MegaWord finds new 54 pointer

[BoggleOtaku]

MegaWord,

I've been expectantly waiting for you to score a 54-point word on the lifetime board, since you predicted the first one to be found.
You did it (maybe a month or two ago? I just happened to notice today...) with total style, finding a new, 54-point word.
It's taken years of everyone playing to turn up a second ever (as far as I know) 54 point word, quite the accomplishment!

I wonder if you suspected there was another one out there to find or even this one in advance.
I also wonder if there are any more and how many years before the next one is found.

Congratulations!

[MegaWord]

Thank you! I didn't know the word existed, til I found it. It was very similar to Lalatan's 55 pointer, just switched out BENZO with ANTHRA making it 25 letters but lacking the 3 point Z. Seems like the only better word I can think to beat 55 pts is the plural of Lalatan's word, would be 57 pts if it exists. It did feel good to find another unique ultra high point word and win best/longest word for the month. It's always nice to see new unique words at the top instead of the same ones. I've said it before, but it would be cool to randomize the boards monthly with all new puzzles set for that month. Then you'll never know what the best word will be or who will find it.

[BoggleOtaku]

Maybe that suggestion would solve a APPW controversy (in most extreme form): if it is a found word (this month? ever?) it is then owned and no one else but the first finder should ever use it, or maybe no one should ever use it again. With so few possible ultra big words possible and easily memorizable, it seems hard to have new words to replace the found ones, but at least the letter arrangements could be different. I kind of got the feeling a few years ago in Admin's discussion of checks needed to create a new board that it would be quite a bit of work to pull off until it could be fully automated, but I like the idea. But then again, I would think any APPW player could figure out from the above that I've never tried to play APPW and don't understand what the details are or the controversy about.

As an aside (a no-doubt troubling turn of phrase for forum thread sanctity guardians everywhere), this post is like shouting at the people in the living room while wiring lighting in the attic. Or too often: My wife and I having conversations shouting upstairs/downstairs three rooms apart, and it does not turn out well. Anyway, I might shout that the existing game has rules, which clearly include seeing words previously found after playing a game. Anyone can play by their own rules and agree with others to adopt those rules, like keeping their own scoring disallowing some games. And there may be good reason to do something different from the general rules. That said, it is a handicap or an artifice when, for whatever good reason, someone wants to play differently from what is (implicitly) allowed. For example, in chess, en passant was a late adoption. Until it was adopted in the official rules, it was an artifice within the sphere of traditional chess. Same with the queen being able to more more than one square in a move. In general, no one person gets to decide what words mean, but in small spheres that have ownership and buy-in from players through their participation, it may be at least a little more certain where the artifice is. In this sense, artifice has no ethical or moral meaning. The game and rules could have something morally bad that the artifice fixes. But it is artificial until adopted. JMO-FWIW.

[Naboka]

Maybe that suggestion would solve a APPW controversy (in most extreme form): if it is a found word (this month? ever?) it is then owned and no one else but the first finder should ever use it, or maybe no one should ever use it again. With so few possible ultra big words possible and easily memorizable, it seems hard to have new words to replace the found ones, but at least the letter arrangements could be different. I kind of got the feeling a few years ago in Admin's discussion of checks needed to create a new board that it would be quite a bit of work to pull off until it could be fully automated, but I like the idea. But then again, I would think any APPW player could figure out from the above that I've never tried to play APPW and don't understand what the details are or the controversy about.

As an aside (a no-doubt troubling turn of phrase for forum thread sanctity guardians everywhere), this post is like shouting at the people in the living room while wiring lighting in the attic. Or too often: My wife and I having conversations shouting upstairs/downstairs three rooms apart, and it does not turn out well. Anyway, I might shout that the existing game has rules, which clearly include seeing words previously found after playing a game. Anyone can play by their own rules and agree with others to adopt those rules, like keeping their own scoring disallowing some games. And there may be good reason to do something different from the general rules. That said, it is a handicap or an artifice when, for whatever good reason, someone wants to play differently from what is (implicitly) allowed. For example, in chess, en passant was a late adoption. Until it was adopted in the official rules, it was an artifice within the sphere of traditional chess. Same with the queen being able to more more than one square in a move. In general, no one person gets to decide what words mean, but in small spheres that have ownership and buy-in from players through their participation, it may be at least a little more certain where the artifice is. In this sense, artifice has no ethical or moral meaning. The game and rules could have something morally bad that the artifice fixes. But it is artificial until adopted. JMO-FWIW.

You must play chess. Would love to hear you and your wife trying to communicate through those barriers.

This probably isn't the forum for this discussion either--from a purist's point of view, but... You did begin the forum and it has seen little use.

Rules and human agreement will forever be an issue filled with conflict. Doesn't matter if it's a marriage or great nation.

Where do new ideas come from, and how are they spread and accepted? That is if they are accepted at all. Ironically, liberal ideas from the past become conservative ideas of the present. And ideas are gradually spread from innovators to a few through social layers of acceptance and rejection before broad acceptance.

How are new ideas introduced? How do they become the new standard? The new rules?

A lot of money can be made helping businesses discover and remedy inefficiencies and systemic faults. The problem is often less discovering an ineffective pattern than getting those involved to actually implement the change. People get stuck in their patterns and fight like crazy to maintain what they're accustomed to. the psychology of human resistance to change.

That others become upset with ideas they don't like isn't a compelling reason not to present the idea for discussion. Of course, history often rewards new ideas with execution. Not execution of the idea as in putting it into practise, but "off with his head!" Even with friends and spouses, knock down drag outs can follow the introduction of ideas about change.

There seems to be a degree of umbrage and indignation here about the idea that using another's efforts as a bases for your success might not be a true measure of your personal achievement in APPW. But should the idea be ignored?

People are often so stuck in their own view that they have great difficulty seeing anything else. You've probably had the experience of trying to tell someone something and after numerous attempts and repetitions over time the person says something dumbfounding like "why didn't you just say so!!?"

The tried and true method of getting trophies with APPW is to scan through boards, find someone's high scoring word, try to find the word and add it to your total. Is it easy? Nope, scanning boards is tedious. Finding the word takes at least a bit of knowledge and skill. And it's the approach most everyone has agreed is just the recipe for success.

But, what is being rewarded here? What is the skill being measured?

Lalatan and I talked about the vexation of finding really rare words that suddenly become "public property." Certainly, no one owns any particular word here. Certainly it's fun to show off one's skill and knowledge. Certainly spreading knowledge is a good thing. But there is a certain satisfaction of having been the first to do something--and a certin resentment that others take the credit.

The downside in contests is that true success becomes watered down when others get the answers without the effort or skill. It's like getting a 100% on a test in college. Awesome! Except, if the professor uses the same test every year and someone gets access to your answers they can get a perfect score without opening a book or attending a lecture. Would that be fair?

Everyone playing Wordtwist has their own level of knowledge and skill. The success of one person should not detract from the success or enjoyment of another's. That Olympic athletes have elite skills doesn't mean we can't benefit from jogging. The comparison of self to others can be self negating and chokes off the fun of just doing something. You don't have to be an NBA allstar to play pickup basketball games. You don't have to be a Grand Master to play chess with you sister.

However, there is a competitive aspect to Wordtwist. Trophies get awarded. Those trophies should have some meaning. Some value. Value not adulterated by inflation or deception.

Logically, one could assume trophies represent personal skill. But, it would be disingenuous to not question whether dependence on others efforts is a fair measure of an individual's success. Should a student be rewarded if they simply study the test of a former student who got all the answers? That student might well be even smarter than the previous student, might well have mastered the class materials with little effort, but should he be rewarded for using the former student's test?

Opportunity costs come into play here. What is gained and what is lost? Here's a game where the longes/best word was 11/22 on the board stats. Statistically, that would be the best you're going to get. Not much chance of getting anything better. But.... why not try? This is what happened.


Screen Shot 2026-10-06 at 9.12.39 AM.png


Now, there's a 16/30 word available that APPW competitors might benefit from where they wouldn't have played the game at all otherwise. Without knowing the 16/30 existed, they would have missed the opportunity to really find an interesting word on their own.

Or this... A game played 40 times and about to recycle. Noo one had found it. The opportunity cost of not playing this...

Screen Shot 2026-10-06 at 7.29.34 PM.png

Useful to understand eukaryotes and mitochondria for your health.

Or this.

Screen Shot 2026-10-01 at 7.53.17 AM.png
For the last few days I've been taking screen shots of words like this to make a point. I've got far too many to post here. And they're all words the APPW piggyback/loophole players would not find because they've wasted the opportunity to look. And why didn't they look? And why should they be rewarded because now they don't have to go to the effort of finding out whether such words existed on those boards or not?

Screen Shot 2026-10-05 at 4.48.09 PM.png

Screen Shot 2026-10-09 at 8.44.26 AM.png

I could just keep putting these up. Words that loophole/piggybackers aren't bothering to find because someone hasn't found them first. Not that such players aren't capable of finding similar words when not playing the loophole/piggyback quest. It's just all the games they lost those words because a siren called.

But, this is a tempest in a thimble. I've got to get outside and put down grass seed--which is far more important to my wife than anything going on here.

[Naboka]

Here's another one I just did after doing the grass seeding and peating.

40 plays, the longest/best word played was 12/24 (toxicologies). Definitely not the kind of game you statistically expect to exceed. That many plays with low words available and a very good word obviously found and not topped. Why not give it a shot? Since it's now been played 40 times it's going to be recycled, so it's not in the piggyback stream, so...

Yes, clicking through hundreds or thousands of games to find high point words is not a lot of fun. But in those games being skipped are words like mycotoxicologies that the piggyback players aren't getting. Yet, the reward is given for those unwilling to do the legwork of actually discovering those words in nearly impossible boards. Just makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like rewarding your kids for eating their ice cream while avoiding the carrots, spinach and chicken.

Hard work was a message hammered into many of us. I've been in enough work situations where there are individuals working extremely hard to avoid the work. It'd be easier if they just did their jobs. And more satisfying.

Finding words using your own brain is the entire focus of Wordtwist. Like we hammer into the kindergarteners, "use your brain, not mine." So, forgive my bias about expecting individuals to use their brains to do the work.



Screen Shot 2026-10-09 at 12.45.51 PM.png

[BoggleOtaku]

Naboka,

After grass seeding I expected you to find TRICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC or at least METHYLISOTHIOCYNATE. But I imagine you prefer organic gardening.

A lot to consider in your earlier post I'll have to ponder before replying. My reply would be along the lines of a game being dead if nothing is changing. Computers solving chess was thought to be a death knell but has made it more dynamic and popular than before. A golf player now sees a missing tree allows a new short cut around a hockey stick corner and beats par, copied by subsequent players. New rules are added to football & basketball to make more entertaining and causing controversy especially in older fans... etc.

In the meantime, a few briefer responses:

I like solving chess puzzles on lichess. Even though everyone is learning from each other because the puzzles are auto selected out of actual games, there are so many "puzzle boards" that there is practically no repetition of new puzzles as far as I know.

I feel the word "Loophole" much better than "artifice" in this context. Could be intentional or accidental, but implies something suboptimal that is officially in or to go into effect and should be fixed somehow.

Your description of people meeting ideas they don't like reminded my of Thomas Kuhn's popularization of the concept of "paradigm shift" captured in the quote by Maxwell Plank: “A "New scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”


Finally, a recent example of a shouted conversation:

My wife arrives home and I shout down the stairs "How was the appointment?"
"Not bad and it took me longer to get home because I stopped by the grocery store to get .... because we were out, but .... and then .... "

Fifty four seconds (and 400 half-heard spoken words) later my Wordtwist game is complete and I come down stairs. "So how was the appointment?"
"I told you"

"No you didn't, you just started talking about the grocery store"
"No, I answered you at the very beginning"

"Well I must have missed it"
"I said 'not bad' "

"I don't think you even took a breath before talking about groceries."
"What were you doing upstairs anyway? Were you playing Wordtwist again?"

Wordtwist (and shouting) getting me into trouble...