TLW120 - Nomads Results

grounding. I then started to focus on combinations (6+1, 7+1, 6+2) for bingo study. This
was helpful at the time, but since the advent of LeXpert and Zyzzyva with their ability to
produce word lists in probability order, I now study anagrams and hooks virtually
exclusively in this manner, mainly onscreen but sometimes using printouts. I use
Jumbletime to test my knowledge and train my speed of recall, rather than as a wordlearning
tool. I examine many of my tournament games using Quackle simulations, and
quite often play through libraries of other games online (including TWL games from US
websites which tend to be more voluminously supplied). I am also a fan of tough cryptic
crosswords, so have spent many hours trawling through dictionaries.
Can you say roughly what proportion of your study time you spend on each of the word lengths
from 4 to 8?
I probably concentrate too much on bingo sets overall (including a bit of work on nines).
Recently I have been reviewing the fours, and will start revision of the fives before long. I
have been through all the sixes at one time or another, but these would be the weakest part
of my armoury. I have no set proportion of study time devoted to word lengths, but just plan
things in accordance with what I wish to focus on over a period.
I study in probability order, but aim to cover all words.
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’?
Not consciously or extensively. There are always some patterns that can be detected in
word study – I mean words that the mind tends to group together, like
PAILLARD/PALLIARD/GAILLARD/GALLIARD – and using these is a form of mnemonic
technique. Anamonics have the drawback that they often need to be updated when the
wordlist changes.
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?
Many of my misses are simply through doziness, e.g. missing front hooks, or not noticing
multiple overlap plays; sometimes I am guilty of not looking in all areas of the board (so
that I might miss XENIC, for example, from an initial X); and sometimes I miss words that
have not embedded themselves sufficiently strongly in my mind (e.g. a recent miss of
BRUXED, which theoretically I ‘know’ perfectly well but which did not suggest itself during
the game). I have a fairly good sense of what will simulate well, but this sometimes leads
me into rash decisions such as opening up TWS files when I have the game sewn up: one
must remember that the ‘best’ move is not always the winningest move.
Can you give a rough idea of what proportion of the current SOWPODS lexicon up to and
including 8 letter words you would claim that you do know, in the sense of being able to state
confidently that any given word from it is valid or not?
Nearly all.
34
Do you attempt to ‘peak’ for certain events (i.e. intensify your study)?
I try to keep at a consistent level generally, but the advent of a major international
tournament tends to inspire me to increase the rate somewhat.
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?
They generally stay put, but some are difficult to master (e.g. the Maori words and their
hooks). If I stopped studying completely, there might be a degree of fade but I think the
words stay fresh because I am constantly reviewing something.
How interested are you in the meanings of the words, on a scale of 1 to 10?
8-9. I can recall words without knowing their meanings, but I am always interested, and
tend to store this information away as well (without guaranteeing accuracy).
Would you describe your attitude towards significant extensions to the Scrabble lexicon (such
as happened with the change to OSWI and last year to Collins) as apprehension, excitement or
something between?
I sometimes find them daunting, and some of the fatuous inventions foisted on us by Collins
were highly annoying, but I enjoy studying words. On a scale of 1 to 10 with excitement
at the top, I would say 9.
Do you feel that as far as individual tournaments go, being ‘in form’ plays a significant role
in Scrabble success, or that any such factor is swamped by the luck of the tiles?
Assuming you are relatively fit (i.e. not ill, jetlagged or unduly drunk), and if you keep the
desired equable temperament, then it’s just a matter of the tiles you draw, and the result of
the previous game should have no bearing on the next one.
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?
Some people study quite extensively but never seem to progress much. That suggests to me
that a certain level of innate ability is needed as a starting-point.
Do you feel that you yourself 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 (even) better?
I don’t think I will get significantly better unless I am able to retire while still compos
mentis, and devote even more time to the game. There are faults in my game which I
recognise but which are still hard to eliminate, and I don’t think word knowledge is a
weakness (in other words my faults are probably character- or temperament-driven).
Do you think that you would study more and take the game more seriously if the material
rewards were greater, e.g. serious prize money in tournaments?
That is a plausible scenario.
35