| Player 1 |
|
#player1 Gibson Gibson
#player2 Sid Sid
>Gibson: ?DENNOQ -NQ +0 0
#note Gibson repeatedly told me after the game he was confident he played "horribly"! He's usually gracious, but not in a way to put himself down- I could tell that he really did feel shaky about a lot of his moves. Let's take a look (reminder: you should be here only to watch his stellar play- please avoid my racks/plays).
>Sid: CEOOPPT 8F POOP +16 16
#note Fun fact: this is the first time David has ever exchanged against me, and it was an x2 on an opening play. No, that's not unlucky for me. That's just me playing the master.
>Gibson: ??DENOO H8 .rEODONt +77 77
#note 9d gOODmEN/wOODmEN are very bingo-defensive which he might like, but he played this really quickly.
>Sid: CEEERTV 10F VE. +14 30
#note OK coveter is a bad miss, but this sims only slightly behind. I think I can still bingo even after a defensive play unless he somehow covers all the lanes at once.
>Gibson: CEIJRSY 13G J.Y +25 102
>Sid: CEEIRTX 14H .EXT +32 62
>Gibson: CEFINRS 11G F.RNICES +81 183
>Sid: CEINRSW J2 WINCERS +81 143
>Gibson: AGILNOU 5G GUA.O +16 199
#note Man I love this play tho. He felt comfortable making this play, but not completely satisfied. Here starts the string of moves he didn't feel great making. Other options are LA(N)UGO, TAUON, or maybe OCULI. Fishing doesn't seem reasonable.
>Sid: ABIILOT 15K ABOIL +32 175
#note Chickened out! This play would put me in the lead, proving that I'm drawing better than David so far.
>Gibson: AADEILN 13K ELAND +15 214
#note Man this is super interesting! David spent like 7 minutes here. He said after the game he hated this play but the fact that he thinks so out-of-the-box (whether it's defensive or simply unorthodox) and has these kinds of results is amazing. No one would even consider keeping AI as a leave with this rack. But I get this play, sort of- he said after the game that he liked scoring at least a little and making the E and S slightly harder to hit, for lack of a better way to block. He also liked potential counterplay if I bingo there anyways. Though me bingoing through the I or to the blank T could be an issue. Again, crazy interesting. I don't see this play as being bad at all, but maybe I'm just saying that because of who played it.
>Sid: EHINQRT 6F QI +34 209
>Gibson: AEFILSZ L1 ZEALS +57 271
#note Aha! I see the master plan.
>Sid: EHIMNRT M2 HM +27 236
#note OK I played this over ZINE/ZEIN for certain reasons that don't really matter. Don't look at my plays!
>Gibson: ABDEFII 10M FIB +19 290
>Sid: DEINRTT H1 TEND. +24 260
>Gibson: ADEGIRU O7 GRU. +21 311
>Sid: EGILRTT 2B TERGIT. +20 280
#note In all seriousness, this play was really dumb. Just tanked and couldn't see ANY options. This sims well but GITTERN or even ET/FETA has to be better. David credited my play, saying that even if I give up a 40 point overlap after TERGITE I still threaten bingoes or a Z bomb. but GITTERN has to be better.
>Gibson: ADEIRTW 1A WADE +35 346
#note David noted afterwards that he should probably play DAW to restrict underlaps. Maybe he can do WIDE instead? But come on man! He's playing just fine!
>Sid: AEIKLMY 3A KEY +37 317
>Gibson: EHIRSTU A3 .ITHES +42 388
#note This is also perfectly fine.
>Sid: AILMOTU 1K A.O +20 337
#note I played this to block increasingly likely Z plays and give myself a shot at MUTILAN(T)*. So obviously this will never win, but watch what happens in a few turns:
>Gibson: AAIORRU B5 OAR +16 404
>Sid: ILMNTUV 7M VU. +11 348
#note I ask him what the last tile was, and he says A! So by drawing VN I thought I missed my 1/3 chance of bingoing out for the win! I mentioned this to him and (to my later surprise), he sighed acknowledging he seemed to dodge a bullet...
>Gibson: AAIRU E2 .AUR +10 414
#note We're still playing optimal endgames! I have 10 seconds or so left. The story continues on the next turn.
>Sid: ILMNT F1 L.MN +12 360
#note After the game, we were extensively talking about his OAR play. And then he says he should have "definitely" played something through the T, and how he fumbled for not blocking... So basically, not only did we both think MUTILANT* was good, but he didn't actually block it and regretted not blocking, which is kind of nuts. I'm pretty sure he wasn't just taking my word for it when I first brought it up, but I guess he could have. I think he admitted he wasn't sure. Anyways, 10 minutes after post-mortem ended, he told me it wasn't good. Also LIMN is still somehow optimal.
>Gibson: AI C7 AI +7 421
#note We're endgame masters now, officially. This whole game was wack. He did clarify that the plays he called "horrible" did not specifically include OAR, but rather some of his other decisions- but he's really good at winning these unorthodox sort of games. I personally played much better the previous game (also against David), but I had lots of fun. Once again, thanks to David for not only providing his racks, but spending so much time talking about these games!
>Gibson: (IT) +4 425
|
