Alright, I have finally made the choice - I'm moving to Wordpress. I won't close this site as of yet, but I'll try to do all my postings there from now on.
Visit my new site here.
Monday, June 21, 2010
5 reasons why some players are just that darned good (or why I am so bad)
If one takes a glance at international tourney results around the world, especially in the past year, it's not difficult to notice that only a handful of people perform very consistently at the top (and by top I mean top 3). I'm sure some of my readers would be pretty decent players themselves, so it's not uncommon to think "Gee, I'm not that bad, why's it that I'm not doing as well as they do? Are they really that lucky?".
My answer for you is: Maybe, but it's really unlikely that anyone is lucky all the time. And, in tourneys where top games are annotated, it can be seen that good players do draw bad racks at times. They are also more than 2 bingos behind in certain games (and, against all expectations, they win some of these games).
So what else could it be? Most people do feel a difference when they play top class players, compared to playing players they feel very confident beating. Could it then be that there is an abnormal "fear" of these top players, causing the affected player to play suboptimally? Well, for one, it certainly doesn't always work this way - some players will subconsciously play better, some will do worse, so it can't be a blanket case that everyone will be negatively affected. Another reason why this can't be the sole factor is because Scrabble players who are experienced enough won't be that impacted, so any difference made can only be minimal and unimportant.
I think, though, that the main reason must lie in their gameplay. The "top" players are noticeably more consistent than other "good" players, in both making winning plays and winning games. Here's what I think are 5 defining strategic traits of the top flight players.
1. Sensitivity to opponent's move
This is one important trait that makes players possibly better than Quackle. Although Quackle is brilliant at analysing moves based on what's left in the bag, it does not know about analysing moves based on what move your opponent just made. If your opponent does a 2-tile 22 pointer in a wide open board, there should only be one thing going through your mind - he wants to bingo next turn. So it would perhaps be unwise to expose more lanes at that time...
Of course, this is an extremely simplistic example; but in less obvious cases, top players are still able to remain sensitive about their opponent's moves, and hence improve their own play. By saying that, I mean things like "he played this, so he shouldn't have this on his leave", which many of us usually leave out.
2. Daringness
There are many cases where one is stuck with a number of choices. Often, the main difference between the choices is turnover, with a average bag (i.e. not fantastically good or terribly cluttered). Leave-wise, the choices are similar, with one keeping niceish tiles (or even nice tiles) and the other keeping 1 or 2 synergistic tiles. If one is behind by, say, more than a bingo, he would be tempted to play the move with less turnover for more security, especially with a decent leave.
This is a good example, though it isn't exactly what I just described. Pakorn's 6 tile "leap of faith" left him 17 points behind and gave Nigel a lot of space to close down the board (which he did rather elegantly with SAPID). However this confidence in the bag resulted in his fabulous BOTAN(I)CA next move, and subsequently his 2009 win at the WSC. (There are more examples of daringness, definitely: for instance players not blocking a spot and instead playing elsewhere despite obvious danger, or "taking the points" and opening triple word spots, without knowing what the opponent might play there)
3. Word knowledge
Well, this is bound to come up in a discussion about why some players are better than others - top players don't only know the words, but can spot them well. I had a real problem spotting some bingos during the King's Cup Final Game 1, though admittedly I didn't know some of them. I might have seen them in a game, but then again maybe not...
4. Excellent move-by-move forecasting
Why's a move better than another move? No, not always because it scores more or has a better leave. This is how (I think) the strategically strong players think for some difficult moves: your opponent might play here after that, and you will have this to play; or your opponent should play here, then you'd be stuck, so you'd better not play this move.
And it's still not that simple. If you're behind by a lot, thinking about a move becomes a whole lot more complex - top players will try to find a way to keep the board open for multiple catchup opportunities, and that brings an entire new dimension to the thinking.
5. Time management
No, I'm not saying that Pakorn manages his actual time on the clock very well, but the point must be made that the best players spend time on the right purposes, seeing the moves faster and spending the bulk of the time on strategy (well you can say Nigel doesn't fall into this category, but he manages his time well enough to put time pressure on the opponent anyway, which is a good characteristic). As of now, I can find most single-choice bingos on the board pretty quickly, but I struggle to find the best move when there are many bingo choices with a blank. By wasting so much time on finding the moves in the first place, I severely limit my thinking time for strategy.
On the other hand, very strong players spend time on the right moves, and don't just use it to find possible plays. Pakorn, for instance, can give me very lengthy explanations for his choices on what I initially think of as not-too-difficult moves, and usually considers a wide spectrum of moves before deciding on his choice.
Is there anything else you think makes these players stand out in almost every tourney? Please post it in the comments!
My answer for you is: Maybe, but it's really unlikely that anyone is lucky all the time. And, in tourneys where top games are annotated, it can be seen that good players do draw bad racks at times. They are also more than 2 bingos behind in certain games (and, against all expectations, they win some of these games).
So what else could it be? Most people do feel a difference when they play top class players, compared to playing players they feel very confident beating. Could it then be that there is an abnormal "fear" of these top players, causing the affected player to play suboptimally? Well, for one, it certainly doesn't always work this way - some players will subconsciously play better, some will do worse, so it can't be a blanket case that everyone will be negatively affected. Another reason why this can't be the sole factor is because Scrabble players who are experienced enough won't be that impacted, so any difference made can only be minimal and unimportant.
I think, though, that the main reason must lie in their gameplay. The "top" players are noticeably more consistent than other "good" players, in both making winning plays and winning games. Here's what I think are 5 defining strategic traits of the top flight players.
1. Sensitivity to opponent's move
This is one important trait that makes players possibly better than Quackle. Although Quackle is brilliant at analysing moves based on what's left in the bag, it does not know about analysing moves based on what move your opponent just made. If your opponent does a 2-tile 22 pointer in a wide open board, there should only be one thing going through your mind - he wants to bingo next turn. So it would perhaps be unwise to expose more lanes at that time...
Of course, this is an extremely simplistic example; but in less obvious cases, top players are still able to remain sensitive about their opponent's moves, and hence improve their own play. By saying that, I mean things like "he played this, so he shouldn't have this on his leave", which many of us usually leave out.
2. Daringness
There are many cases where one is stuck with a number of choices. Often, the main difference between the choices is turnover, with a average bag (i.e. not fantastically good or terribly cluttered). Leave-wise, the choices are similar, with one keeping niceish tiles (or even nice tiles) and the other keeping 1 or 2 synergistic tiles. If one is behind by, say, more than a bingo, he would be tempted to play the move with less turnover for more security, especially with a decent leave.
This is a good example, though it isn't exactly what I just described. Pakorn's 6 tile "leap of faith" left him 17 points behind and gave Nigel a lot of space to close down the board (which he did rather elegantly with SAPID). However this confidence in the bag resulted in his fabulous BOTAN(I)CA next move, and subsequently his 2009 win at the WSC. (There are more examples of daringness, definitely: for instance players not blocking a spot and instead playing elsewhere despite obvious danger, or "taking the points" and opening triple word spots, without knowing what the opponent might play there)
3. Word knowledge
Well, this is bound to come up in a discussion about why some players are better than others - top players don't only know the words, but can spot them well. I had a real problem spotting some bingos during the King's Cup Final Game 1, though admittedly I didn't know some of them. I might have seen them in a game, but then again maybe not...
4. Excellent move-by-move forecasting
Why's a move better than another move? No, not always because it scores more or has a better leave. This is how (I think) the strategically strong players think for some difficult moves: your opponent might play here after that, and you will have this to play; or your opponent should play here, then you'd be stuck, so you'd better not play this move.
And it's still not that simple. If you're behind by a lot, thinking about a move becomes a whole lot more complex - top players will try to find a way to keep the board open for multiple catchup opportunities, and that brings an entire new dimension to the thinking.
5. Time management
No, I'm not saying that Pakorn manages his actual time on the clock very well, but the point must be made that the best players spend time on the right purposes, seeing the moves faster and spending the bulk of the time on strategy (well you can say Nigel doesn't fall into this category, but he manages his time well enough to put time pressure on the opponent anyway, which is a good characteristic). As of now, I can find most single-choice bingos on the board pretty quickly, but I struggle to find the best move when there are many bingo choices with a blank. By wasting so much time on finding the moves in the first place, I severely limit my thinking time for strategy.
On the other hand, very strong players spend time on the right moves, and don't just use it to find possible plays. Pakorn, for instance, can give me very lengthy explanations for his choices on what I initially think of as not-too-difficult moves, and usually considers a wide spectrum of moves before deciding on his choice.
Is there anything else you think makes these players stand out in almost every tourney? Please post it in the comments!
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Some interesting/ puzzling rating gaps in SA
Between players who have played within the last 1 year...
Other than these, the rating gaps between players seem quite small. Not really trying to make a point here, but this is still somewhat worth a look.
| 1 |  | GM | Wee Ming Hui, Hubert | 764 | 2013 | 16 May 2010 | (Life) | |
| 2 |  | GM | Purnomo, Ricky | 994 | 1973 | 7 Mar 2010 | Dec 2010 | |
| =12 |  | GM | Goh Jiang Pern | 805 | 1841 | 24 Jan 2010 | Dec 2010 | |
| =12 |  | NM | Chua Kim Loong, Victor | 658 | 1841 | 30 May 2010 | -3 | Dec 2010 |
| 14 |  | NM | Shim Yen Nee | 978 | 1789 | 30 May 2010 | -27 | (Life) |
| 23 |  | **M | Gwee, Victor | 246 | 1718 | 30 May 2010 | +14 | Jun 2011 |
| 25 |  | *M | Choo Jing Yu, Eden | 116 | 1676 | 24 Jan 2010 | Feb 2011 |
| 27 |  | * | Peh Wei Chen | 70 | 1653 | 16 May 2010 | Mar 2011 | |
| 28 |  | *M | Goh Zhong Zhe, Dewin | 130 | 1617 | 24 Jan 2010 | Jul 2010 |
Other than these, the rating gaps between players seem quite small. Not really trying to make a point here, but this is still somewhat worth a look.
Game #16
I just changed my blog template with Blogger's new Template Designer which offers more sophisticated (while still very readable) changes to the design. Some features that I'd like to see included are text alignment options (I had to do a CSS edit to justify my text, and I don't really know how to do this for the profile), linkage to external backgrounds and the ability to stretch backgrounds.
Anyway, here's a game I played against Tony where I should really have taken more risk to bridge the score gap.
Play the game here!
Feel free to examine and criticise!
Anyway, here's a game I played against Tony where I should really have taken more risk to bridge the score gap.
Play the game here!
Feel free to examine and criticise!
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Games #14 & #15
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Thoughts after reading
I was scrambling to pick up a book from the shelves in the living room last night, as I needed something to read (or rather fall back on, as an alternative to the Internet) during my Saturday in camp. Rather unfortunately for me, a large proportion of the books in the living room were textbooks or music scores; failing which, they would be non-fictional volumes, either about geopolitics, motivation or finance management. This is unsurprising due to the nature of my parents' work. I did however, spot a book which I had wanted to read years ago (because of my sister's "this might be offensive but it's a good read" introduction), but dismissed as I was still obsessing over (trying to get enough sleep after) computer games at that point. I placed the book somewhat reluctantly in my bag and prepared for a day of the Internet, not knowing that barely 14 hours later, I would have finished the book, thoroughly overwhelmed with thought.
The book was Neil Humphreys' bestselling Notes from an Even Smaller Island, the title being an ostensible reference to Bill Bryson's Notes from a Small Island, which was written about Britain. I did initially think it would be a book about an expat's dismissive opinions of Singapore after having had a number of unpleasant experiences in the country, but my sister doesn't call books good for no reason. This book is instead written in the perspective of an overstaying tourist - one who still compares his roti prata with sandwiches back in England, but who probably has visited more attractions in Singapore than the average Singaporean has. Humphreys does opine profusely about the many (and I would say, plausible but hard to believe) incidents that happen within his relatively short stay here, and many of these accounts are littered with expletives; but every single time, there is an underlying societal issue which Humphreys is attempting to highlight, and his style, though controversial in a conservative society, brings them out superbly.
Indeed, Humphreys accounts are by no means completely negative, if at all irreverent; he constantly reminds us of his respect (and in many instances, awe) of some Singaporeans, from the loud/ foul-mouthed auntie to the over-talkative taxi driver. What I find so impressive in this book is how he has managed to bring out so many thought-provoking issues within a meagre volume of slightly over 200 pages. Some of the things he points out have been at the back of my head for a number of years now (Ugh, must we burn so much paper for the dead, even years after their passing? Is there another way to send them stuff other than by damaging our health and environment?) while others simply have not surfaced before, perhaps due to my upbringing (Hey, reselling Hello Kitty's for $50 after purchasing them at $10 actually sounds like a great idea, oh damn this guy just said I was kiasu - no wait, maybe I am, after all...).
I particularly like how he described the arts and sports scene in Singapore, though his accounts now are definitely a little backdated now (as is the part about public spitting, which has been outlawed), since we are reveling in the age where foreign talent wins our sports medals and artists go overseas to make a living and get known in Singapore while they're overseas. The part about choosing a "practical" career over one in arts/ sports has been reverberating in my life the past few months, or even years; I have seen friends who are artistically talented take university courses with little to do with their interests; and also friends who have taken the "alternative" path being labelled as "foolish". All of these might have been different if societal pressures were angled a little differently in Singapore.
Humphreys does make me feel guilty sometimes (but dude, I had to squeeze into that MRT!) - but after all, this is about the good, the bad, and the ugly in Singapore, and I can't claim to represent the "good Singaporean" through and through. Many of the stories he describes about Singaporeans make me wonder how people like these can exist in Singapore (I was pretty appalled by the recount of his visit to the US, and as a local, I would never want to partake in a tour if this alienation was to happen to others on the trip), some of them make me wonder what kind of person I am, and others just leave me with the warm fuzzy feeling that's probably the reason why I didn't run away from Singapore or something. Equally heartwarming is how he distances himself from high-nosed expatriates here who think lowly of Singaporeans (though I have to say, even I, a frequent Singlish user, mock Singlish, so it's probably not that bad if expats do), preferring to assimilate into the culture, its education, people and all. I have to say, I was not too happy when I read online that Humphreys had moved to Australia, but I guess he did bid a fond farewell in his third book of the series, Final Notes from a Great Island (though I haven't read it, but I will).
All in all, this book is quite a humorous read, and I recommend it to anyone who has come to Singapore and wondered about how things go around here.
The book was Neil Humphreys' bestselling Notes from an Even Smaller Island, the title being an ostensible reference to Bill Bryson's Notes from a Small Island, which was written about Britain. I did initially think it would be a book about an expat's dismissive opinions of Singapore after having had a number of unpleasant experiences in the country, but my sister doesn't call books good for no reason. This book is instead written in the perspective of an overstaying tourist - one who still compares his roti prata with sandwiches back in England, but who probably has visited more attractions in Singapore than the average Singaporean has. Humphreys does opine profusely about the many (and I would say, plausible but hard to believe) incidents that happen within his relatively short stay here, and many of these accounts are littered with expletives; but every single time, there is an underlying societal issue which Humphreys is attempting to highlight, and his style, though controversial in a conservative society, brings them out superbly.
Indeed, Humphreys accounts are by no means completely negative, if at all irreverent; he constantly reminds us of his respect (and in many instances, awe) of some Singaporeans, from the loud/ foul-mouthed auntie to the over-talkative taxi driver. What I find so impressive in this book is how he has managed to bring out so many thought-provoking issues within a meagre volume of slightly over 200 pages. Some of the things he points out have been at the back of my head for a number of years now (Ugh, must we burn so much paper for the dead, even years after their passing? Is there another way to send them stuff other than by damaging our health and environment?) while others simply have not surfaced before, perhaps due to my upbringing (Hey, reselling Hello Kitty's for $50 after purchasing them at $10 actually sounds like a great idea, oh damn this guy just said I was kiasu - no wait, maybe I am, after all...).
I particularly like how he described the arts and sports scene in Singapore, though his accounts now are definitely a little backdated now (as is the part about public spitting, which has been outlawed), since we are reveling in the age where foreign talent wins our sports medals and artists go overseas to make a living and get known in Singapore while they're overseas. The part about choosing a "practical" career over one in arts/ sports has been reverberating in my life the past few months, or even years; I have seen friends who are artistically talented take university courses with little to do with their interests; and also friends who have taken the "alternative" path being labelled as "foolish". All of these might have been different if societal pressures were angled a little differently in Singapore.
Humphreys does make me feel guilty sometimes (but dude, I had to squeeze into that MRT!) - but after all, this is about the good, the bad, and the ugly in Singapore, and I can't claim to represent the "good Singaporean" through and through. Many of the stories he describes about Singaporeans make me wonder how people like these can exist in Singapore (I was pretty appalled by the recount of his visit to the US, and as a local, I would never want to partake in a tour if this alienation was to happen to others on the trip), some of them make me wonder what kind of person I am, and others just leave me with the warm fuzzy feeling that's probably the reason why I didn't run away from Singapore or something. Equally heartwarming is how he distances himself from high-nosed expatriates here who think lowly of Singaporeans (though I have to say, even I, a frequent Singlish user, mock Singlish, so it's probably not that bad if expats do), preferring to assimilate into the culture, its education, people and all. I have to say, I was not too happy when I read online that Humphreys had moved to Australia, but I guess he did bid a fond farewell in his third book of the series, Final Notes from a Great Island (though I haven't read it, but I will).
All in all, this book is quite a humorous read, and I recommend it to anyone who has come to Singapore and wondered about how things go around here.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Game #13
Here's another one against Quackle. This one is rather thought-provoking strategically, I must say, and it is rather possible to disagree with Quackle's simulations on some moves.
Play the game here!
Feel free to examine and criticise!
Play the game here!
Feel free to examine and criticise!
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Game #12
Let's face it - I pretend to be somewhat decent at Scrabble. I am happy when I win, because I tend to think that if I don't play well, I don't win (and hence I start to think I'm playing well since I won). However, there are times where this illusion is completely obliterated by none other than Quackle, this demeaning (and can I say overfed) duck which tramples upon all of my ego. And after all this is over, you begin to wonder how you managed to win the game at all. Here's one of the games where this happens, played against Hubert in the recent JG Mini, with 12 lessons on how to win even though you're playing real bad.
Play the game here!
Feel free to examine and criticise!
Play the game here!
Feel free to examine and criticise!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
