Can computers play scrabble?

I do not share the confidence of some here that software capable of beating the best human players consistently would be all that easy to write.

Even more difficult would be software capable of outperforming the best human players in matched contests with lesser (or even random) human players.

The elements that some take as simplifying - the luck factor, the risk assessment, etc, - add considerable difficulty to a machine approach, IMHO.

The game is normally played at a fairly low level. High levels of play seem possible, to me, and involve the sort of programming difficulties that have proven unexpectedly troublesome routinely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have downloaded this, and on its highest level it plays a VERY strong game.
Too strong for me I think.
I'll try it on the lower levels and let you know if I can beat any.

It's a wonder one of the major manufacturers haven't brought out a version of it. It is definitely a more canny player than the ubisoft version, but could do with some bells and whistles.

You have to set it up as a standard scrabble board yourself, but that only takes a few minutes.
Nice link Pete !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No way can I beat quackle, even on its lowest level.

rpenner is correct.
It is possible to make a computer version of scrabble which sees every possible play. It's called quackle.

If a person can beat it on its championship level, they will only do so through advanced tactical play.
It sees everything. Try it.

I think I'll go back to the ubisoft version, where I am playing a world champion called Terry.
I beat the sap nearly every time.

 

I think it's more likely that you just got a poorly written game.

 

Availability of "word score" tiles would also be written into the script in terms of being situations which merit specific actions, but it still wouldn't be strategy or require any decision making on the computer's part. It would simply be another "if - then" statement passed prior to placing the word.

Every situation you could run into with scrabble can be prioritized and nested into the script. Things like availability of word score tiles, multiple words created by placement of single words, rapid disposal of "X" and "Q", etc etc

Highest priority would be placing all 7 letters from tray
Elseif triple/double score is in range
Elseif current collection contains "X", or "Q" (with special case "Q" & "U")
Elseif space is available on board due to word containing an "S"
Elseif...........


So on and so forth. Assuming it doesn't trigger any of the elseifs then it ends with "place highest scoring word"

 

Quackle does this about every third or fourth play.

The ubisoft version is definitely dumbed down for entertainment value.
I think they have got the mix just about right.

Playing against quackle is like playing against big blue at chess.
Not very entertaining unless you are a grandmaster.

Club level players use quackle to analyse their games and see if they could have done better than they did.

If you have a set of tiles that looks very promising for a seven letter play, with a good spread of vowels and consonants, quackle is quite capable of instantly finding 10 or more ways of playing out those tiles whereas you may take 10 minutes to find just one.
With one such selection, I took 5 minutes to find a "bingo".
Quackle had over forty of them.

 

Recently on xkcd..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What's the next best play on this set? (No fair if you've already seen the subtext!)

 

I have to disagree on this one.
Spud Empress and I go through phases of playing.
We're evenly matched, we have different strengths and weaknesses.
Over time we would be close to 50/50 wins and losses.
Some games, one of us never gets going, never gets a chance, barely gets a decent tile or a chance to score heavily, gets stuck with six vowels for five turns, shit like that. Luck seems fairly important to me. There are of course, plenty of games where the luck is even and a good, tight game ensues but the luck can certainly run.

 

What you call a script is actually a pretty complex algorithm. It might seem simple on the surface but I bet that algorithm grows way more complicated when you try to implement it. It's due to the fact that each word can be placed in multiple locations, and you have to consider not only the tiles in your rack, but the tiles already on the board. A low-scoring word placed over a double word score might score lower than some words played over normal grid squares. This is especially true when you consider adjacencies, and the fact that you can form multiple words with very few tile placements, depending on the words already in play. Your hierarchy of decisions starts to break down.

If you think you can implement a good scrabble player with a simple script, I would love to see it, but I think it's much more complex.

 

I'd make it as a self-teaching program that improves its strategy at every match, then it would become more difficult every time you play.