'Move Strength' - details please
-
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.
-
@roymccoy whatever you say. As long as I know I am not..no matter what you think. My suggestion is learn new words or close your anagrammar. Happy Holidays. If that is how you can make it all better..happy name calling to you
-
I think the big deal is in how seriously this is being taken by so few
I don't see why we shouldn't be serious about issues such as the occasional unavailablity of 'Move Strength' (see roymccoy's post) or whether it is, or isn't, cheating.
Give them a break
Of course, yes! And in any case, as I said in another post here, some bugs are unpredictable - which makes them very difficult to fix.
-
@betterlate1-0 said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
whatever you say.
Okay, I say you're either a psychopathic cheater, a very unintelligent one, or both.
My suggestion is learn new words or close your anagrammar.
You might learn how to spell "anagrammer" yourself, though I see there's a book titled Anagrammar that might interest people here. See https://www.amazon.com/Anagrammar-1-Joe-Edley/dp/1479299715.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@mistertoad said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
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'm not sure I misunderstood you. The "S" issue was that the singular of a word had been shown as 100%, whereas if you added the S you'd have a higher score and so the 100% indication was false. Right? If so, I really don't think that particular issue was a big deal. I take the "give them a break" attitude on this one.
I did not mention chess when making that specific 'Feature Request' nor did I make any demands.
Sorry. I didn't mean to say that you'd mentioned chess, though I can now see how "To mention chess again" could be so understood in that sentence. Also, I was using "demanding" loosely.
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.
I doubt that it's anyone's ad-blocking software, since when it's screwed up it's screwed up for everybody. The programmer is generally going to be unaware of the source of a bug when he first encounters and tries to deal with it, but regardless of the difficulty he should eventually figure out what the problem is and correct or somehow avoid it. We're still waiting for that in this case.
-
@roymccoy what makes you so angry? That I can spell? Have to wonder about someone as angry as you are. Done responding ..as I often say as long as I know I do not cheat that is what counts. I am sorry you are so intimated by someone that can spell. Happy Holidays. Done responding to you now
