Scrabble News item: QI and ZA
Donald Sauter
(NSA). Neither Scrabble News nor the NSA provides a letters column or
forum for Scrabble issues, the emphatic claim being that there are no
problems in the Scrabble world and everyone is happy.)
On page 1 of Scrabble News #232 is the article, "Word Watch: Coming
Sooner or Later to a Scrabble Match Near You".
NSA Executive Director John D. Williams, Jr., recounts the thrill of
playing QI for the first time, before it was acceptable in the U.S.
He goes on to write: "And, of course, QI became good here a few years
ago and - along with ZA - pretty much revolutionized our game
offensively."
My first comment is the point I hear myself making regularly, such as
while stumping for the Points Per Turn statistic: Scrabble, by its
nature, is almost a totally offensive exercise. I'm sure Scrabble
players are kidding themselves when they say or imply that Scrabble
has any sort of significant defensive component. Yes, there are
stupid things you don't want to do, but I would hardly count not
driving your car through your living room wall as "defensive"
driving.
I also wonder if John's paean to QI and ZA was to some extent a
reaction to the attention (greatly appreciated!) I've been given in
the last two issues. QI and ZA are anathema to Scrabble II, and
there's this guy (me) doing everything he can to get Scrabble off the
silly little words, back to a more natural word base, and
rehabilitated as an anagrammatic exercise. (Amazingly enough, this
same guy somehow plays longer and more various words and scores more
points than anyone on earth while using a conventional dictionary and
never studying a word list!)
Comments? Is playing QI and ZA for the ten thousandth time just as
thrilling as the first? Does it still make you feel real smart?
After all, that's what the reporter is referring to when she writes
about a Scrabble tournament, "They play words even a _college
professor_ doesn't know!" (Maybe there's a reason college professors
don't know them?)
In the same Scrabble News #232 is an article about world Scrabble
competition. It lists 23 acceptable two-letter English words - CH DA
DI EA EE FY GI GU IO JA KO KY NY OB OO OU PO ST TE UG UR YU ZO - not
allowed in American tournaments.
Shouldn't these words set American players all atingle just as QI
did? They all mean the same thing - more points! They look no more
ridiculous than words played on every American Scrabble board: AA AE
AL BA BO DE ES FE HM JO KA KI MM MO NA NE OD OE OI OM OP OY PE QI SI
UN WO XU YA ZA.
And while we're at it, there are the two-letter plurals of of the
letters of the English alphabet that have been in American
dictionaries for decades now. We're talking: BS, CS, DS, . . . XS,
YS, ZS.
My point is, if American Scrabble players, including those at the
highest level of control, have no scruples regarding the obscurity of
words they play, and truly view Scrabble as nothing more than a point-
scoring exercise using valid letter combinations, why are these
nuggets being withheld?
Just curious what's going on. I'm sticking with the American
Heritage, myself.
Donald Sauter
www.donaldsauter.com/scrabble.htm
John
the North American word list : )