>I am a 1500s player (down from 1700s lately), who plays against Quackle >frequently. Winning is not my focus with Quackle. I calculate my plays, >then consult the "generate choices" feature. I'm pleased with how often >my play is among the top three or so. But, when I like a Quackle choice >better, I play it -- thereby "cheating", and nullifying the win/lose factor >-- but I'm there for the lesson, not the win.  Additional pleasure comes >in watching Quackle perform his magic on HIS turn. I have always played >computerized versions of our game at their highest level, in order to see >the finest possible words played against me. I could name oodles of words >that I have learned that way -- rioja, unmew, lavabo, chirm, ratbag, >thyrsi -- I keep a pad next to the computer and list the words that are new >to me, then I study from it. By playing at a lower level, you wouldn't see >those beauties go down!  Personally, I am a strongly competitive player >(gender notwithstanding:), still I prefer to save the "need to win" for my >club and tournament games against humans.  Kudos to the genii of Quackle! > Carol Dustin Minneapolis, Mn >
True, but I can get the same kind of exposure to new ideas from simming/analyzing my games (or would if there were any new ones to be happening). Sometimes I just want to play a quick game and don't have anyone to play with and might want to be able to fudge and not play with ISC.
