TLW 111 - Nomads Results

Personal Profile 1 ~ Ed Martin
This is a new series in which leading players are encouraged to reveal exactly what they have
done in the past to get as good as they are, and what they are doing now to get even better.
My first guest is Ed Martin. With a current ABSP rating of 194 and a best ever of 198, Ed has
been consistently among our top ten players for some time now, and achieved an excellent
second place in the recent 2006 Masters.
Ed, can you start by saying a little about your progress through
the Scrabble ranks.
I have been playing competitive Scrabble for 16 years, though
I hardly played between 1994 and 2000. I had reached 187 in
1993, but when I restarted it seemed to me that standards had
improved enormously, at least among 160 to 190 players, and
it was a long slow climb to get back. I reached the 170s in
2003, the 180s in 2004 and the 190s in 2005.
Approximately how many hours per day, on average, do you
devote to the play and/or study of the game?
Approximately one hour studying daily on the way to and from
work. In addition I reckon to play about ten rated (tournament)
games per month, plus three friendlies in the Middlesex league. Ed Martin
Can you describe what forms your study takes, in order of importance to you.
First and foremost, self-testing on anagrams. This incorporates work on hooks, since I study
hooks as I anagram - e.g. if I am testing myself on CDEEILRS, I have to come up with not only
the word but its hooks. If I learn a word, I take that to include its hooks. I don’t time the
anagrams, but tend to give up if I haven’t got the answer in twenty seconds or so.
Next in importance to me comes general word familiarisation, from OSWI or the dictionary.
This is followed by analysis of my own games using a simulation tool. I do also play against
the computer, but not very often. When I do play the computer, I treat it as a tournament
game i.e. no looking up words or kibitzing!
Can you say roughly what proportion of your study time you spend on each of the word
lengths from 4 to 8?
4 - 8%; 5 - 30 %; 6 - 2%; 7 - 30%; 8 - 30%.
In the case of seven- and eight-letter words, can you roughly quantify the way in which you
weight your study, if you do, towards higher probability words.
By probability, I reckon to concentrate on 1-8000 for 7s and 8s. But recently I have been
trying to weight my study to the letters I will probably be retaining on my rack. For example,
CONIDIA has the same probability as INCEDES, but the latter is more likely to come up
because I am likely to retain Es and Ss. So I have been learning words containing certain sets
of 4 letters e.g. AERS, EIST, EIRS, that I consider likely to appear on my rack - although I stop
when the list appears to be getting to low probability words.
Do you spend any time on the study of words of nine letters or more?
Only insofar as I learn the hooks when I learn 8s.
Do you study bonus stems?
No, just the straight anagrams.
36
Do you use any mnemonic techniques, e.g. anamonics, associative phoneys, or the kind of
more elaborate techniques described in ‘How To Win at Scrabble’?
I use lots of mnemonics for 3-4 and 4-5 hooks, including cases where the 3 isn’t a word, in
order to learn fours. For example, to learn the front hooks for ?YTE (which are B, C, G, H,
K, L, T and W) I have an anamonic - ‘thick black wig’ - think Jimmy ‘Yte’!
When you analyse your own games, do you find that when you miss the optimum move, this
is most often a) because you simply don’t know the word, b) because you know the word
but don’t find it or c) because you know the word and find it but fail to recognise that it is
the optimum move.
Very much a). It’s hard to quantify, but there are undoubtedly a lot of words in SOWPODS,
even of eight letters or less, that I just don’t know.
Do you attempt to ‘peak’ for certain events (i.e. intensify your study) or do you tend to keep
at a consistent level throughout?
I aim at a consistent level throughout.
To what extent do you find that once you have learnt words you tend to remember them
and to what extent do you find that your word knowledge suffers from ‘fade’ and requires
constant reinforcement?
I find that the knowledge fades and needs reinforcement, though this is hard to quantify.
How interested are you in the meanings of the words?
I am interested when I come across them, but I don’t make a special effort to seek them out.
Would you describe your attitude towards significant extensions to the Scrabble lexicon
(such as happened with OSWI and may happen with Collins) as apprehension, excitement
or something between?
Neither apprehensive nor unduly excited. I am very keen, though, that there should be a high
level of lexicographical integrity to the word source.
Do you feel that as far as individual tournaments go, being ‘in form’ plays a significant role
in Scrabble success?
No - I don’t believe much in the concept of form. One should simply aim always to be in a
good frame of mind mentally: in particular, don’t allow the perceived skill of your opponent
to make you either unduly positive or unduly negative.
How much do you think success at Scrabble depends on a natural ability which, perhaps
like musical ability, one tends to have or not have and how much do you think it is
overwhelmingly a matter of application?
I don’t think natural ability comes into it much. Anagramming ability can be learnt. Success
at the game is pretty much determined by how many of the right words one knows.
Do you feel that you have pretty much got as far as you’re going to in the game, or do you
feel that you have the potential to get significantly better?
I have the potential to get better!
Any other hints for our readers?
Don’t be rigid about study techniques - I try to change methods all the time to keep it fresh
and interesting.
Thanks very much for your time, Ed, and the best of luck for your future play.
37