason to complicate the issue here. Gr8white (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand my point above - assuming two hypothetical players both skilled enough to "find the best move...every turn" - wouldn't chance be the primary factor in determining the outcome? Gr8white (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That would suggest that chance is actually "high". Which would contradict the above saying that for experts chance is "low". This is all quite confusing and contradictory: Expert-plays-expert gives "high" chance, Expert-plays-grandma gives "low", and Grandma-plays-grandma gives "high". Perhaps the chance label should be changed from "medium" to "high", or "low", or what? HumphreyW (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
In any case the amount of random chance involved in the game itself is the same regardless of the skill level. When you draw tiles the outcome of your draw is (one hopes) completely random. What you do with the tiles you have on your turn is completely non-random. So I think the "medium" designation is valid when compared with other games. The point I tried to make above was that in terms of determining the outcome of the game it isn't necessarily true that the role chance plays varies from high to low as the skill level increases. It is more a matter of how close the players' skill levels are. I consider my brother's skill level to be low but he still beats most of the people he plays, not because of random chance, but because their skill levels are still lower. But I don't think that's what the "random chance" level is intended to indicate, rather the amount of chance involved in the game itself relative to other games. Gr8white (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought the amount of chance is also linked the the players skill. For example, Chess also has an element of luck. If, say, I play a game where I only make a randomly selected move each time without regard to whether it is a good move, then I still have a chance to outplay the world champion (through sheer dumb luck to have played the best move each time). Admittedly the chance may be one in a zillion (or maybe lower), but there is still a chance. So in Chess the skill level is a dominating factor to overcome the luck. For Scrabble, we can also make random moves but with the added randomness of the tiles we draw. The simple act of placing random tiles on the board must also use some skill to ensure that we are playing a proper word else we get challenged off. Perhaps we can judge the skill level as being the ability of someone with perfect play to overcome chance and beat the random-selection player? If this a way to judge the chance then does that make the current "medium" correct? How likely is it that the imaginary perfect-player will overcome a lesser player? HumphreyW (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think medium is fair. I think of it like poker: skill wins in the long term but luck can win in the short term. If I keep getting blanks, easy bingos, and 6x on high-point tiles dropped in my lap and you can't stop drawing all vowels, I'm going to beat you no matter how good you are. But if you're really much better you're going to beat me 9 out of 10 times when the luck evens out. I'd say a good example of a "high chance" game is roulette. A "low chance" game might be Fischer Random Chess. Medium is a good assessment of Scrabble imo. As for the "high with expert-expert" notion, any game with any chance at all becomes all chance as the skill of the players approaches infinity or if the players are equally skilled. Oren0 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a formal discussion in the math literature rigorously laying out what Oren0 is saying. Kdammers (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in basic agreement with Oren0 and as I said previously there's no need to overcomplicate it. Everyone will agree there is always an element of chance involved. Most will agree in general skill (strategy) is more important over the long haul. Gr8white (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nabokov's board

I don't on principle have anything against this image, but it is highly out of place in its current position. It doesn't illustrate anything. It doesn't show what a board looks like as it is obscured. It doesn't show all 100 tiles. There is no mention of famous people who play(ed) the game anywhere in the article. In short, it's an arguably cool cultural history image that has no current place in the article. I don't think it really adds much right now and feel it detracts by cluttering since it is unrelated to the rest of fthe article. I will remove it if there are no objections.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrabble

This article does seem to be mainly about tournament Scrabble and tournament Scrabble in English as well. I suppose there is not much information in English about Scrabble in other languages but IMO the English Wikipedia does tend to get caught up in English-language topics. There is the Francophone Scrabble article but that's not mentioned on here. Mglovesfun 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously splitting this article into Scrabble and Tournament Scrabble or some similar title is not such a bad idea. Mglovesfun 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts I started English language Scrabble which is in desperate need of improvement. Mglovesfun 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The words SCUBA, RADAR, and AWOL are all listed in the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, so I removed those examples from the article concerning illegal acronyms. 72.177.117.91 03:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AI counter-factual claim

Removed:

Scrabble AI was capable of beating human players ten years ago, the stronger level of play among modern tournament players can beat existing artificial intelligences.[citation needed]

I cite: http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/02/28/News/Winning.Computer.Program.Created.By.Graduate.Student.Beats.World.Champion.Scrabb-2747381-page2.shtmlWhile Jok2000 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I used to get beaten at Scrabble by my computer at least 20 years ago. --78.144.104.62 (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphen

Who hyphenates English language as English-language? Looks very nonstandard. Is it part of the company's trademark on the game? Kroyw 03:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"English language" by itself isn't hyphenated, but because "English language" together form a compound modifier of the word "set" in the just-edited caption, a hyphen is appropriate. --EEMIV 03:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll accept that swiftly-given explanation, but it still wrinkles my brow. Kroyw 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate/House rules

I think there should be a section for common "house rules". Some of them are documented here. topher67 (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reputable sources for house rules, then they can be added. However, by their very nature, house rules aren't going to have much (if any) reputable sources. I don't know if the source that you provided would pass the "reliability" test. — Val42 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright, patent and trademark?

How about a sentence noting that the layout and play of the board is no longer protected? Does anyone have a solid reference? --Charles Merriam (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent article on Scrabble and Scrabul what-ever

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02game.html?th&emc=th Maybe it should be added as a ref?Kdammers (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks

While certain trademarks didn't appear in the initial printing of OSPD4, apparently they were added to subsequent printings, so I removed the reference to them [2]. Gr8white (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variants

I removed the piece about CS Lewis's version, which while it may be interesting isn't really pertinent to an article about the game. In fact, I think the entire section should probably be eliminated or reduced to a reference that they exist and link to the variants article. The remaining part about Speed Scrabble doesn't even match the version in the other article. Gr8white (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference desk question

Can a subject-matter expert help out with this question? Bovlb (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For Dummies version of Scrabble?

Years ago I'd seen a board game by For Dummies that was a Scrabble knock-off, which is strange since they aren't known for making games. Is anyone aware of what it was, and if there was a lawsuit about it, as I've never seen it again? Would seem to be worthy of inclusion in the article if someone had the details. Шизомби (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why a TWL?

Why isn't SOWPODS universally used? What are examples of words in one and not the other, and why? Шизомби (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because of political reasons. The NSA (in USA) promote their own dictionary and steer their members away from SOWPODS in subtle but effective ways. It also doesn't help that Scrabble has two owners, namely Mattel and Hasbro, who are in direct competition with each other.

[edit] Why is the Canadian Championship considered prestigious?

It is an invitational event restricted to entrants from only one country. Of the four events listed there in the prestigious section, the World Championship is the only other invitational, but it selects from the best players all over the world. I think the Canadian Championship should either be relegated to a secondary class of some sort or simply deleted. Does anyone have arguments for continuing to include it? HumphreyW (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Scrabble community considers it a "major" as it's one of the few events that Hasbro actually provides prize money for, making it one of the more prestigious events in North America. Andy Saunders (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We need consistency. Mattel provide funds for the Trans-Tasman, the British NSC, the Asia-Pacific, and others. If money is the sole reason to promote it to a "major" then we should include all of the Mattel sponsored events also. Clearly, having a long list of "prestigious" tournaments would degrade from the purpose. Also you mention that "it one of the more prestigious events in North America", but notably you don't say "in the world". I feel that Wikipedia is very much an international website, and the Scrabble article should try to keep with the international flavour. If it is still to be considered a "major" then I suggest it should be put into position 4 at the very least, but I prefer a secondary category that can also include the WYSC and the NSSC as restricted entry versions of the "majors". HumphreyW (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added the WYSC and NSSC and spilt them off, with the CSC, into another sub-list. I think there is still room for maybe one or two more tournaments into each of the two parts. Perhaps the Causeway Challenge could become prestigious in the near future, and the Trans-Tasman Challenge and the four-nations would seem to fit nicely into the "other important" events. HumphreyW (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)