On Aug 9, 2008 I posted a list of the number of players in the chess US Open, comparing it to the National Scrabble Championship. This is what it looked like then, with this year added:Chess Scrabble
1992 Dearborn 496 Atlanta 320
1994 Rosemont 470 Los Angeles 300+
1996 Alexandria 515 Dallas 416
1998 Kona 304 Chicago 535
2000 St Paul 492 Providence 598
2002 Cherry Hill 506 San Diego 696
2004 Weston 434 New Orleans 700+
2005 Phoenix 455 Reno 700+
2006 Chicago 543 Phoenix 632
2008 Dallas 379 Orlando (almost) 700
2009 Indy 456 Dayton 500
There is an interesting book on competitive Scrabble called “Word Freak,” by Stefan Fatsis. Scrabble has a rating system similar to chess, but you attain the lofty status of “expert” if you break 1600. Competitive Scrabble players seem to be at least as crazy, and perhaps much more disturbed than chess players. They are equally obsessed with ratings and complain of rating deflation and being underrated. Tournaments are held over several days and require playing 25+ games to be successful. The events appear to be as grueling as top chess events and as unrewarding financially.
I think that Scrabble is an awesome game, as well as a word-building tool, but I think that it serves little comparison to Chess. First of all, the element of chance is ever-present, with the drawing of tiles, such as that of playing cards. Secondly, memorization in chess has a greater conceptual base, of which none exists in memorizing all of the two-letter words in Scrabble. Of course there are word patterns, but it does not amply equate to the problem-solving in the almost infinite possible positions in chess. Computer programs can more-easily figure out Scrabble combinations, as they are somewhat more limited, and fewer permutations exist, and strategic planning depends on the drawing of new tiles. In essence, a good Scrabble vocabulary is probably the greatest tool, which alludes to memorization, instead of pattern recognition and problem-solving. Chess will always be King!
I know that this may not be the point of the post, but I had to stray! Scrabble has it’s place, but not next to Chess!
Don’t underestimate the importance of tile management.
I used to play Scrabble regularly against another person (mother of a friend) who did quite well. Her love of crossword puzzles gave her a larger Scrabble vocabulary than I had while I used better tile management (often opting for less than the maximum scoring play so that I would retain tiles for future flexibility). The result of the game generally boiled down to whether I had a second 50-point bonus or, if not, whether she actually had a 50-point bonus.
As an aside, the longest word we ever played was unacquainted with the Q accounting for 80 points of scoring (her Q on a triple-letter square, then my seven letters w/blank to make ‘ACQUAINT’ and get a 50-point bonus, then my ‘ED’ to get a double-word score, and finally my ‘UN’ to get another double-word score).
My wife makes me give her a 50 point head start when we play Scrabble. (Her sister plays in Scrabble tournaments and is far better than either of us.)
To keep the game interesting, I tend to try for inner play, ie, completing 3x3 or 4x4 word squares. I managed to build a 5x5 word square once.
What brought Scrabble to my mind was meeting Marc Broering while walking on Highland Ave. He was wearing his 2009 Scrabble tee-shirt, and I stopped him, asking if he had played in the tournament. He replied in the affirmative, finishing in the middle of the top section (Scrabble has sections for lesser players, just like chess). Since I had on a chess tee-shirt, he asked me if I knew a friend of his, John Linton and was pleased upon learning I did! Let that be a lesson…Always ‘show your colors’!