Thinkr Scores 1284 On Scrabble Cubes

[Jacob]

[rahnnyboy]

i see the video, and now more than ever, I think you are a cheat. I won't tell you what is tipping me off, because I don't want you to correct it. then you'd just make a new handle, correct your errors and look legit. If your interested, however, in writing a better solver (using simulation to estimate the value of unseen cubes to try to predict when eliminating a cube is beneficial) to actually have an optimum solution, I think that's a really interesting idea...but something like that would have to be post-mortem unless you had a really really fast PC, since it involves simulation. I have ideas for how to do it, but I have ZERO programming experience.

[thinkr]

I've been called cheater, liar and all sorts of things my whole life, that's what I get for doing the impossible, I'm used to it now. Whatever it is you think you see is not what you think. In my first rubik's cube contest nobody believed it except the judge, someone even walked up to me and told me they thought I was disqualified. For what? Getting the best time?

[rahnnyboy]

To be clear, I'm not saying it's legitly impossible to score what you've scored. I'm saying you cheated to do it. To claim you are some superb puzzle solver, yet you can't figure out when it's appropriate to eliminate a cube (WHORTS from that game comes to mind) makes you seem foolish. Also, rubik's cube has absolutely nothing in common with 3D boggle, so you need to stop using it as a crutch.

It's not what I think I see, it's what I do see, and what anyone who watches that video can see. It's my interpretation of what I see from OVER 10 years of playing online word games that identifies you as a cheat.
If you're the real deal, stop being anonymous, identify yourself. I'll be in the Bay Area in the next couple of weeks, I'll play you in real life...if you can beat me, I'll come back here and eat my words and a huge piece of humble pie. But I suspect nothing will be forthcoming and you'll refuse to play in real life using a few well-thought-out excuses...

Anyways, there it is.

I've been called cheater, liar and all sorts of things my whole life, that's what I get for doing the impossible, I'm used to it now. Whatever it is you think you see is not what you think. In my first rubik's cube contest nobody believed it except the judge, someone even walked up to me and told me they thought I was disqualified. For what? Getting the best time?

[thinkr]

You've mentioned strategic elimination of cubes twice now. I also strategically remove cubes, however, for me I usually do it when I'm backed into a corner with few options. In other scenarios I prefer to use a word to accomplish the same thing, this conserves the blocks. As was the case when I saw whorts, I selected swathe for this very reason. I looked at the video several times and couldn't see your angle. Were you suggesting a way to remove a block to turn it into a 7 letter word? Or did it bug you that I didn't select it right off? I didn't pick it the first time it showed because I was hoping to expand on it and instead selected words that would change the board around it (such as swathe). If you saw something there that I missed then I'd love to know what it was. I like to learn, maybe you can teach me something there.

Anyway, I strategically remove blocks on average once every 3-4 games. My guess is that you are more aggressive with your block removal strategy, while I'm more aggressive with block conservation.

As to your offer to meet face-to-face, this might work out at some point, however, I'm preparing for a trip right now and working around the clock to finish some things before I go. Not an excuse, I will take seriously your offer. It would at least be interesting. Having said that, I need to also explain that I tend to be a bit of an isolationist, and not good with being put on the spot, stage fright if you want to call it that. At a cube contest I lose about 10 seconds to it, which is way too much these days so I don't even go now. First my hands seize up, then my brain has spontaneous amnesia, sometimes losing years of memory till its over. But I'm determined to conquer that soon. I've conquered most of my other quirks. So when we meet I would simply ask that you be understanding of that.

[rahnnyboy]

I'll stop picking on your for now...until we can meet up IRL.
To address your game with 1286...
You have a Z on the TLS score cube showing, combining that with the deep red triple cube gives a minimum of 90pt play. The play WHORTS sacrificed one use of the deep red cube, giving it less equity than just eliminating it for a chance to combine that Z with the deep red cube. Now, you lucked out by being able to hit ZYME and SNEEZY, but those were pure luck that they were available.
That WMG cube should've been gone after FENCES. SWATHE wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either...
ZAGS was a really bad play. VAWS was a better way to get that cube out of the way without eliminating it. TAUTOGS was a bailout, but not a good play for cube usage.

None of the plays were particularly mindblowing...I'd of opened with FANJET, then picrate then picrite but not using the E from the DLS, temporary benefit of using it does not outweigh the unseen potential.

One reason I think you are a cheat is because on that whole board you missed nothing, but you played it like a brainless program would play it...with infinite time, I'm as good as any solver out there, so I've gone through and with the static board you play (each time cubes are eliminated) you manage the highest scoring word available with no consideration for strategical aspects. But as a high ranked scrabble player, some humans play like brainless computers in real life, so that's not the damning piece of information...the big thing that is tipping me off about you being a cheat, I will not reveal until I've seen a few more of your videos...until I'm more sure. I'm 99.99% sure though.

[bmy1]

great job on this site renaldo (I think?)... and great job regularly whooping my ass in the survival.

the videos are definitely interesting... that 1284 had some words I either didn't know or weren't familiar with... fanjet I've seen before but unlikely i'd actually get it... picrate/picrite ditto.

i still struggle with consistency... now averaging about 800 when i'm not distracted or disconnected... top score is only 1051 with 2 others over 1000...

I think i know what Rahn is referring to...

-brian

[thinkr]

I carefully read the rules when I first signed up and again just now. There is no mention of a prohibition against using paper based reference materials. I'm sure there are a number of players with paper notes, the scrabble dictionary, organized word lists, etc. I came up with my own paper based materials and used them to speed up the word extraction process. I'm going to produce a book on this technique; I think a lot of people will be interested. And it is generic, the same book working with many different word games/puzzles that use the same (or close to the same) word list.

The other strategies I've seen (including the ones mentioned here) may stack with it, so the pro will still have the advantage (through combining the book with these other strategies), while the amateur will score much closer to the pro (due to the fact that effective word extraction is the most significant strategy). This will result in much greater fairness and popularity, and popularity of course translates to bigger prizes.

Right now the scores are too far apart. The determined amateur scores around 400-600, the gifted person 700-900, the pro 800-1200, and the cheater 900-1400. With this book everyone gains except the cheater (making it more fair), and the resulting scores will be closer together, reducing player attrition (increases popularity). My guess is that the same scores would change to 700-1000 for the determined amateur, 800-1200 for the gifted person, 900-1400 for the pro, and an unchanged 900-1400 for the cheater.

I'm sure you're all wondering how a paper based system could be fast enough. However, I'd like to get my copyright first.

Of course the notion of "cheating" can only be defined by the contest holders. If they decide to call a paper based word extraction technique "cheating" then I'll honor that and put my book aside while I play. And in this case it will only be used to train my mind in preparation of actual play. However, my guess is that they will not make such a rule, it would be problematic. However, just in case, the book will include a disclaimer saying it cannot be used to cheat, and that they have to refer to the rules of the contest they play in.

[Jacob]

Thinkr, long time no see. I heard you got banned from WW -- did it get lifted or are you still on the bench waiting to hear back from them?