Phonies are probably my favourite part of top level scrabble-they're a nearly immutable source of humanity in the game, especially with creative (and sometimes diabolical) ideas like this one. Today's scrabble engines would never.
Scrabble engines absolutely can't yet, but eventually (in not too too long probably) silicon computers will be able to do anything you can, meat computer.
To be honest I think this is perfectly within the spirit of the game, and exactly what makes Scrabble so much fun to watch. Nathan used his knowledge of the moves available to him and his opponent to create the best scoring opportunities possible, and played for the only out that he had.
I remember this game being highly debated on the Yahoo! Scrabble forum (does that still exist?). Nathan walked me though one of my endgames at a tournament a million years ago. Absolute gentleman of the game. This move was NOT devious, it was absolute brilliance. Team Nathan here. 🤟
@@wanderer15 Between you, Josh and Mack uploading great content so frequently, my love for the game has been reinvigorated heavily. Just glad that I beat my beloved Conrad and Dr. Bing in tournament play in my life. :) I still suck, but I can go to the grave with that.
Imagine how crushing it would be if the opponent did see the phoney word but had time enough to realize the plan and just had left the phoney word on the board.
@@terracottapie That would have been a less cool response though. And realistically, the less letters your opponent has the more likely they are not gonna pull any stunts. I'm not a good scrabble player by any means but if I'm 80 points ahead and someone plays a phoney with their last 5 tiles I'm probably not gonna challenge.
@@Silvergrooves42 I don't understand why it's "less cool" to challenge, then pass and hold the N, which prevents your opponent from bingoing? It's cool to lose the game?
@@terracottapie Because holding on to a tile might show just paranoia, while playing the N after NOT challenging is a very confident way of displaying that you figured everything out. Obviously, game-wise, both methods win. But a cocky move that leaves you with no other options will always have more style (coolness) than the wary option that leaves you defensive resources and doesn't display mastery of the situation. And even more obviously, I wasn't talking about the strategies that lose the game instead which would undoubtedly be even less cool.
The ability to bluff, and to come up with ploys and gambits like this, is one of the joys of competitive Scrabble. It also showcases the human element of the game - no engine is coming up with that sequence. This was a totally legal, brilliant move.
@@quinnbartlett7233yes, for sure. On macondo: > load cgp 15/C14/R11ALT/E2D6YAM2/S1BIMBO3OXO2/T2D1YUP2U1L1J/I2A2T3R1E1A/NIECE1GIRONS2K/G2T2A4UT1E/5AI2FARADS/1VIOLIN4V3/6SH3E3/2POW2I3i3/WAUR1O1N1HELOT1/ENsERFED NQ/EEGIZ 421/322 0 lex TWL98; > endgame Shows Pass as the top move.
@@quinnbartlett7233but even if engine pass, send the messege to the opponent, I am waiting you. Just the error looks like natural is the brilliant trap idea. So yes, here is opponent just pass, very possible he just pass too. Is just phycology. The pass and this error have the exactly same board, but really is phycology the deference.
What would have been the pinnacle of "Evil meets Evil" is if Stefan recognized Nathan's plan, and then just didn't challenge EB*. He could add a little Hollywooding and pass his turn back to Nathan, and say "oops, I meant to challenge!". Imagine that...
I love the best move "PASS" so much. So many players are not aware that passing could be a good move Dutch players must know, Q stick happens so frequently
It's also amazing since it differs from chess. In chess endgames there are a LOT of positions where not moving would be the best option (zugzwang) so not moving being actually legal in Scrabble while also still having states where it's the best move to do feels amazing
@@misalignedmisanthropistinteresting to compare for sure. In Weiqi/Go, you can pass at any point, and both players passing is how the game ends, but there are no situations where passing is beneficial until all of the scoring points have been made.
As a non-Scrabble player, that move is not evil at all. It's a very creative way to hide a pass and I'd encourage you Will and all other Scrabble players to take opportunities like that when you get them.
it is a delightfully devilish move. it is in fact a slightly evil move, but it’s totally something I would do. I would also encourage plays like this, but let’s not pretend it isn’t slightly evil. I’m also a non-Scrabble player btw
Sometimes you need to accept phoney to win a game. I did that at WSC 1999. I allowed my opponent to play EENS* as I figured out he was bluffing for me to make an opening for his last ditch bingo. But I foiled it because I did not challenge off his move hahaha.
Brilliant move by Nathan. What people aren’t talking about is how crucial it is to not get into time trouble. Stefan had to make rushed moves at the end. I watch tons of expert games online and my biggest general critique is they commonly spend 6-8 minutes on turns early in the game. Loved the video! Keep them coming.
Excellent point. 25 minutes to play a full game can feel woefully inadequate to solve the difficult challenges at hand - especially way outside the box ones like this.
(3:41) I paused the video here to think about it and do some mental math, and correctly figured out the IT and GEEZ+ZIT plays that would let Nathan win by exactly 1 point. Also, the intentional phony EB+ED play hoping to get it challenged off was just pure and utter genius.
I'm surprised there is debate as to whether or not something with this is considered "moral" (for lack of a better term). Even if it's a friendly game, the point is still to win. Competition isn't inherently toxic. So what's he supposed to do if he sees a strategy that could win him the game? Just lose? That seems lame, and it wouldn't have given us the chance to see this amazing strategy if he had. I'm glad he chose to be that devious!
I agree! I'm mostly imagining more casual Scrabble players stumbling across this video who might not be as familiar with competitive play and the shift in thinking involved from "let's play cool words" to "let's maximize our winning chances in this war game played with words as playing pieces" - this group might be taken aback by strategies of this type, and I wanted to acknowledge that briefly. As I say in the video, I fully endorse this strategy from Nathan and think it's one of the coolest endgames I've ever seen played.
The phoney being intentional just deepens the genius and ensures that no amount of computer calculation can successfully dominate the game of Scrabble.
That was incredible! For people who don't realize this: this is literally an instance where Nathan played _better_ than Nigel, because Nigel (for what reason, I don't know) doesn't resort to any tactics that stray away from playing the theoretically optimal move. Also, to me there's nothing unfair about the play. Stefan had a way of punishing it, Nathan is not taking advantage of any unfair advantage. That this is really hard to find under time pressure doesn't make the move unethical to me.
I'm sorry but _better_ is very subjective here. You can debate that the ability to play phonies is wrong and that Scrabble Go is possibly the right variant... (And before you argue that "best" is whatever leads to victory in practical terms, that's only one way of putting it, and from what we know about Nigel, it's not _his_ way. For him it seems, scrabble is much more art than a game.)
Mack Meller made a video a few months ago called "Scrabble but ANY FAKE WORD wins on the spot???" which covers a time when a player actually had an opportunity to try a similar gambit. First thing I thought of, although in that game the relevant player sadly doesn't spot the opportunity to strategically phoney.
It's a mental game! both tactically and strategically. He played to his out and landed on the money, we seem the same thing happen in the game with no tiles when Marlon Hill pulled the same tactic, and that was with plenty of time on each player's clock. Beautiful little sequence!
This might be the most creative series of moves I've ever seen in one of these videos. Absolutely incredible. Earlier tonight I hit BEDAMNED through an A to hit both triple word scores and my highest ever scoring word of 203 pts! :)
The play looks good to me. At their expert level, both players are tracking. Stefan knew what was on Nathan's rack, especially after his "ALT" play. He already sensed something ominous and knew Nathan had a "Z" that was playable.
What an incredible play! This reminds me as well of a video by Mack Meller covering a game of Steve Grob against Will Scott, in which Steve had the chance to play a phony to bait Will to challenge and open a spot to slam down a triple-triple bingo. That opportunity wasn't taken, but it's so cool to see it realized here!
nice! this reminds me of mike barons play that i showcased in ES many years ago. its #15 in the chapter on BEST PLAYS of Everything SCRABBLE. If you wanted to use it to make a video i give you my permission to do so. its still my favorite play that involves a plsy thats so UNEXPECTED.
Will, your videos are so enjoyable. You always have a fascinating story to tell, and you always tell it well. I think my scrabble game is improving too, incidentally. Thanks!
Wow that's amazing. I think if Scrabble becomes more like chess in popularity, with more prize money at stake, you're going to see more of questionable tactics like this at the top level.
An interesting scrabble variant would be to keep almost all the rules the same but have a single random tile be removed from play at the very beginning of the game with neither player seeing what it was until after the game was over. That would change the endgame from a game of perfect information to something with a lot more skullduggery.
I am not that into scrabble. I don’t play it basically ever and I don’t follow it either. But even still I love binging your content and learning about this gay. The way you talk about it makes it truly beautiful.
Not a professional Scrabble guy by any means, but challenge baiting seems legit to me. I can also see how people would bristle, though. Curious to see what the professional community thinks of it.
Another pro player here. It doesn’t bother me at all unless you coffeehouse, which means you say something which makes your opponent believe you made a mistake. For instance, if Nathan had said “shoot” before Stefan hit his clock to challenge, that would be a big no no and would be extremely unethical (and probably considered cheating and grounds for being kicked out of a tournament if I’m not mistaken)
@@evanyurko3640 I looked through the tournament rules and say a general "During your opponent’s turn, do not speak unnecessarily" rule, but nothing that would call this kind of speech out as /cheating/ or DQ-worthy. Which is good, because that would be completely ridiculous - how are you supposed to know whether the player making the disappointed sound has seen the crazy setup, or has just actually made a mistake? DQing someone over this would be /really/ bad policy.
I actually think calling this move "a little bit evil" is a little bit evil. Legal plays almost never have positive or negative moral value, and suggesting that they might reinforces the belief that it's okay to try to bully people out of playing the game correctly by telling them that their playstyle is unethical.
Definitely appreciate this perspective. When I'm making these videos, I try to remember that for a whole lot of people (some of whom may be stumbling across my content for the first time), Scrabble is a casual game played at home with family. Competitive play might be completely new to them, and strategies like this might strike them as not in the spirit of the game. I mostly wanted to acknowledge that viewpoint for anyone watching. Also, would your opinion change if I told you that after Nathan played EB*, he slapped his forehead audibly and facepalmed, feigning anger at himself with visible theatrics? To be clear, I actually don't know one way or another if he did any kind of acting to sell the ruse, but I think that hypothetical would rise to the level of distasteful angle-shooting. Maybe you disagree. If it's not explicit in the rules, then there's going to be some subjectivity involved in staking out the "not against the rules, but still not cool" area.
@@wanderer15 I do think acknowledging that it might feel that way is a good idea, but I still think validating it is a little dangerous. Not a huge deal obviously, people are gonna be jerks sometimes regardless of what you say :p As for where the line is, well, I surely agree that there's a line. I think from an enforcement perspective that line is essentially never in a place where merely making a legal play in a legal manner crosses it - extra stuff like talking and emoting is a different matter, and while I'm pretty comfortable with it in moderation, there are obviously all kinds of behaviors that have to be disallowed. From a moral perspective, it's a lot trickier. I agree there are plays that both should remain legal, and yet probably shouldn't be made, stuff like throwing games (without collusion), or making suboptimal plays that are targeted insults at your opponent. The downsides of trying to enforce against these are much too big, but I wouldn't necessarily be sad about social pressure being exerted against someone who does stuff like this. But I still generally lean away from it - you don't want to find yourself calling someone out for harassment when they just legitimately thought it was their best play, for instance.
How clever! Personally, if it’s in the rules and not too obscure, then both players are on a “level playing field” and can equally expect the other to employ the tactic. So in this case then, I say it’s not unsportsmanlike. Bluffing is part of the game’s rules, even if it’s a small part (and it’s not as if the rule is a footnote unknown to the wider playerbase; if that were so, and he were banking on *that*, I’d question.)
Scrabble novice here: why wouldn't Stefan exchange the Q when there is one tile remaining if he knew the Q was unplayable, even if he thought he had enough of a points lead to win?
Did you know what orientation of the board I'm always playing? I always play in the upside down orientation most of time as we always play tournaments or just a friendly games with my friends. It does really set a challenging situations but as I played it usually most of the times I think I got to hang of it.
I did think of zit and geez but actually being able to do it by intentionally phonying is genius. I would have gave up and accepted my loss in that situation
I have a friend who does not play games to win; he plays to mess with your mind. He reads the rule books closely, looking for ways to "cheat" within the rules.
A mystery I have no good answer to. UK players call them "bonuses" which makes much more sense. Sadly, "bingo" is so ingrained that I have no clue how I would ever switch.
Good question! It’s an obscure rule, but in tournament play (in English), exchanging tiles isn’t permitted with fewer than 7 tiles in the bag. (I’ve just learned recently that Spanish language Scrabble tournaments have no such restriction.)
I think it would've risen to the level of angling if Nathan facepalmed or slapped his head in mock agony. It was 20 years ago now, so I'm not exactly sure if there was any "acting" involved.
I played a 50 Point word.. But snuck in the NON-WORD "AP". My opponent was so upset with my score because he was down by so many points. He did not even notice it. His emotions got the better of him, and he just did not look at it closely
Stuff like this is just part of the strategy and I don't consider it immoral since it's completely within the rules of the game. Where I draw the line is stuff outside the mechanics of the game like "oops I accidentally hit my clock guess it's your turn" instead of saying pass.
It sounds lame, yes, but it’s actually reasonably common. I’m a competitive player and have made this mistake more than once. I would imagine as well, that Nathan thought to himself “hopefully my opponent will think I made this mistake because I’m playing upside down” but didn’t actually say that out loud. As others have pointed out in the comments, that would qualify as “coffeehousing” (talking unnecessarily during your opponent’s turn, in this case with the explicit intent to deceive), and would be a serious no-no. I’m sure Nathan only verbalized after the game that that had been his thought process.
@@johnwilder4789 my comment was kinda meant as a joke since i've willingly played upside-down throughout my 26-plus competitive years (and haven't really made any errors because of it)
That's hilarious because I was trying to find a clip of Nathan spinning the board, and when I RUclips searched for streamed games, I found a game he played with you where you played the entire game upside down. :)
@@wanderer15 to be fair, all my games would be like that. unless i happen to be playing geoff t and he's going second (as we've agreed that player gets to choose orientation :) ).
Phonies are probably my favourite part of top level scrabble-they're a nearly immutable source of humanity in the game, especially with creative (and sometimes diabolical) ideas like this one. Today's scrabble engines would never.
Indeed. If the computer says you have a 100% chance to lose and you win, that’s called a good move!
Scrabble engines absolutely can't yet, but eventually (in not too too long probably) silicon computers will be able to do anything you can, meat computer.
@@terdragontra8900at this point it's doable with ai, it'll just get easier.
To be honest I think this is perfectly within the spirit of the game, and exactly what makes Scrabble so much fun to watch. Nathan used his knowledge of the moves available to him and his opponent to create the best scoring opportunities possible, and played for the only out that he had.
I remember this game being highly debated on the Yahoo! Scrabble forum (does that still exist?). Nathan walked me though one of my endgames at a tournament a million years ago. Absolute gentleman of the game. This move was NOT devious, it was absolute brilliance. Team Nathan here. 🤟
Nathan is a good guy and a really creative and top-notch player!
@@wanderer15 Between you, Josh and Mack uploading great content so frequently, my love for the game has been reinvigorated heavily. Just glad that I beat my beloved Conrad and Dr. Bing in tournament play in my life. :) I still suck, but I can go to the grave with that.
Imagine how crushing it would be if the opponent did see the phoney word but had time enough to realize the plan and just had left the phoney word on the board.
Or, if they challenged it off, but then passed, holding the N to block JEEZ
@@terracottapie That would have been a less cool response though. And realistically, the less letters your opponent has the more likely they are not gonna pull any stunts.
I'm not a good scrabble player by any means but if I'm 80 points ahead and someone plays a phoney with their last 5 tiles I'm probably not gonna challenge.
There are examples of this elsewhere in RUclips
@@Silvergrooves42 I don't understand why it's "less cool" to challenge, then pass and hold the N, which prevents your opponent from bingoing? It's cool to lose the game?
@@terracottapie Because holding on to a tile might show just paranoia, while playing the N after NOT challenging is a very confident way of displaying that you figured everything out.
Obviously, game-wise, both methods win. But a cocky move that leaves you with no other options will always have more style (coolness) than the wary option that leaves you defensive resources and doesn't display mastery of the situation.
And even more obviously, I wasn't talking about the strategies that lose the game instead which would undoubtedly be even less cool.
The ability to bluff, and to come up with ploys and gambits like this, is one of the joys of competitive Scrabble. It also showcases the human element of the game - no engine is coming up with that sequence. This was a totally legal, brilliant move.
For sure a bot wouldnt come up with nathan's move, but could they figure out his opponent's pass as best move?
@@quinnbartlett7233yes, for sure. On macondo:
> load cgp 15/C14/R11ALT/E2D6YAM2/S1BIMBO3OXO2/T2D1YUP2U1L1J/I2A2T3R1E1A/NIECE1GIRONS2K/G2T2A4UT1E/5AI2FARADS/1VIOLIN4V3/6SH3E3/2POW2I3i3/WAUR1O1N1HELOT1/ENsERFED NQ/EEGIZ 421/322 0 lex TWL98;
> endgame
Shows Pass as the top move.
@@quinnbartlett7233but even if engine pass, send the messege to the opponent, I am waiting you. Just the error looks like natural is the brilliant trap idea. So yes, here is opponent just pass, very possible he just pass too. Is just phycology. The pass and this error have the exactly same board, but really is phycology the deference.
Haha! I was wondering, "Don't they play on turntables? How could he have made that mistake?" Turns out, he didn't. What a play.
The fact that these kinds of tricks exist within the rules of scrabble makes it a much more interesting game! Incredible idea from Nathan!
What would have been the pinnacle of "Evil meets Evil" is if Stefan recognized Nathan's plan, and then just didn't challenge EB*. He could add a little Hollywooding and pass his turn back to Nathan, and say "oops, I meant to challenge!". Imagine that...
Then Nathan play ZCRESTING/ZIGE...
Leaving it and playing NEB also wins!
“You’re outmanned, you’re outgunned, you’re out-equipped. What else have you got?”
“Guile!”
ive only recently watched any competitive scrabble and this is one of the coolest things i've seen
I love the best move "PASS" so much. So many players are not aware that passing could be a good move
Dutch players must know, Q stick happens so frequently
It's also amazing since it differs from chess. In chess endgames there are a LOT of positions where not moving would be the best option (zugzwang) so not moving being actually legal in Scrabble while also still having states where it's the best move to do feels amazing
@@misalignedmisanthropistinteresting to compare for sure. In Weiqi/Go, you can pass at any point, and both players passing is how the game ends, but there are no situations where passing is beneficial until all of the scoring points have been made.
@@TheGuyCalledXwhat do you mean? Players not keep live score on paper?
@@dimitriskontoleon6787 in weiqi/go the end position determines the score
As a non-Scrabble player, that move is not evil at all. It's a very creative way to hide a pass and I'd encourage you Will and all other Scrabble players to take opportunities like that when you get them.
it is a delightfully devilish move. it is in fact a slightly evil move, but it’s totally something I would do. I would also encourage plays like this, but let’s not pretend it isn’t slightly evil. I’m also a non-Scrabble player btw
I think deliberate feints like this are a huge part of what makes this kind of "memorization-only" Scrabble interesting.
This guy is the gothamchess of scrabble
Nah levy is way bigger on the emotional factor and poking fun at the players/stockfish, while Will is way more educational and documentary-like
no I meant like he is bringing this game to a larger audience through RUclips and streaming
You've combined two things I thought only I knew about, and I'm both upset and devastated at this comment and I love it.
Gothamchess is literally ass cancer.
I’d say more Agadmator or Jerry from ChessNetwork, but I get what you’re going for.
Sometimes you need to accept phoney to win a game. I did that at WSC 1999. I allowed my opponent to play EENS* as I figured out he was bluffing for me to make an opening for his last ditch bingo. But I foiled it because I did not challenge off his move hahaha.
Brilliant move by Nathan. What people aren’t talking about is how crucial it is to not get into time trouble. Stefan had to make rushed moves at the end. I watch tons of expert games online and my biggest general critique is they commonly spend 6-8 minutes on turns early in the game. Loved the video! Keep them coming.
Excellent point. 25 minutes to play a full game can feel woefully inadequate to solve the difficult challenges at hand - especially way outside the box ones like this.
(3:41) I paused the video here to think about it and do some mental math, and correctly figured out the IT and GEEZ+ZIT plays that would let Nathan win by exactly 1 point.
Also, the intentional phony EB+ED play hoping to get it challenged off was just pure and utter genius.
I'm surprised there is debate as to whether or not something with this is considered "moral" (for lack of a better term). Even if it's a friendly game, the point is still to win. Competition isn't inherently toxic. So what's he supposed to do if he sees a strategy that could win him the game? Just lose? That seems lame, and it wouldn't have given us the chance to see this amazing strategy if he had. I'm glad he chose to be that devious!
I agree! I'm mostly imagining more casual Scrabble players stumbling across this video who might not be as familiar with competitive play and the shift in thinking involved from "let's play cool words" to "let's maximize our winning chances in this war game played with words as playing pieces" - this group might be taken aback by strategies of this type, and I wanted to acknowledge that briefly. As I say in the video, I fully endorse this strategy from Nathan and think it's one of the coolest endgames I've ever seen played.
The phoney being intentional just deepens the genius and ensures that no amount of computer calculation can successfully dominate the game of Scrabble.
My world is already upside down... And sideways... And occasionally right side up.
That was incredible! For people who don't realize this: this is literally an instance where Nathan played _better_ than Nigel, because Nigel (for what reason, I don't know) doesn't resort to any tactics that stray away from playing the theoretically optimal move.
Also, to me there's nothing unfair about the play. Stefan had a way of punishing it, Nathan is not taking advantage of any unfair advantage. That this is really hard to find under time pressure doesn't make the move unethical to me.
Agreed! That is in part the point of time control.
I'm sorry but _better_ is very subjective here. You can debate that the ability to play phonies is wrong and that Scrabble Go is possibly the right variant...
(And before you argue that "best" is whatever leads to victory in practical terms, that's only one way of putting it, and from what we know about Nigel, it's not _his_ way. For him it seems, scrabble is much more art than a game.)
Mack Meller made a video a few months ago called "Scrabble but ANY FAKE WORD wins on the spot???" which covers a time when a player actually had an opportunity to try a similar gambit. First thing I thought of, although in that game the relevant player sadly doesn't spot the opportunity to strategically phoney.
In a recent over-the-board scrabble game, I was facing the board upside-down and accidentally played WA
I’m just happy getting my tiles down. The level of play at the peak is just insane.
Wow, what a devious tactic. I definitely wouldn’t have spotted that!
I have no problem with Nathan's plan here. If he's clever enough to think all that out and Stefan doesn't see it, Nathan deserves full credit.
I love this so, so much, as well as the fact that bluffing (and double-bluffing) is an element in the game.
It's a mental game! both tactically and strategically. He played to his out and landed on the money, we seem the same thing happen in the game with no tiles when Marlon Hill pulled the same tactic, and that was with plenty of time on each player's clock. Beautiful little sequence!
This might be the most creative series of moves I've ever seen in one of these videos. Absolutely incredible.
Earlier tonight I hit BEDAMNED through an A to hit both triple word scores and my highest ever scoring word of 203 pts! :)
great play!
Scrabble endgames eb and flo, and this one was great!
oof!!!
This might be my favorite gameplay yet. The twist was so unexpected!!
What a play, genius and exceptionally laudable. Gambits like this are some of the coolest things games can produce imo.
This is what genius described in the perfect way looks like. Love your videos!!!!
The play looks good to me. At their expert level, both players are tracking. Stefan knew what was on Nathan's rack, especially after his "ALT" play. He already sensed something ominous and knew Nathan had a "Z" that was playable.
What an incredible play! This reminds me as well of a video by Mack Meller covering a game of Steve Grob against Will Scott, in which Steve had the chance to play a phony to bait Will to challenge and open a spot to slam down a triple-triple bingo. That opportunity wasn't taken, but it's so cool to see it realized here!
I find it fascinating that bluffing and tactics are part of scrabble.
nice! this reminds me of mike barons play that i showcased in ES many years ago. its #15 in the chapter on BEST PLAYS of Everything SCRABBLE. If you wanted to use it to make a video i give you my permission to do so. its still my favorite play that involves a plsy thats so UNEXPECTED.
Will, your videos are so enjoyable. You always have a fascinating story to tell, and you always tell it well. I think my scrabble game is improving too, incidentally. Thanks!
Wow that's amazing. I think if Scrabble becomes more like chess in popularity, with more prize money at stake, you're going to see more of questionable tactics like this at the top level.
oh yeah another video of scrabble, another good day
Nah, Nathan was genius to play the false phony. Great ingenuity to make that win.
never played a scabble game in my life but I love all your videos.
What a sick play! Props to Nathan 👏
I have no issues with someone playing a wrod they know is incorrect in top level scrabble seems like it adds an interesting new element.
It appears no one has said it yet:
E
“Challenge!”
“You’ve triggered my trap card!”
An interesting scrabble variant would be to keep almost all the rules the same but have a single random tile be removed from play at the very beginning of the game with neither player seeing what it was until after the game was over. That would change the endgame from a game of perfect information to something with a lot more skullduggery.
For those who relish the information-incompleteness part of Scrabble, that would be a great change!
imagine if stefan under time pressure didn't realize the phoney lol
wow! amazing showcase of a truely unique game! (loved the get smart reference at the end)
Great video as usual, and I love this play. But I’m curious, how did Stefan Rau react at the time or now, in retrospect?
I know Stefan pretty well, so I should've just asked him! My guess - he metaphorically tipped his cap and saluted Nathan's ingenuity.
Brilliant video. I have no issue with this play. Incredible. Thanks for the great content Will.
I wouldn't even be mad if that happened to me. He definitely isn't evil for it.
Wonderful video, found myself actually yelling on the reveal
It's the equivalent of the latch-ditch "oh no my queen" in chess.
I am not that into scrabble. I don’t play it basically ever and I don’t follow it either. But even still I love binging your content and learning about this gay. The way you talk about it makes it truly beautiful.
it’s definitely angle shooting, but it’s fantastic
Not a professional Scrabble guy by any means, but challenge baiting seems legit to me. I can also see how people would bristle, though. Curious to see what the professional community thinks of it.
Another pro player here. It doesn’t bother me at all unless you coffeehouse, which means you say something which makes your opponent believe you made a mistake. For instance, if Nathan had said “shoot” before Stefan hit his clock to challenge, that would be a big no no and would be extremely unethical (and probably considered cheating and grounds for being kicked out of a tournament if I’m not mistaken)
I remember at least one video where challenge baiting was the only way back for the player. I mean, I'd never heard of "waterzooi" before the video.
@@evanyurko3640great point on the coffeehousing, I think that’s the right line to draw.
@@evanyurko3640 I looked through the tournament rules and say a general "During your opponent’s turn, do not speak unnecessarily" rule, but nothing that would call this kind of speech out as /cheating/ or DQ-worthy. Which is good, because that would be completely ridiculous - how are you supposed to know whether the player making the disappointed sound has seen the crazy setup, or has just actually made a mistake? DQing someone over this would be /really/ bad policy.
@@PersonmanGaming as a general rule, I would not speak at all during an opponents turn unless asked a question
I actually think calling this move "a little bit evil" is a little bit evil. Legal plays almost never have positive or negative moral value, and suggesting that they might reinforces the belief that it's okay to try to bully people out of playing the game correctly by telling them that their playstyle is unethical.
Definitely appreciate this perspective. When I'm making these videos, I try to remember that for a whole lot of people (some of whom may be stumbling across my content for the first time), Scrabble is a casual game played at home with family. Competitive play might be completely new to them, and strategies like this might strike them as not in the spirit of the game. I mostly wanted to acknowledge that viewpoint for anyone watching.
Also, would your opinion change if I told you that after Nathan played EB*, he slapped his forehead audibly and facepalmed, feigning anger at himself with visible theatrics? To be clear, I actually don't know one way or another if he did any kind of acting to sell the ruse, but I think that hypothetical would rise to the level of distasteful angle-shooting. Maybe you disagree. If it's not explicit in the rules, then there's going to be some subjectivity involved in staking out the "not against the rules, but still not cool" area.
@@wanderer15 I do think acknowledging that it might feel that way is a good idea, but I still think validating it is a little dangerous. Not a huge deal obviously, people are gonna be jerks sometimes regardless of what you say :p
As for where the line is, well, I surely agree that there's a line. I think from an enforcement perspective that line is essentially never in a place where merely making a legal play in a legal manner crosses it - extra stuff like talking and emoting is a different matter, and while I'm pretty comfortable with it in moderation, there are obviously all kinds of behaviors that have to be disallowed.
From a moral perspective, it's a lot trickier. I agree there are plays that both should remain legal, and yet probably shouldn't be made, stuff like throwing games (without collusion), or making suboptimal plays that are targeted insults at your opponent. The downsides of trying to enforce against these are much too big, but I wouldn't necessarily be sad about social pressure being exerted against someone who does stuff like this. But I still generally lean away from it - you don't want to find yourself calling someone out for harassment when they just legitimately thought it was their best play, for instance.
I'd say that play is completely fine. It just passing but with extra steps.
Good god, this is insanely brilliant.
Every will anderson video is a must watch
2:31 hey that's me 😊
If it's within the rules, it's fair game
Loved the play!
How clever! Personally, if it’s in the rules and not too obscure, then both players are on a “level playing field” and can equally expect the other to employ the tactic. So in this case then, I say it’s not unsportsmanlike. Bluffing is part of the game’s rules, even if it’s a small part (and it’s not as if the rule is a footnote unknown to the wider playerbase; if that were so, and he were banking on *that*, I’d question.)
I dream of having a brainblast in anything big enough to be talked about 20 years later
-How the tables have turned- How the turntables
The eb and flow of this game was wild.
Holy crap, what a play! That was such a fun watch. 🙂
Scrabble novice here: why wouldn't Stefan exchange the Q when there is one tile remaining if he knew the Q was unplayable, even if he thought he had enough of a points lead to win?
Exchanges aren't allowed unless there are at least seven tiles in the bag.
Blocking a move with "alt" is just great.
Straight up diabolical! I love it!
perfect word to describe!
I think Phonies are a great part of the game, especially if they allow for creative moves like this
Excited for more 1% videos
Did you know what orientation of the board I'm always playing? I always play in the upside down orientation most of time as we always play tournaments or just a friendly games with my friends. It does really set a challenging situations but as I played it usually most of the times I think I got to hang of it.
I did think of zit and geez but actually being able to do it by intentionally phonying is genius. I would have gave up and accepted my loss in that situation
IMO, if anyone has a problem with Nathan's phony, hey, the Yahtzee tournament is right over there.
3:12 Things would be interesting if words were allowed to be read bottom to top as well.
Either way, what an insane power move by Nathan Benedict.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Well, played!
Shouldnt he have played gcrestingeeziwe to force his opponent to challenge him off or would that have alerted him to his plan
I have a friend who does not play games to win; he plays to mess with your mind. He reads the rule books closely, looking for ways to "cheat" within the rules.
Stefan smiles like realistic gled quagmire
Why is it called “bingo” instead of scrabble when you use all your letters?
A mystery I have no good answer to. UK players call them "bonuses" which makes much more sense. Sadly, "bingo" is so ingrained that I have no clue how I would ever switch.
so this will make me Australian? awesome!
Woow! This is incredibly ingenious
2:07 what's wrong with exchanging Q?
Good question! It’s an obscure rule, but in tournament play (in English), exchanging tiles isn’t permitted with fewer than 7 tiles in the bag. (I’ve just learned recently that Spanish language Scrabble tournaments have no such restriction.)
This is such an interesting aspect of scrabble I never thought about! in poker this would be the equivalent of angling :D
I think it would've risen to the level of angling if Nathan facepalmed or slapped his head in mock agony. It was 20 years ago now, so I'm not exactly sure if there was any "acting" involved.
I see another Will video I click ✌️
I don't know what it means for ethics or the health of the game, but I do know this win was sick. All I can say really
I played a 50 Point word.. But snuck in the NON-WORD "AP". My opponent was so upset with my score because he was down by so many points. He did not even notice it. His emotions got the better of him, and he just did not look at it closely
I'm still waiting for that 176-point world championship comeback video, hehe 😅
If that really was all pre planned that's genius
I wonder whether this was actually calculated by Nathan or just looks devious clever in hindsight...
It's a fair question, but I believe his previous moves show that he had the plan in mind several turns in advance.
Stuff like this is just part of the strategy and I don't consider it immoral since it's completely within the rules of the game. Where I draw the line is stuff outside the mechanics of the game like "oops I accidentally hit my clock guess it's your turn" instead of saying pass.
why didnt stefan play his q as qi, hooking the first i in violin?
Qi was added to the dictionary in 2006, and this game was played in 2005.
@@thomasisernhagen8263 i see, thank you
claiming you made a mistake because the board was upside-down sounds like a pretty lame excuse
It sounds lame, yes, but it’s actually reasonably common. I’m a competitive player and have made this mistake more than once. I would imagine as well, that Nathan thought to himself “hopefully my opponent will think I made this mistake because I’m playing upside down” but didn’t actually say that out loud. As others have pointed out in the comments, that would qualify as “coffeehousing” (talking unnecessarily during your opponent’s turn, in this case with the explicit intent to deceive), and would be a serious no-no. I’m sure Nathan only verbalized after the game that that had been his thought process.
@@johnwilder4789 my comment was kinda meant as a joke since i've willingly played upside-down throughout my 26-plus competitive years (and haven't really made any errors because of it)
That's hilarious because I was trying to find a clip of Nathan spinning the board, and when I RUclips searched for streamed games, I found a game he played with you where you played the entire game upside down. :)
@@wanderer15 to be fair, all my games would be like that. unless i happen to be playing geoff t and he's going second (as we've agreed that player gets to choose orientation :) ).
brilliant and diabolical, i love it
Brilliant plan !
Perfectly legal and good strategy.
Fun fact maybe if he just accept the wrong move, he can win more easy...
He have tone of lead and just need a bit to protect the score.
He stuck to the rules and it was his only out. Can't hate on him for that!
My mind is blown, this game is so beautiful :'(