Gallant Efforts

[crazykate]

CRYPTOPOETS aren't a thing, no matter how eloquent some crypto bros may think they are.

Ooh I think that's a really nice word though. And in this day and age, could totally be a thing. Let's add it to the dictionary.

It could also be a word for poets who specialise in cryptic verses or riddles.
"So what do you do?"
"I'm a freelance cryptopoet for the Sunday Times."

[DrPlacebo]

CRYPTOPOETS aren't a thing, no matter how eloquent some crypto bros may think they are.

[crazykate]

Look at this board. What do you see?
Perhaps you see the actual longest word, ROMANTICIZATIONS?
I didn't. I saw MANTICORIZATIONS.
Maybe I've been reading too much fantasy lately.

[Naboka]

Sometimes I wish you could get credit for part of a game without the rest mattering. Like if you found a good word and wanted credit but didn't want the total score to count against your average.

Anyway, saw that lalatan had found a 35 point word so I knew it was there. By the time I found it I had to dump the board or take a hit on average scores.

Screen Shot 2024-06-14 at 3.54.22 AM.png

Looked it up and don't really quite grasp what it means. Computer language might as well be Korean. But, part of what I read made me wonder if that was what I've been doing with interconnected groupings of "words." I often don't see the things I input here as actual words with meaning, but rather blocks of letter patterns that have common structure. Like ree rees reen renes reens treen treens trine trines rin rins rine rines ene enes tene tenes een eens snee ... etc. All basically without meaning but similar blocks of evolving structures that are scorable.

the mysteries of the mind

and computers

funny that computers don't really understand anything but have the capacity to assign "meaning" by creating connections to other binary jibberish. None of it has to make sense, it just needs to be connected and pretend to make sense. To a computer #@#^%* could mean "beautiful woman" and "hope"could mean "tall donkey typing nose hair oceanish concrete ggrrnnsspppzz."

much like the human mind in so many ways

the jibberish connections we make that seem meaningful

important

and true.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Brisul]

Reading your posts has been fascinating. I'm nowhere near in the same league as you, so a lot of the discussion is hypothetical to me. I'm often baffled by the scores you achieve and I'm not sure I could point out a score that is "theoretically achievable" but on the verge of "definitely cheating". I have no idea where that line is, because both are way over my head.
I'd just like to offer up another point for consideration: in the past, there have been players who perfected a certain style of playing and then created a new account to have a clean slate for their stats. Are we sure this isn't what's happening here?

I thought of that yesterday. It's very possible.

[crazykate]

Reading your posts has been fascinating. I'm nowhere near in the same league as you, so a lot of the discussion is hypothetical to me. I'm often baffled by the scores you achieve and I'm not sure I could point out a score that is "theoretically achievable" but on the verge of "definitely cheating". I have no idea where that line is, because both are way over my head.
I'd just like to offer up another point for consideration: in the past, there have been players who perfected a certain style of playing and then created a new account to have a clean slate for their stats. Are we sure this isn't what's happening here?

[Brisul]

Personally, I'd feel giddy with triumph if people thought I was cheating. It would be a testament of success. I'd have gotten so good people couldn't believe it.

And since I've spent more time learning this game than any entire year of grad or undergrad study, it'd be a validation.

With Caitlan Clark arriving to the WNBA there's been a lot of discussion over rough play and smack talk in women's basketball. A lot of what goes on in pro sports these days would have been considered unsportsmanlike when I was growing up. It's a put up or shut up world. Except the shut up part seems to have been lost. While the "prove" it part persists.

Though she was a superstar in college, she's up against stiffer competition now and it's not been easy. All those years of practice are being put to the test.

I'm not sure that playing years of boggle elsewhere prepares anyone completely for Wordtwist. There's a different wordbase base. Doesn't matter how many words you know, what matters is which words count. Every day I run across bunches of valid scientific terms that don't count here. Lots of -ine words. But, they don't count in other boggle games either, so...

And periodically I'll run across some 16 letter gem that Lalatan has managed to cobble together that cracks me up. Where'd that come from?!! How'd he find it?

Boysmom posted a while back about finding a word he's been hoping to find for years. Years!

Megaword has been poring over dictonaries for years looking for words. And my guess is that he's found ultra-ultra-ultra rare words in dictionaries that actually are scorable here but he's never played them here for a variety of reasons.

The point is that having the words is only part of the equation. Finding a game with those words is another part. I've been playing for years and only run across a 37 point word once. I found it and dumped the game because it would have messed up my average. But every single month players are finding those boards. Not me. It's a hit or miss kind of world here.

"Finding new words" has diminishing returns. There are UR words I find every single day. Every single day. Those are the bread and butter to high scores. Then there are UR words that appear with less and less frequency. There must be words that only appear in a single game here amongst all the tens of thousands of games. Your chance of playing that game is pretty slim. So the value of stockpiling those kinds of words is akin to filling your garage and basement with things "you might need some day'" Pretty soon there's no space left to walk.

However, any skilled boggle player who has absorbed scrabble dictionaries will not have a steep learning curve here. The meat and potatoes of scorable words are in those dictionaries. After that word base, your improvement will be slowed. You won't have fantastic jumps in performance.

I took a jazzercise class in college. Me and 50 girls. Heaven. The grading metric was based on how much you improved your time in a mile and a half run. We did a time trial at the start of the class and if you improved by a minute and a half you got an A. I tried to explain to her that elite athletes weren't going to improve their times by a minute and a half by taking her class. For me to drop a minute and a half off my predicted time would put me in world record territory. She held her ground. I dogged the first test.

The point is that elite players elsewhere aren't going to dramatically improve here. There won't be a steep surge in the graph showing improvement.

One thing about humans, none of us are honest. Our brains just aren't wired for honesty. We can see all sorts of things that aren't there. Every year a new crop of kindergarteners will be writing letters and numbers backwards. Our eyes see the world upside down and our brains reconvert those images to rightside up.

We're lying to ourselves constantly. And to others. Mostly in good faith. Mostly because we believe our own lies. Mostly because our brains are designed to make us believe whatever lies we settle on to get through the day. It's a survival thing. Spending a few hours on social media will prove how friggin' nuts people can be. Diogenes spent a lifetime looking in vain.

This image of a can of coca cola has been making the rounds. There's no red in the image. But our brains put it there.

Screen Shot 2024-06-07 at 6.38.03 AM.png

We actually can't see certain other colors either such as yellow, but the brain manages to construct them. There's no wavelength for magenta, but...

Why is any of that relevant? Maybe it isn't. People play this game for a wide range of reasons. In criminology detectives look for motive, means and opportunity. But eating breakfast involves motive, means and opportunity. It's not a crime to eat breakfast. Unless, perhaps you're on a strict diet and just consumed 1,500 calories.

But, in the minds of some individuals it's also not a crime to shoot someone and steal their money.

Our minds fashion constructs for what is right and what is wrong. Then our minds create motivates to find the means and opportunity.

Whether someone is or isn't playing this game by the rules has lost relevance to me. People are gonna do what they do. All the awards and trophies here are pretty irrelevant. And "losing" to someone who's rigged their game...? Who cares?

I love detective thrillers. Whodunit? And why?

There is a mystery here. Every detective case involves gathering evidence, processng that evidence and forming theories. Every second of our lives we're leaving a stream of evidence. Take a walk to the store and a bloodhound can hunt you down. Good detective novels will have suspects with motive, means and opportunity that convince you they're the one. But, they're just red herrings.

And every suspect will proclaim their innocence. A husband has been cheating on his wife. When she broaches her suspicions, he's indignant, horrified that she would believe him capable of such a thing. What is wrong with her? How can she think such a thing? Has she been cheating on him? Indignation and protest prove nothing.

And the weird thing he might actually convince himself that he hasn't been cheating. Pathological liars often believe their own lies. It's so weird.

Did he do it? Didn't he?

The coffee I'm drinking tastes the same either way.

Thank you for also putting together a well thought out response to all of this. I too would love for people to think that I haven't been above board with my playing here. All they would have to do is look at my record here and see that I struggled out of the gate on the 4x4 grids for a few years. Then they would see that I made the switch to the 5x5 grids and hit the ground running a little more so than I had with the smaller boards, but still wasn't on par with the elite players here.

On the 5x5 grids, I look at players like Fast Eddie and Estive as elite consistent high scorers that set the bar here for others to try to attain. They also didn't just show up out of nowhere and do what they've done.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse on a subject about which we may never know the whole truth. It's just frustrating to see. I did notice that the highest scorers on 5x5 are all not competing this month. Is it possibly out of protest?

[Naboka]

Or it could be that MPD is simply a person who is very, very good at word games and has played games like this one for years already. There wouldn't be a learning curve, then. You simply don't know. I DO know that it's possible to use computer help to improve your scores so they look possible, but almost unattainable. Someone bent on cheating, who thinks that putting something over on a pack of nerds is high entertainment, would do something like that. And would define "nerds" any way he liked, too. But we don't know that's what's going on. MPD could be a real, honest, very good player who is very upset that people would call him a cheater for simply being good. If I were that good, I would deny cheating and be really angry about it and it would probably ruin the game for me. You may want to consider that.

Personally, I'd feel giddy with triumph if people thought I was cheating. It would be a testament of success. I'd have gotten so good people couldn't believe it.

And since I've spent more time learning this game than any entire year of grad or undergrad study, it'd be a validation.

With Caitlan Clark arriving to the WNBA there's been a lot of discussion over rough play and smack talk in women's basketball. A lot of what goes on in pro sports these days would have been considered unsportsmanlike when I was growing up. It's a put up or shut up world. Except the shut up part seems to have been lost. While the "prove" it part persists.

Though she was a superstar in college, she's up against stiffer competition now and it's not been easy. All those years of practice are being put to the test.

I'm not sure that playing years of boggle elsewhere prepares anyone completely for Wordtwist. There's a different wordbase base. Doesn't matter how many words you know, what matters is which words count. Every day I run across bunches of valid scientific terms that don't count here. Lots of -ine words. But, they don't count in other boggle games either, so...

And periodically I'll run across some 16 letter gem that Lalatan has managed to cobble together that cracks me up. Where'd that come from?!! How'd he find it?

Boysmom posted a while back about finding a word he's been hoping to find for years. Years!

Megaword has been poring over dictonaries for years looking for words. And my guess is that he's found ultra-ultra-ultra rare words in dictionaries that actually are scorable here but he's never played them here for a variety of reasons.

The point is that having the words is only part of the equation. Finding a game with those words is another part. I've been playing for years and only run across a 37 point word once. I found it and dumped the game because it would have messed up my average. But every single month players are finding those boards. Not me. It's a hit or miss kind of world here.

"Finding new words" has diminishing returns. There are UR words I find every single day. Every single day. Those are the bread and butter to high scores. Then there are UR words that appear with less and less frequency. There must be words that only appear in a single game here amongst all the tens of thousands of games. Your chance of playing that game is pretty slim. So the value of stockpiling those kinds of words is akin to filling your garage and basement with things "you might need some day'" Pretty soon there's no space left to walk.

However, any skilled boggle player who has absorbed scrabble dictionaries will not have a steep learning curve here. The meat and potatoes of scorable words are in those dictionaries. After that word base, your improvement will be slowed. You won't have fantastic jumps in performance.

I took a jazzercise class in college. Me and 50 girls. Heaven. The grading metric was based on how much you improved your time in a mile and a half run. We did a time trial at the start of the class and if you improved by a minute and a half you got an A. I tried to explain to her that elite athletes weren't going to improve their times by a minute and a half by taking her class. For me to drop a minute and a half off my predicted time would put me in world record territory. She held her ground. I dogged the first test.

The point is that elite players elsewhere aren't going to dramatically improve here. There won't be a steep surge in the graph showing improvement.

One thing about humans, none of us are honest. Our brains just aren't wired for honesty. We can see all sorts of things that aren't there. Every year a new crop of kindergarteners will be writing letters and numbers backwards. Our eyes see the world upside down and our brains reconvert those images to rightside up.

We're lying to ourselves constantly. And to others. Mostly in good faith. Mostly because we believe our own lies. Mostly because our brains are designed to make us believe whatever lies we settle on to get through the day. It's a survival thing. Spending a few hours on social media will prove how friggin' nuts people can be. Diogenes spent a lifetime looking in vain.

This image of a can of coca cola has been making the rounds. There's no red in the image. But our brains put it there.

Screen Shot 2024-06-07 at 6.38.03 AM.png

We actually can't see certain other colors either such as yellow, but the brain manages to construct them. There's no wavelength for magenta, but...

Why is any of that relevant? Maybe it isn't. People play this game for a wide range of reasons. In criminology detectives look for motive, means and opportunity. But eating breakfast involves motive, means and opportunity. It's not a crime to eat breakfast. Unless, perhaps you're on a strict diet and just consumed 1,500 calories.

But, in the minds of some individuals it's also not a crime to shoot someone and steal their money.

Our minds fashion constructs for what is right and what is wrong. Then our minds create motivates to find the means and opportunity.

Whether someone is or isn't playing this game by the rules has lost relevance to me. People are gonna do what they do. All the awards and trophies here are pretty irrelevant. And "losing" to someone who's rigged their game...? Who cares?

I love detective thrillers. Whodunit? And why?

There is a mystery here. Every detective case involves gathering evidence, processng that evidence and forming theories. Every second of our lives we're leaving a stream of evidence. Take a walk to the store and a bloodhound can hunt you down. Good detective novels will have suspects with motive, means and opportunity that convince you they're the one. But, they're just red herrings.

And every suspect will proclaim their innocence. A husband has been cheating on his wife. When she broaches her suspicions, he's indignant, horrified that she would believe him capable of such a thing. What is wrong with her? How can she think such a thing? Has she been cheating on him? Indignation and protest prove nothing.

And the weird thing he might actually convince himself that he hasn't been cheating. Pathological liars often believe their own lies. It's so weird.

Did he do it? Didn't he?

The coffee I'm drinking tastes the same either way.

[bwt1213]

I'll come right out and say that there is some form of cheating with the way this person is playing. To look at MPD's scores, there doesn't appear to be any sort of "learning curve" or struggle. It was a straight dive into scores that are completely unattainable for some of the very best among us. It would be a real shame if this person were to make it into the "all time" scores with numbers that were achieved by way of cheating.

Or it could be that MPD is simply a person who is very, very good at word games and has played games like this one for years already. There wouldn't be a learning curve, then. You simply don't know. I DO know that it's possible to use computer help to improve your scores so they look possible, but almost unattainable. Someone bent on cheating, who thinks that putting something over on a pack of nerds is high entertainment, would do something like that. And would define "nerds" any way he liked, too. But we don't know that's what's going on. MPD could be a real, honest, very good player who is very upset that people would call him a cheater for simply being good. If I were that good, I would deny cheating and be really angry about it and it would probably ruin the game for me. You may want to consider that.

[Brisul]

Without a drug test, my suspicion is the Barry Bonds of Wordtwist. Or the Lance Armstrong of Wordtwist.

Seems to also play as Chubtrub, which might be closer to the individual's actual skill level. Though that is weighted because Chubtrub plays the low-scoring games played by Turbo, Megaword, boysmom, ThunderRock and other top scorers. That, I'm guessing would allow mpd's average to stay high without being tarnished by 300, 400 point games while also beating the best.

But, if you have access to Barry's-boost, then who knows. A lot of very talented people have sought to move from being excellent to the greatest. They're competively driven. So does Chubtrub stay at their skill level or do they seek assistance when the challenge seems to warrant?

I don't know. Just guessing. Mpd replied to one of my posts and the reply struck me as vaguely spurious, with enough specious comments that just created more doubt.

Don't think anyone comes here and is that good that quick. Suspect this a return player, maybe Nobody or someone like that.

I posted a while back about tests I ran with my brother-in-law who's a computer wizard who works for Apple. With his primative program we could score ungodly amounts of points. It was shocking.

And tempting.

But where's the challenge?

A competive player is... competetive. Challenge is meaningless. Winning is all. When you watch a player spending their time seeking out the top players to beat THEM rather than just meeting the challenge of the games presented regardless of who's played that game, you recognise that competition is driving the person. They're playing against individuals rather than the game. It's personal.

In the whole world there must be individuals who could come here and honestly deliver jaw-dropping scores fairly quickly. That's a certainty. And I wish with all my heart they would show up and teach us how to be better players.

But, in this case, forgive my suspicions, but I'd have to see video of fingers on the keyboard.

Without concrete evidence, it's just hunch, conjecture and speculation. People do win the lottery. But if you were to bet about your brother winning the next one, you'd be well served to bet the odds.

The odds here are pretty slim.

However, excellent players here have been wrongly accused in the past. Megaword, Lalatan, Estive, you. So, do we err with trust or distrust?

Dunno.

I'll come right out and say that there is some form of cheating with the way this person is playing. To look at MPD's scores, there doesn't appear to be any sort of "learning curve" or struggle. It was a straight dive into scores that are completely unattainable for some of the very best among us. It would be a real shame if this person were to make it into the "all time" scores with numbers that were achieved by way of cheating.

[DrPlacebo]

I still feel like RETAILISM is a thing, even though it got no points.

[Brisul]

Without a drug test, my suspicion is the Barry Bonds of Wordtwist. Or the Lance Armstrong of Wordtwist.

Seems to also play as Chubtrub, which might be closer to the individual's actual skill level. Though that is weighted because Chubtrub plays the low-scoring games played by Turbo, Megaword, boysmom, ThunderRock and other top scorers. That, I'm guessing would allow mpd's average to stay high without being tarnished by 300, 400 point games while also beating the best.

But, if you have access to Barry's-boost, then who knows. A lot of very talented people have sought to move from being excellent to the greatest. They're competively driven. So does Chubtrub stay at their skill level or do they seek assistance when the challenge seems to warrant?

I don't know. Just guessing. Mpd replied to one of my posts and the reply struck me as vaguely spurious, with enough specious comments that just created more doubt.

Don't think anyone comes here and is that good that quick. Suspect this a return player, maybe Nobody or someone like that.

I posted a while back about tests I ran with my brother-in-law who's a computer wizard who works for Apple. With his primative program we could score ungodly amounts of points. It was shocking.

And tempting.

But where's the challenge?

A competive player is... competetive. Challenge is meaningless. Winning is all. When you watch a player spending their time seeking out the top players to beat THEM rather than just meeting the challenge of the games presented regardless of who's played that game, you recognise that competition is driving the person. They're playing against individuals rather than the game. It's personal.

In the whole world there must be individuals who could come here and honestly deliver jaw-dropping scores fairly quickly. That's a certainty. And I wish with all my heart they would show up and teach us how to be better players.

But, in this case, forgive my suspicions, but I'd have to see video of fingers on the keyboard.

Without concrete evidence, it's just hunch, conjecture and speculation. People do win the lottery. But if you were to bet about your brother winning the next one, you'd be well served to bet the odds.

The odds here are pretty slim.

However, excellent players here have been wrongly accused in the past. Megaword, Lalatan, Estive, you. So, do we err with trust or distrust?

Dunno.

What a well thought out and well written response! Thank you for taking the time!

[Naboka]

Who is MPD? This person's scores are off the charts. It appears that this player has only been on the site for a little more than a year.

Without a drug test, my suspicion is the Barry Bonds of Wordtwist. Or the Lance Armstrong of Wordtwist.

Seems to also play as Chubtrub, which might be closer to the individual's actual skill level. Though that is weighted because Chubtrub plays the low-scoring games played by Turbo, Megaword, boysmom, ThunderRock and other top scorers. That, I'm guessing would allow mpd's average to stay high without being tarnished by 300, 400 point games while also beating the best.

But, if you have access to Barry's-boost, then who knows. A lot of very talented people have sought to move from being excellent to the greatest. They're competively driven. So does Chubtrub stay at their skill level or do they seek assistance when the challenge seems to warrant?

I don't know. Just guessing. Mpd replied to one of my posts and the reply struck me as vaguely spurious, with enough specious comments that just created more doubt.

Don't think anyone comes here and is that good that quick. Suspect this a return player, maybe Nobody or someone like that.

I posted a while back about tests I ran with my brother-in-law who's a computer wizard who works for Apple. With his primative program we could score ungodly amounts of points. It was shocking.

And tempting.

But where's the challenge?

A competive player is... competetive. Challenge is meaningless. Winning is all. When you watch a player spending their time seeking out the top players to beat THEM rather than just meeting the challenge of the games presented regardless of who's played that game, you recognise that competition is driving the person. They're playing against individuals rather than the game. It's personal.

In the whole world there must be individuals who could come here and honestly deliver jaw-dropping scores fairly quickly. That's a certainty. And I wish with all my heart they would show up and teach us how to be better players.

But, in this case, forgive my suspicions, but I'd have to see video of fingers on the keyboard.

Without concrete evidence, it's just hunch, conjecture and speculation. People do win the lottery. But if you were to bet about your brother winning the next one, you'd be well served to bet the odds.

The odds here are pretty slim.

However, excellent players here have been wrongly accused in the past. Megaword, Lalatan, Estive, you. So, do we err with trust or distrust?

Dunno.

[Brisul]

Who is MPD? This person's scores are off the charts. It appears that this player has only been on the site for a little more than a year.

[DrPlacebo]

No points for MOTHMEN.