what a REAL MATCHPLAY tourney would have looked like

[cuzzakenji]

some years ago,  i asked a coupla scrabble players 2 SEED (by ABILITY) da top 40ish players.  Joel being Joel, smarmily asked WHAT criteria coul one use besides rating.  muthafucak, i SAID by ABILITY.  if u don't KNOW WHO get down HOW, juss list em in order of players u would NOT wanna play, ie who would be da HARDEST player to beat.  pick a SANE

Comments

[quinquennia]

haha, check this out:
http://cross-tables.com/matchups.php?p=6003+1384+728+3522+729+53+578+977

[quinquennia]

Just watching Gabriel Shalom throw tough endgame puzzles at Adam at Montreal's tourney - the absolute speed he processes at, I wouldn't say he is rusty. Also seeing how Adam dominates in a three minute format, not only keeping scores for himself and his opponent, but also for the two other (noisy) people at his table at Speed Scrabble, I'd put Adam on the top shelf.

[cuzzakenji]

Adam's rust aint gonna show up in da endgame--dat aint where games izz lost at da top. his DECISION making always been CRISP, but his stylistic deficiences became more pronounced wif age n inactivity.

AGE got 2 Edley, but he STILL Joe Edley. i listed him as da other #2, but changed what i wrote (basically what i juss said).

Wiegand izz da most GIFTED player, Capp izz probably da most technicaly sound. Nigel would have 2 SHOW me how good he really is. i listed Gibson as da other #1 juss cuz i aint wanna give it to Joel (his DRUNKEN KUNG FU style is what make him DANGEROUS).

among all da top players, it basically boil down 2 WHO izz LUCKIER DAT day. Wiegand's GIFTS would allow him 2 adapt--he would quickly learn not 2 do stupid shit whereas i aint so sure such izz da case wif Nigel (his OSW background forged his STYLE--n dessa serious drawback when stompin wif da big dogs). i aint gonna get OUTPLAYED. n GIVEN a coupla nastyPHATnasties 2 DRAW 4 me...

[crosstables]

Drunken Kung Fu, eh? I wanna have my own style, so I think I will play like "A COBRA ON VICODIN" from now on. Yeah, that's me, the goddamn Vicodin Cobra. Strike! Strike! Hallucinate!! Bite self! Choke!

[cuzzakenji]

dess funny!!!

n don't get mad when i start callin u VC...

[cuzzakenji]

#3s - Pakorn, Trey, Samson, VC (or WC Tiekert --i don't care how old he izz, i would play da other 3s simul rather than Tiekert. MATCHPLAY izz DIFFERENT--iss much more about SKILL).

#4s - Nathan, Kenji, Carl, Kramer (if he still breathin)

5s - Orry, Geoff, Scott, JKB (n i'd take Jan vs any of dem)

i don't know Orry's game enuf 2 comment on it, but i guess i gotta show Texas some luv.

[no1uknowno1]

i vote for adam logan. no offense but it's boring to watch a bunch of word nerds play scrabble slowly. i hear adam logan is the fastest professional scrabble player and he has won both the world's tournament and the american national tournament. so... in any tournament, match tournament, or whatever, adam logan is the only choice for me. he can win slowly but most of all he can win fast. sort of like bobby fischer. when scrabble becomes fast, maybe it won't die. as it is right now, slow scrabble might be the death of scrabble because it's boring to watch. damn it marlon, why did you have to CAVE to pressure from winter? it's a pain logging in.

[lordiceman]

Speed isn't worth jack. The Scrabble scene has plenty of speed demons who play terribly. Being able to adjust your pace and maintain quality of play is worth something, but speed itself is no indicator of skill.

FYI, Logan isn't even close to the fastest. He might play faster than average, but I wouldn't call him a speed demon.

If you are in fact "no one we know" (which I don't believe), then please enlighten us as to why your opinion is worth a damn anyway.

Also, this thread isn't about what's more interesting for you to watch on TV. It's about who would win. Spectator interest is a whole different subject. Sorry if it's boring for you to watch top level Scrabble played, but I couldn't care less about that.

speed demons

[no1uknowno1]

how many speed demons have won both the world's and american tournaments? just adam logan... is my guess. you know that phrase "if you build it they will come"? well it seems like that yes scrabble was built and some came but the reality is if it isn't popular it will die. the more popular it is the more the capitalists will be willing to back scrabble up. instead, the way it is right now, scrabble champions make less than 50,000 dollars for winning something major. i may not be a tour player but do i have to be for my opinions to count? the way i see it, my opinions are not worse or better than yours or anyone's. i mean i could ask the same question to you... who are you and is your opinion worth any damn? too.

[lordiceman]

If you ask any player to name the fastest tournament players that come to mind, very few of those named would qualify for Marlon's hypothetical event. Most wouldn't even be close.

Your opinion about what would make Scrabble more popular to spectators is definitely worth something.

Your subjective opinion about the relative skill of top level players is not. Without firsthand experience and advanced knowledge of the game, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

[no1uknowno1]

true. my opinion may not be worth as much as a tournament player's opinion but the question is are my opinions AUTOMATICALLY wrong? i mean why do you have to be slow to have real scrabble skills? i mean if you are slow then the most positive thing you can say is you are a "skillful slow player". but isn't the "skillful fast player" superior to the slow player? the faster it is, the harder it gets. ask albert einstein. you would need a fuel tank the size of jupiter to travel at near light speed to get to the nearest star. or something like that. anyway, excuse the tangent but who says anyone has to be boxed in to any conventional thinking and conventional styles and "rules" of debates.

[lordiceman]

Opinions aren't right or wrong. But when you're totally uninformed about the subject matter, how can you even have an opinion? Anyone can look at a list of past champions and say "Yeah, I vote for that guy!" It doesn't mean you have any understanding of what makes that player outstanding or how they would compare in a matchplay setting.

Also, saying "speed is no indicator of skill" does not remotely equate to your ridiculous inference that "one must be slow to have real Scrabble skills". If A is false, it doesn't mean that B is true. Pretty simple logic there. I'm just saying that speed isn't important nor is it useful in differentiating skill level. It's a non-factor. And no, the "skillful fast player" is not superior to the "skillful slow player". All that matters is winning.

[no1uknowno1]

if the subject matter is speed scrabble, let's just i am not totally uninformed. it's just to ME slow scrabble is like that saying "if you give a thousand monkeys eternity, eventually they might write a shakespeare play". like i said before, slow scrabble is boring to watch. okay maybe to tour players slow scrabble is not as boring to watch. the problem is that it may not be the professional scrabble's opinions that matters when it comes to keeping scrabble alive. it might just be opinions such as mine that does matter. "we the watchers". we the people on the verge of considering playing scrabble professionally, if the incentives are there. i am not going to travel to where marlon lives just to play matchplay should i ever get good enough for a measly winner prize of what? a hundred dollars?. it cost too much. ps... the saying "If A is false, it doesn't mean that B is true" can be "If A is false, it DOES sometimes mean that B could be true". grey areas.