{"id":2499,"date":"2013-01-16T14:41:42","date_gmt":"2013-01-16T21:41:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/?p=2499"},"modified":"2013-01-19T16:25:00","modified_gmt":"2013-01-19T23:25:00","slug":"game-of-numbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/?p=2499","title":{"rendered":"Fixing Scrabble"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.roughtype.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/4501060411_b78d13822f.jpg?ssl=1\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-2500\" alt=\"4501060411_b78d13822f\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.roughtype.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/4501060411_b78d13822f.jpg?resize=500%2C214&#038;ssl=1\" width=\"500\" height=\"214\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.roughtype.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/4501060411_b78d13822f.jpg?w=500&amp;ssl=1 500w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.roughtype.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/4501060411_b78d13822f.jpg?resize=300%2C128&amp;ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Joshua Lewis has run the numbers on letters, and he&#8217;s discovered that Scrabble&#8217;s point system is statistically suspect. Indeed, he suggests, it may be downright suboptimal. Lewis, a scientist and entrepreneur, developed a software program,\u00a0called\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/github.com\/jmlewis\/valett\">Valett<\/a>,\u00a0for &#8220;determining the appropriate letter valuations in word games.&#8221; The program&#8217;s algorithm &#8220;analyzes the corpus of a game&#8217;s legal plays and provides point values for the letters in the game based on a desired weighting of their frequency, frequency by length and the entropy of their transition probabilities.&#8221; He ran Scrabble&#8217;s tile values through the algorithm and discovered all sorts of anomalies, which he attributes to historical changes in the set of words that can be played legally in the game.<\/p>\n<p>The big problem seems to be that Q, which Lewis terms an &#8220;outlier&#8221; (I can attest, anecdotally, to the truth of that description), is substantially undervalued. To bring the game up to statistical snuff, the values of many other letters would, as a result, need to be &#8220;compressed.&#8221; As the BBC <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/magazine-20984707\">explains<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>According to Lewis&#8217;s system, X (worth eight points in the current game) is worth only five points and Z (worth 10 points now) is worth six points.\u00a0Other letter values change too, but less radically. For example, U (one point currently) is worth two in the new version, G (two points) becomes three and M (three points) becomes two.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>But Lewis&#8217;s plan is founded on a misunderstanding. By accounting for recent changes in word frequency and transition probability entropy, he seems to believe that he can return the Scrabble scoring system to a statistically pristine state. But that pristine state, that Eden where all the numbers line up, never existed. The points system was a kludge from the get-go, as the analytically minded have long known. The game&#8217;s inventor, Alfred Butts, &#8220;calculated a value for each tile by measuring how frequently each letter appeared on the front page of the New York Times.&#8221; Explains John Chew,\u00a0of the North American Scrabble Players Association,\u00a0&#8220;Butts had a selection bias in favour of printed newspaper English which many people have suggested ought to be rectified.&#8221; But changing the system at this point, Chew says, with considerable understatement, would inspire\u00a0&#8220;catastrophic outrage.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It would also make the game less fun, because it would make it more difficult for novices to occasionally beat veteran players. The scoring system&#8217;s lack of statistical rigor, it turns out, has the unintended but entirely welcome effect of adding a little extra dash of luck to the game, as Lewis himself points out. The apparent weakness is a hidden strength.<\/p>\n<p>Let the statistically impure thoughts of Alfred Butts serve as a lesson to us all about the dangers of our current fixation on the analysis of large data sets. Armed with a fast computer, a wonky algorithm, and whole lot of Big Data, a geek will begin to see problems everywhere in our messy human world. And by correcting every statistical anomaly or inefficiency, he&#8217;ll not only clean up the messiness, he&#8217;ll remove the fun.\u00a0To a statistician, a blank tile has no value. The rest of us know better.<\/p>\n<p><em>Photo by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/openfly\/4501060411\/\">openfly<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Joshua Lewis has run the numbers on letters, and he&#8217;s discovered that Scrabble&#8217;s point system is statistically suspect. Indeed, he suggests, it may be downright suboptimal. Lewis, a scientist and entrepreneur, developed a software program,\u00a0called\u00a0Valett,\u00a0for &#8220;determining the appropriate letter valuations in word games.&#8221; The program&#8217;s algorithm &#8220;analyzes the corpus of a game&#8217;s legal plays and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2499"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2499\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2510,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2499\/revisions\/2510"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.roughtype.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}