I thought about that originally when I was doing my version
of the list.
Although it would be a fun list to study, but I saw two
problems with that:
Guys like GI Joel, and Adam Logan
are not human.
It is not generally to your advantage to try to
play something that might get challenged by sacrificing position or points for
it. I wouldn't want to influence my brain to think that
way.
Chris
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Austin Nichols
Sent: April 11, 2006 2:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [quackle] Re: Quackle VS. Quackle Stats
any easier to spot on your rack (and therefore deserve no study), only
that the uncommon words might be more likely to draw a challenge,
which is an equity advantage that Quackle can't simulate, AFAIK. But
that advantage would contribute to "playability" (at least against
human opponents).
On 4/11/06, John O'Laughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you thought about adding points for words that are less commonly
> > known (I'm thinking you could flag all 4- to 15-letter OWL2 words that
> > do not appear in a common spell-checker, say) as being more likely to
> > draw a challenge?
>
> Not really. There are some common word eights which are difficult for
> me to anagram, and I'd like to see them listed equally with unusual
> words. When I study I like to go through all of the words once every
> few months and then focus on the words that I missed or took too long
> to get. Easy words are filtered out that way.
>
> John
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "quackle" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
