'Move Strength' - details please
-
@betterlate1-0
Thanks for your reply. I only mentioned chess because I was hoping that we might develop insights into both Scrabble and chess by examining the differences and similarities between them.I hope you did not think that I was accusing you of cheating. If others need the ego boost of winning so much that they cheat, that's their business. Unless money is involved, I really don't care at all. I only care about my own performance, whether I am progressing and learning more about the game. If I got into knots every time I suspected that my opponent was cheating I wouldn't enjoy playing!
Yes, I agree with you that the 'Move Strength' bar is a splendid addition to the Lexulous website and spurs us on to get the best out of this wonderful word game.
-
@mistertoad I did not think any such thing but fact is ,anyone is free to assume and guess as they are prone to do but as long as I know I don't ..that is what counts. Only one a cheater cheats is themselves.
-
Only one a cheater cheats is themselves
Sure thing!
Historically, chess websites have had lots of difficulties with cheaters and have now developed a whole arsenal of methods to combat it.
Many times I have had a won game but, instead of resigning, they sit tight in the hope that I will leave (or perhaps just to irritate me). I just open my browser and read an article. They then wait until their allotted time is about to run out and then make a move, hoping that I have stopped watching. Then I mate them.
They are probably just teenage boys, high on adrenalin. These days the website warns them that, if they use this ploy again, they will receive a temporary ban.
Apologies for digressing into referring to chess again! I hope you have a pleasant and relaxing Christmas.
-
@mistertoad they do the same thing in lex, without penalty. But, even if young boys with adrenalin rush they need to learn right or wrong. Anyway hope you have a wonderful Christmas. Thank you.
-
While we're on the subject, don't forget that "Move Strength" as it is currently titled, is not infallible.
Here's an example:
Using the "S" still in the rack, to make SCUDS, would be worth a couple more points, so SCUD's strength is a bit under 100%.
Interesting but no big deal
-
@betterlate1-0 if money is involved still no excuse to cheat
-
Clearly there's a distinction between cheating with some sort of Scrabble software that suggests moves and the fascination of looking for a better move when 'Move Strength' says 23%.
I was not considering cheating even for a second. I am considering that when I take that move strength bar that seriously I spur myself on for a better move
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
[I know, because I did this for months with mine. When I finally got back up to 69% wins (which took me a lot longer than I'd supposed, though I think I won every game but one) and told her, she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad, as she was figuring I'd beat her anyway because I take hours on moves while she plays really fast (which I had been doing, since I'd gotten up to 69% in the first place).]
I assume we all agree on this.
-
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
Of course we are not! How can it be cheating to use an option provided by Lexulous themselves?
she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad
Why would she be cross? There's no reason why you shouldn't take hours when playing by email.
I think we might all benefit if Lexulous:
(a) mentioned the 'Move Strength' concept up front when people first arrive to the website
(b) added it as a clickable option which would only be used if both players agreed to by clicking before they agreed to play together.
Please Lexulous, can you take this idea on board once this thread discussion is completed?
-
@mistertoad said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
I think it IS a 'big deal' - it's a bug in the software which is misleading.
Please, Lexulous, check this problem out!
I think you're being unreasonable, and I assume @ThatGuyThere202 agrees. To mention chess again, it's as if you were demanding that a 1950s chess engine be able not only to beat the top grandmasters, but to make the perfect move every time.
As my grandmother would say, "Blessed is he who expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed." And I don't think there's much reason to be disappointed with the score thermometer, which works well enough when it's not broken and going up and down like it was again yesterday (and still today, I just now notice – grr-r). One of the things they could do is fix the bug that causes this recurring misfunction. And if they aren't going to do that (or other reasonable and often simple things that have been proposed to them), they aren't going to painstakingly hone their max-score module either. Don't get me wrong: I agree that something should be done. But I say just change its name and/or visibly document that it isn't precisely perfect, which would be quick and easy. It just now occurs to me that adding "estimated" to the thermometer's pop-up would do it: "Estimated score strength" or "Estimated % of max possible", for example (I prefer the first, but not "Estimated move strength"). But one apparently can't expect even this from the Lexulous team, let alone perfection in regard to the max score.
-
@mistertoad @roymccoy @b-birney You will not like what I am about to say..but here goes. I think the big deal is in how seriously this is being taken by so few. I do not think there are that many perfectionists here and I think the people who can make changes are probably busy with a lot of other more important things. Give them a break. See told you you would not like what I said.
Maybe I should have just ignored this. -
@mistertoad said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
Of course we are not [cheating]! How can it be cheating to use an option provided by Lexulous themselves?
This is what I said to myself too, though in a sniggering way and with a distinct amount of sheepishness. I could say this, especially since our explicit rule was that we couldn't use anything outside of Lexulous. Nevertheless, whether technically cheating or not, I was taking unfair advantage of her and I think that may unquestionably be considered to be cheating, whatever the explicit rule or rules that may or may not be involved.
Why would she be cross? There's no reason why you shouldn't take hours when playing by email.
She would presumably be cross if she had been seriously playing to win and repeatedly frustrated by my continually beating her. I'm reminded of the women athletes losing their events to men claiming to be women, except that in that case they're at least aware of the unfair advantage while they're being beaten.
My opponent had confidently and arrogantly said years before that I could never beat her at Scrabble, so she might have been chagrined by her repeated losses at Lexulous. But it turned out she was just casually playing for fun, making quick moves and not really caring whether she won or not. Indeed, she couldn't beat me if I was going to be so exhaustive about my moves, score thermometer or not. So it's better that she's indifferent about winning, perhaps mainly because this enables us to continue playing, as we have for years. One might ask whether I might not more enjoy playing against a more formidable, score-thermometer-using opponent – but as someone said here when the thermometer first appeared, it's not about your opponent anymore. You're playing less to win a game than to achieve the possible, or at least approximate it.
I think we might all benefit if Lexulous:
(a) mentioned the 'Move Strength' concept up front when people first arrive to the websiteNot a bad idea but tricky. I don't know how this could be done.
(b) added it as a clickable option which would only be used if both players agreed to by clicking before they agreed to play together.
Also a good idea, though I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be implemented and I don't think one should. In the absence of such an option, I think it's the responsibility of the player to let his opponent know that the player has the thermometer and is using it. Otherwise I continue to think that the player may fairly be said to be cheating. This may not be 100% the player's fault, given that Lexulous provided the tool in a rather bumbling way that created the problem, but fair is fair regardless.
-
@betterlate1-0 said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
@mistertoad @roymccoy @b-birney You will not like what I am about to say..but here goes. I think the big deal is in how seriously this is being taken by so few. I do not think there are that many perfectionists here and I think the people who can make changes are probably busy with a lot of other more important things. Give them a break. See told you you would not like what I said.
Maybe I should have just ignored this. It's not that I like or don't like it. If you're using the score thermometer without informing your opponent, I just think you're cheating, that's all.
-
@roymccoy but why? It is there for all to use. If it were a dictionary or cheat program I agree.. Hope no one takes it personally or as a judgment since we all have our own opinions ..but why would you consider it cheating to use it without informing opponents?
-
@betterlate1-0 said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
@roymccoy but why? It is there for all to use. If it were a dictionary or cheat program I agree.. Hope no one takes it personally or as a judgment since we all have our own opinions ..but why would you consider it cheating to use it without informing opponents?
I think that's the main problem: that it isn't there for all to use. I've never played on my iPhone, but checked just now in my phone browser, where the thermometer doesn't appear. Then I paid two bucks for the app and it doesn't have it either. So this situation was created by the Lexulous team, putting the tool at the disposal of some players but not others.
We could try taking "unfair" or "unfairly" out of the question. Don't you agree that you're somehow taking advantage of your opponent by using the thermometer when your opponent isn't aware of it and may not even have it?
-
@roymccoy no, that would mean asking if the opponent has it and if they use it etc..would take up more time than playing. I used to ask if they click on it what they see then leave it up to them. Never had anyone say they cant see it.. more often comments like cool or I did not know
-
@betterlate1-0 said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
no, that would mean asking if the opponent has it and if they use it etc..would take up more time than playing.
If I had ever heard any other excuses for cheating (I don't remember any), this would certainly be the weakest.
-
@roymccoy not about cheating at all. speaking for myself my anagrammer is in my head I do not need cheat programs. tried them at various times and none helpful except the brain anagrammer
For me when I am in the mood it is strictly trying to beat the best score . it is that simple -
@betterlate1-0
You can say anything you want, you're still a cheater. -
Please understand that, when I wrote about a 'bug in the software' being a 'big deal', I was replying to b-birney about a specific issue that he posted about (the letter 's').
I did not mention chess when making that specific 'Feature Request' nor did I make any demands.
I agree with you that the 'recurring misfunction' you mention should be fixed. It appears to be an unpredictable bug which are, of course the hardest to fix eg a bug caused by some adblocking software of which the programmer is unaware.
