| Player 1 |
|
#player1 Mina Mina
#player2 Ezekiel_Markwei Ezekiel Markwei
>Mina: IMNVWYZ 8G VIZY +38 38
#note Correct play.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: ACDENST H7 D.STANCE +62 62
#note He may not have known DANCIEST; I haven't studied that far.
>Mina: EFGMNSW 15E FEWS +66 104
>Mina: GIMNOOR (challenge) +5 109
#note Considered MENGS but chickened out on it. Surprised that FEWS sims better than MENGS since MENGS dumps more consonants, but it must be because GMN is a more synergistic leave than FW.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: ADENORV 14H .NDEAVOR +82 144
>Mina: GIMNOOR 14B GROOM +43 152
#note Ugh, I missed the common-word bingo MO(T)ORING. My play was a distant second best.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: CDU O12 CU.D +30 174
>Mina: BIINOTX K11 BOX.N +28 180
#note I could tell I was playing suboptimally on this move, especially keeping two I's. Quackle vastly prefers either 10H (T)IX or 15A XI. I understand the former, as it keeps BINOT for -ING plays on column B, but XI blocks the G, so what gives? Third-ranking option J4 BOXT(Y) is cool because, even though it keeps IIN, it keeps those -IN(G) options and scores the best.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: AEIILNN B7 ALIENIN. +61 235
#note L5 ANILINE sims better, presumably because it doesn't open the triple.
>Mina: IINOTTT C7 TIT +13 193
#note Second-best play. Puzzled that Quackle prefers A9 TOIT since I would think INOT is a juicier leave than INT. Is the thinking to turn over more tiles so you can pick up A, E, blank, etc?
>Ezekiel_Markwei: EGHRU L8 HUGER +34 269
>Mina: EINOOST A1 TOONIES +77 270
#note Quackle prefers the M6 bingo lane, which amazingly fits both ISOTONE and TOONIES, and amazingly scores one more point than either of the A1 bingos! I didn't see any of that. Don't know why A1 ISOTONE is deemed better than A1 TOONIES, since I would think S eights would be most plentiful.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: EFI B2 FIE +26 295
#note The same tiles score just as much at M12, so he presumably chose this for defense.
>Mina: AALQRRY 10F QA. +32 302
#note Second-best play. I hadn't considered 8L (H)YLA, which I can easily see is superior because the QAT spot is unlikely to get blocked next turn.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: EW 13B .EW +21 316
>Mina: ALORRTY 8L .OLY +30 332
#note Second-best play. Didn't know the top-ranked word, 12D TYRA(N), and dunno if I would have seen the word and spot if I did.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: AE 9H .AE +21 337
>Mina: AAJORRT 12D TAJ +32 364
#note Quackle favors 7M JA for 36, which I saw and wrote down as my second-choice play, but I picked the lower-scoring TAJ for 32 and don't remember why: maybe I wanted a leave with an even ratio of vowels to consonants? JA is nice because it takes an -R for -RY bingos at O1. Quackle's second choice is the MUCH lower scoring 12D TORA(N), counterintuitively. This is my first time ever Quackling a game of mine, so a LOT of it seems counterintuitive to my newbie eye!
>Ezekiel_Markwei: DII M12 DI.I +20 357
>Mina: ?ABOPRR A10 BAP +23 387
#note Wow, amazed that I had a bingo here, which would have given me a win percentage over 92% if I had known it and seen it!! If that doesn't motivate you to study, what will? :_^( BAP isn't even on Quackle's list of choices. I agree that ROB would have been a much smarter play in the same spot; what was I thinking?!
>Ezekiel_Markwei: EIL C3 LEI +15 372
#note After hitting three easy bingos in his first four turns, Zee appears to have been struggling tilewise for the last few turns, judging from his plays; and I have failed to capitalize on that.
>Mina: ?EMORRR D4 MOR +24 411
#note Time to get punished for keeping two Rs when I should have known better. I've drawn a third R. All is not lost; here I've made the correct play and the listed win percentage is still 86%.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: HP M7 P.H +24 396
>Mina: ??EGLRR I8 ..s +23 434
#note Oh how horrible. Quackle lists a 100.00% win percentage for **each** of its top **nine** plays, **four** of which are O1 bingos, one of which was a word I knew (ERRinGLY; the others are grillery, played two different ways, and growlery). (Ultra-bizarrely, the top-favored play is J7 R(YE) to make a new lane.) And yet at this point I completely fell apart under intense time pressure, partly because I had been using a weird new technique of writing down two candidate plays for each move, so I panicked and made the fifteenth-best play. ...Which still has an 88.44% win percentage. Dear god.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: AAEKSTU 7M .AK +20 416
#note Okay, so now I start to see why people say Quackle is bad at endgames. Zee's choice of play doesn't even show up in Quackle's top fifteen choices, yet his reasoning is clearly to shut down bingo lanes now that the bag is empty and I have the second blank.
>Mina: ?EGLRRU E5 sEG +12 446
#note Again, this is so heartbreaking. The top seven candidate moves, including the terribly clever top choice of 15J E(N)G(I)R(D), all carry a 100% win percentage, and yet I was so very low on time -- I think I had gone over by this point -- that I was playing random moves of panic.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: AESTU 6N AS +19 435
>Mina: LRRU E11 L. +4 450
>Ezekiel_Markwei: ETU 5M UTE +18 453
#note Nice find (nice hooks). O god, I only dropped this supremely winnable game about a million times. How demoralizing to see my incompetence so finely detailed. Oh yeah, the final score was 459-430, not 459-450, because I went 1 minute 11 seconds over.
>Ezekiel_Markwei: (RRU) +6 459
|
