Scrabble

Scrabble is a fun game. My feel for wordplay and semi-large vocabulary contribute to my success in this game, to the point where I suppose I am above average. Still, there are untold numbers of people better than me, and that bothers me. Now, saying such a thing seems to strike most people as egotistical, or worse, and that hurts because, like the notion of chivalry, I've always thought it to be a noble thing, an admission of imperfection and refusal to resort to excuses, along with an earnest desire to try harder. In other words, it's positive, not negative.

I don't believe it's egotistical to strive to better oneself, to have amibition. I think it's admirable to aim to be the best, and also - here's the catch - to accept graciously the position you actually find yourself in, whatever that may be. So accept the hand you were dealt biologically, set your sights high (if the matter interests you of course), and work to become the best you can be. This ethic is praised in most quarters but irrationally condemned in others.

My high score to date is 536. I believe most scores in this neighborhood or higher rely largely upon 'bingos' (7-letter plays) due to the large bonus they confer. This is the chief focus of my efforts at the moment, such that I'll forgo better non-bingo plays in order to accumulate a mix of letters that gives me a better chance to bingo (within reason). It's almost too bad such a mechanism exists. It would be nice if the quality of the word - a subjective concept, of course - were more highly rewarded. But Scrabble is a game relying on codified rules, rules that will not change for anyone. In that context I do cherish the game for what it is.

And I practice my bingos.