Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#41

Post by kmm »

jolmg wrote: post #34
oh_sigh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a big improvement over 'they'? Singular they has become popular naturally, whereas 'ze' has existed for years without anyone naturally using it(except for trolls on the internet).

"They is having a great time." It does sound wrong for some uses of he/she.

"They're having a great time"

The accord with the verb is still as if it's a plural pronoun. Just like with "you" which technically also used to be plural, doesn't take the old singular second person forms: "you have" not "you hast"

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#42

Post by diminoten »

dmurray wrote: post #15
CamperBob2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is keeping a handwritten list of words any different than violating the rule against using a dictionary to find words, though? Most of the hardcore Scrabble people I've known would object to that. ("This isn't 'Nam, there are rules.")

I doubt that actual hardcore Scrabble players would care, any more than a hardcore chess player would mind if you kept referring to an index card with a diagram to remind you which way the horsey moves. Of course, they would care about you having access to the entire dictionary, just as a serious chess player would object to you having a collection of chess opening or endgame reference books to hand. At a beginner le…

I think a serious chess player would mind if you were consulting a list of opening moves, though...

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#43

Post by frosted-flakes »

hammock wrote: post #24

I've posted this before but in my family we play serious Scrabble but with house rules that improve the game. Rule 1: On your turn, but before playing your word, any letter in your hand may be swapped with any letter on the board, as long as the swap makes a valid word (some people already do this with blanks, we do it with any letter). Swap one letter at a time, as many times as you like. No points are scored for sw…

All three of your rules (swap blanks, swap single letters, and allow consulting the dictionary) are listed as official alternative rules in my Scrabble rule book[0]. We've always allowed use of the dictionary (as a new immigrant from northern Europe, it was one of the ways my grandpa learned English), but we just talked about adopting the letter-swapping rules the next time we play.

[0] I have my late grandpa's "deluxe turntable" version from the 1970s, before it was owned by Hasbro, and my folks have an almost identical one from the 1980s (Hasbro-branded). I believe both rule books have these alternative/house rules.

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#44

Post by epanchin »

wiredfool wrote: post #32
chrisweekly wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(tangent to scrabble per se) I like the idea of "ze" (gender-neutral pronoun), but this is the first I've come across it. Hopefully it'll catch on as IMHO it's a big improvement over alternatives like "they". While on the topic of "missing" words, when will our language finally get something reasonable for "you (plural)"?? Extant "y'all" (southern) and "yous" (NJ) are not cutting it!

Y'all is often singular. Y'alls and All y'alls are plural. There's also youse, seen in Irish english. (at least in the Dublin dialect, can't say I've heard it much in the north)

Scotland too, frequently spelt ‘use’

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#45

Post by frosted-flakes »

Someone wrote: post #38
hammock wrote: post #24

I've posted this before but in my family we play serious Scrabble but with house rules that improve the game. Rule 1: On your turn, but before playing your word, any letter in your hand may be swapped with any letter on the board, as long as the swap makes a valid word (some people already do this with blanks, we do it with any letter). Swap one letter at a time, as many times as you like. No points are scored for sw…

”the board remains MUCH more open the whole game” I think that’s a sign of suboptimal play. The goal isn’t to score as many points as possible, it’s to score more points than your opponent. Opening up a line towards a triple-later or even triple-word square only is worth it if your word scores really high. Also, there often are high-scoring moves that ‘weave’ new words inside the existing grid. An extreme example is…

Unless you're playing competitively, the goal is also to have fun, and games are much more enjoyable when there's room to expand and you're not forced to place sub-optimal words.

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#46

Post by hammock »

Someone wrote: post #38
hammock wrote: post #24

I've posted this before but in my family we play serious Scrabble but with house rules that improve the game. Rule 1: On your turn, but before playing your word, any letter in your hand may be swapped with any letter on the board, as long as the swap makes a valid word (some people already do this with blanks, we do it with any letter). Swap one letter at a time, as many times as you like. No points are scored for sw…

”the board remains MUCH more open the whole game” I think that’s a sign of suboptimal play. The goal isn’t to score as many points as possible, it’s to score more points than your opponent. Opening up a line towards a triple-later or even triple-word square only is worth it if your word scores really high. Also, there often are high-scoring moves that ‘weave’ new words inside the existing grid. An extreme example is…

"Bricking" the board by packing in words next to each other to add to your score commonly happens under our variation - although non-contiguous plays are rare.

And I will still avoid opening up a triple-word square if I can - or cover up an open triple-word just to prevent my opponent from using it. Although it's worth pointing out that under our variation, triple-words - while still very valuable - aren't the end of the world since we'll be playing bingos all over the board the whole game, there's really no need to fight for pink squares.

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#47

Post by hammock »

jolmg wrote: post #30
hammock wrote: post #24

I've posted this before but in my family we play serious Scrabble but with house rules that improve the game. Rule 1: On your turn, but before playing your word, any letter in your hand may be swapped with any letter on the board, as long as the swap makes a valid word (some people already do this with blanks, we do it with any letter). Swap one letter at a time, as many times as you like. No points are scored for sw…

On your Rule 1, do I understand that you can swap any number of letters on your turn before playing your word but with every 1-letter swap, the words need to remain valid? It's not good enough if you need to swap multiple letters before getting to a different valid word?

Correct. The goal is not really to change the words on the board, but rather to get better letters into your hand.

Think of it as "I would have a full word if only I could get [X letter]." You see [X letter] on the board, and you want it. You might have to do a chain of one-letter-at-a-time swaps though to get it. And each swap has to make a new valid word. But once you get it, you can play your bingo.

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#48

Post by [deleted] »

mxwsn wrote: post #33
frogpelt wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are Q and Z getting reused so much? There can't be that many times they can be replaced with another letter can there? Also, after I saw how many "words" are in the Scrabble dictionary I realized that Scrabble was not a vocabulary/spelling competition like I thought when I first played. Some of those "words" are a joke, a few are mentioned in the article (eeew being one example).

"For living-room players, Scrabble is about language, a test of vocabularies. For world-class players, it’s about cold memorization and mathematical probabilities. Think of the dictionary not as a compendium of the beauty and complexity of the English language, but rather as a giant rulebook. Words exist merely as valid strings with which to score points. A Scrabble board after two top players are finished playing on…

[deleted]

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#49

Post by hammock »

frogpelt wrote: post #27
hammock wrote: post #24

I've posted this before but in my family we play serious Scrabble but with house rules that improve the game. Rule 1: On your turn, but before playing your word, any letter in your hand may be swapped with any letter on the board, as long as the swap makes a valid word (some people already do this with blanks, we do it with any letter). Swap one letter at a time, as many times as you like. No points are scored for sw…

How are Q and Z getting reused so much? There can't be that many times they can be replaced with another letter can there? Also, after I saw how many "words" are in the Scrabble dictionary I realized that Scrabble was not a vocabulary/spelling competition like I thought when I first played. Some of those "words" are a joke, a few are mentioned in the article (eeew being one example).

>How are Q and Z getting reused so much?

The two- and three-letter words you can make like AX, QI, XI, ZA, QAT, ZOO, and ZOA get used quite a bit. All of these words can have their high-point letter swapped out for something else to free it up again. Sometimes the Q, X, or Z does get locked up on the board for the rest of the game. But if it's not, it's often worth your effort to try to get it back into your hand and use it again.

Re: Scrabble rule change allows use of 'OK'

#50

Post by ken »

chrisweekly wrote: post #22
gerry_shaw wrote: post #17

The addition of ze (gender-neutral pronoun) is even better than OK.

(tangent to scrabble per se) I like the idea of "ze" (gender-neutral pronoun), but this is the first I've come across it. Hopefully it'll catch on as IMHO it's a big improvement over alternatives like "they". While on the topic of "missing" words, when will our language finally get something reasonable for "you (plural)"?? Extant "y'all" (southern) and "yous" (NJ) are not cutting it!

I've always heard it said that you can identify a True Southerner because they use "y'all" as singular. "All y'all" is the plural form.
Post reply on HN