The More Words to Find, the More I Miss

[a non-amos]

MK has a good point.  People who play as anonymous are absolute low-lifes, the dregs of society, the absolute worst of the . . . oh, wait . . . can I backtrack a little on that?

- A non-amos

[Katzmeow]

Do you realise that once a game has closed, you can click the solution tab to view all the words that you have missed. ( they will be highlighted in red ).

Yes, I did realise this.  

Just imagine if every player used a puzzle solver when they ran out of ideas, the achievement of finding that elusive " big word " or attaining a rosette would become absolutely meaningless.

More to the point, it makes it meaningless to me.  What it does do is shut my brain off.
The way I play is by writing down the letters then writing down as many as I can.  Then I enter them all into the puzzle to see how I've gone.
 I'll use the shuffle function for a while to see what else I can pick up.  Before resorting to puzzle solvers, I take a vape break outside (puffing on my ecig).  Even though not actively thinking about the puzzle, my brain keeps working on it, often generating several words I hadn't thought of before.  Knowing that all the common words have been found means my brain stops doing this.

No disrespect or offence intended, this is just my opinion which is what this forum is all about.

No offence taken Les.  It's like my signature says, and it's good to see a wide variety of attitudes to using a puzzle solver (thanks everyone for your thoughts on this).

Since starting to use the puzzle solver, I have noticed that my overall word count has improved as I've learned some new ones from the puzzle solver, and that I do remember some of the common words I'd never come across before (repine, crape & karat are some I'll never forget).  I guess what hasn't improved is the number of common words that I know but just don't see on the day.

[yelnats]

I quite often look to see how many people have got rosettes...

I haven't had a rosette for a long time, but got a couple of "roset"s lately (interpose game was one).

[pat]

I am not sure that everyone that gets a perfect score has not used more than memory skills to achieve it, but I am sure there are people who could achieve it only using their memory skills.

Sorry, Jack, but I completely disagree. To get every possible word in every puzzle every day would imply that the player knows, and can recall, every word in the English language. I don't believe such a person exists, let alone more than one of them, who just happen to be Chi players. Also, bear in mind that there are still many words in the English language that aren't currently accepted in Chi (as borne out by the constant additions that Alan makes) and the perfect-score-every-day players with a 100% hit rate never play them until they've been suggested and accepted. The only way I can imagine these trophies being obtained is by working through a personal list, that list being updated every time a new word is added.

Back then , my comments were quite scathing about those players who could achieve a perfect score in every game . i have softened my attitude somewhat but at the end of the day, in my opinion , they are just cheats.

Les, I believe you are a kind person and I would ask you to consider how hurtful it would be to be such a talented person and, instead of being praised for that skill, be repeatedly called a cheat

I believe Les is stating what a lot of people think but are too polite to come out and say. Good on him for expressing his own opinion. I'm sure many will agree with it.

[mkenuk]

The only way I can imagine these trophies being obtained is by working through a personal list, that list being updated every time a new word is added.

I'm with Pat on this. I've been playing Chi for about 10 years now; I play every game nearly every day and most games I manage to get to within one or two words of a rosette; I can reach 'maven' on average about three or four times a month, I even got to 'cham' a couple of times last year, but I've never managed to get within sniffing distance of a trophy / cup. Not once!

Out of curiosity, I looked at the complete list of words in yesterday's cellophane 10-letter game; Of a total of 138 words in that game, I managed to find 75. I missed one common word -epochal - and about four or five rare words that I knew. Most of the other 60 or so uncommon words were totally unknown to me - some of them didn't even look like English words. caneh?, opah?. How can anyone know words such as these and recall them, and dozens of others like them, not once, but three times a day? Every day.

I've heard it argued that top Scrabble players memorise lists of words; that is true, but, as far as I know, top Scrabble players spend hours memorising long lists of two- and three-letter words, since these are most useful to them in the closing stages of games. The chances of being able to play panoche, pechan and phoca (God knows what any of them mean!) are remote indeed, so why would they bother memorising them?

Also, for the very top Scrabble players, there is money to be made - from tournaments, competitions and demonstration games, so they will spend hours and hours memorising word-lists.

As far as I know, there are no such openings for Chi players - not yet, anyway!

ps. Of the five obscure words I have mentioned in this post, only one - opah, a large deep-water fish - is in COD.

[Ozzyjack]

The only way I can imagine these trophies being obtained is by working through a personal list, that list being updated every time a new word is added.

I am not questioning that.  I am taking it as a given. I might not be the brightest card in the deck but the only way I can see that you can achieve the results you are complaining about with a computer is to have such a list and keep it updated. I assume that is how the results are published.

What words are in or not in the English language are completely irrelevant for the completion of chi.  The only question is what words are in the updated list.

The next question is can anyone memorise that list and analyse it in their mind against 9 or 10 letters, one of which must be present, on a tri-daily basis without using a computer.  I can’t imagine that I could, even with a much smaller list, but I believe it possible that there are people who could do it with the chi list. Obviously you don’t - even given the feats performed in the World Memory Championships.  I assume you have balanced those feats against memorizing and analyzing a chi list in coming to that conclusion.

I am sure there are some people who achieve the perfect results by using a computer but even if there is only one who achieves it without using a computer on each puzzle, do you believe it is right to label that person a cheat.  I don’t but that is only my opinion - I won’t even claim it is humble  

[pat]

I am sure there are some people who achieve the perfect results by using a computer but even if there is only one who achieves it without using a computer on each puzzle, do you believe it is right to label that person a cheat.  I don’t but that is only my opinion - I won’t even claim it is humble  

Quite right too. It's no more humble than anyone else's opinion. Just different.

[Dragonman]

Like MK I missed EPOCHAL in the CELLOPHANE game.After reading his post I tried the same thing but I only managed 4 rare words that I could have played.
I cant imagine EVER getting all words...even with a hit rate of -200.

[Katzmeow]

Sigh.  I did the standard game without using a solver, got 40 out of 42 common words.  Tried to go 'solverless' on the challenge, but when I got to 5 common words to go, I just couldn't leave it at that, so used the solver to find out which words I'd missed.

As so often happens, they are words I know but just didn't get.  This annoys me just as much as when I've never encountered the remaining common words.  Still, my brain can shut off for now - unless I move onto the 10 letter puzzle, of course.  

I have ten years of statistics compiled by Alan W. to show that the percentage differences among my achievements in the three puzzles are very slight.

Thanks for that info: without it I wouldn't have realised that there are statistics I can access.  Having checked mine out, I can see how much my use of the puzzle solver has inflated my statistics, particularly under the heading of rosettes.  I have managed to achieve rosettes unaided, but not many.
Now I'm considering re-registering under another name & starting over.  Then again, I've learned so much using the solver that I'm not sure I want to let go of it just yet.  Hmmmm.  I will think more about it.

[Les303]

Well it seems that my comments in this thread have a hit a bit of a nerve with a few  players. ( how unusual ).

Les, I think you assume that everyone has the same view of the game as you do.
Yes, thanks Pat, starting with the assumption that all players would only find words by knowledge,  memory, repetition & without using any aides, was indeed naïve.

Les, i was going to take issue with you on two counts
What constitutes cheating and whose business is it to make an issue of it?
What makes you so sure that someone who gets perfect scores is using anything other their inherit ability to achieve that result?

Given my original premise, it is an unlevel playing field if players are gaining an advantage by using " aides " then i cannot think of any other word to describe it.
Jack, i have only been on this forum for a few years but this subject has been raised several times during that period.
From memory, the last time that the subject was raised, it centred around everybody's fascination with Alonso & he's freakish ability to able to attain a cup in every game day after day.
At the time i offered an open invitation to Alonso & all other cup holders ( i know that all of them are not forumites, but some are ) to please share with the forum exactly what methods they use to attain their amazing results.
There were no responses.
Alonso, that invitation is still open?

Katzmeow, thankyou for your response & explaining how you play the game & why you use a puzzle solver.
Aside from the recent revelation from RM that she used puzzle solvers in her ealy days, i belive that you are the first to openly make that admission.

I must admit that i  was very surprised to hear how you play you the game because that is exactly how i used to play target & other games that were published in the paper.
I would right down all the letters on a large piece of paper & spend ages compiling a list before transferring my finalised list to the allotted spaces in the paper .

And that was one of the things that attracted me to chihuahua, there was no need for pen & paper, there was no need to make lists, it was all in front of you on the computer screen, just hit the shuffle tab & keep perservering athough i do admit that sometimes when i am totally out of ideas, i will walk away from the computer & revert to writing down all the letters on a big sheet of paper.

All the best, Les

[Les303]

Almost forgot , loved the post from A , hilarious.

[Ozzyjack]

What constitutes cheating and whose business is it to make an issue of it?

Given my original premise, it is an unlevel playing field if players are gaining an advantage by using " aides " then i cannot think of any other word to describe it.

I didn't address the first question because R-M addressed it eloquently and I will repeat it in case you didn't give it full attention last time.

Back then , my comments were quite scathing about those players who could achieve a perfect score in every game . i have softened my attitude somwhat but at the end of the day, in my opinion , they are just cheats.

Clearly just an opinion, since you acknowledge that people have the right to play the game as they choose. Those players who achieve such high scores with apparent ease are not violating the terms of Chihuahua; hence, they are not cheating. They are violating your expectations of how players should behave. When I first started playing Chihuahua, I did not understand what the Shuffle function was. Once I grasped it, I still wondered if using it constituted cheating. Eventually I decided that if Alan had made it so openly available to everyone, it surely was not cheating. I use it copiously now in every game, but it would not surprise me if there are some players who even now consider it to be cheating. My point here is that "cheating" in Chihuahua is in the eye of the beholder. With so many different sets of goals, expectations, levels of interest and time available among the six hundred plus Chihuahua players, it shouldn't be surprising that there is a wide variation in player styles. I think it is perhaps unjust to expect everyone to hew to your line.

Which brings me to your "original premise" which seems to revolve around a level playing field.  My understanding was that the original objective of the game was to provide an entertainment for people to test themselves.  If it is one person against the puzzle, there is no question of a playing field and it is up to each person what aids they want to use in achieving their entertainment. Of course, there are always those competitive souls who want to compete against other players and it is perfectly OK for those interested in doing so, to agree on the rules of their competition. For example, they may agree not to allow the drinking of XXXX while playing as an aid to stimulate the brain cells.  But there should be no compulsion for other players not wishing to compete with them, or to provide a benchmark for them, to take any notice of their rules.

You have every right to ask Alonso what his secret is and he has every right to ignore your request.

[cmh]

Recently my husband (a player but not a forumite) and I were discussing our game playing goals. He prefers to keep a 100% hit rate (I guess for England when stuck so mine can go very low) and he actively aims to get all the common words (I get more uncommon than he does and get bored looking for common words as I just know I will miss really easy ones) and we both keep an eye on other players achievements but he is the one who gets most cross about the  players who achieve instant perfection. Two players in the same household each with different playing styles but both enjoying the game. Mind you this conversation also resulted in my husband saying that I got less frustrated with the game because I am not really that competitive a person - unlike him. He is correct but I have never thought of myself in that way. 59 years old and just had an insight into my nature that was never really apparent to me and all because of a word game on a computer!

[Katzmeow]

Katzmeow, thankyou for your response & explaining how you play the game & why you use a puzzle solver.
Aside from the recent revelation from RM that she used puzzle solvers in her ealy days, i belive that you are the first to openly make that admission.

Really?  I figured I couldn't be the only one here to use puzzle solvers.  For me, looking at the missed words the day after I've done the puzzle doesn't work.  Aside from shutting my brain down from spitting out random collections of letters that may or may not be words, it gives a sense of closure.  Next day I am keen to get on with a new puzzle, so the words from the previous puzzle just don't go in.

I must admit that i  was very surprised to hear how you play you the game because that is exactly how i used to play target & other games that were published in the paper.
I would right down all the letters on a large piece of paper & spend ages compiling a list before transferring my finalised list to the allotted spaces in the paper .

And that was one of the things that attracted me to chihuahua, there was no need for pen & paper, there was no need to make lists, it was all in front of you on the computer screen, just hit the shuffle tab & keep perservering athough i do admit that sometimes when i am totally out of ideas, i will walk away from the computer & revert to writing down all the letters on a big sheet of paper.

That's pretty much how I used to do the targets from newspapers.  I like the feel of pencil on paper and enjoy the act of writing.  When it's really quiet, I enjoy the sound of pencil on paper.  Yes, I know I'm weird.

Writing the words first then entering them really damages my hit rate because I touch-type.  Quite often I think I've hit enter but haven't, then when I enter the next word I might not notice the first is still there and I might enter 2-3 times before I realise my mistake.  When I enter words rapidly, sometimes I'm too fast for the site and it doesn't capture it properly before I hit enter.  Maybe I need to slow down.

To each, their own.

Edit to add:  today I went without the solver.  In the challenge I achieved 78 words with still 17 common words to go.  On the 10 letter I managed 103 with 17 common to go.  My attempt at the standard was pretty poor today, with 22 words & 8 common to find.  I dunno, just don't see what's there to be seen.

[mkenuk]

Maybe I need to slow down.

I dunno, just don't see what's there to be seen.

One technique I used in my early days of playing Chi was to take 5 letters from the grid (always including the key letter of course) and put only them on the shuffleboard.
Using today's 'Standard' game as an example, you might select the top left to bottom right diagonal - E, D, A, G, N - and, by using the shuffle facility, see how many words you can find. When you are fairly sure you have got everything that can be made from those 5 letters, choose another 5 (perhaps the other diagonal or the 5 letters at the top half or the bottom half of the grid) and do the same again.

This technique should throw out  all of the four- and five- letter words in any game - roughly 75% of the common words in today's 'standard' game, for instance. (I don't think that needs a spoiler warning; I think that's true of all 9-letter games.)