The crossword puzzle in today's NY Times is one that I constructed. For a review of the puzzle click here (the naughty sub-theme discussed, was not intentional, unfortunately). It is part of my continued effort to become a well-known, established crossword puzzle maker. I don't have any on the docket to be published, but I have 3 submitted to the NY Times and 1 to the LA Times. I really like 2 of them, 2 of them I like less so.
I also have a handful of puzzles ready to be submitted after I hear about the other ones. A few of them I think are really good. I decided to be a bit more judicious about my selection of which puzzles I submit, especially to the NY Times. Before I took a bit of a machine gun approach, spray enough bullets and something will be hit. It was fairly effective as out of 1o or so submissions I had 3 published, but it leads to a lot of rejections and is just generally inefficient. Now, I'm going more with the sniper rifle (I just finished the excellent Iraq war memoir "Joker One", which explains the gun metaphors). I am only going to submit the puzzles I really I like and I think have a good chance of being published. The main drawback is that what I think is good and what an editor thinks is good are not always the same. Still, we'll see how my new strategy goes. I still really enjoy making crosswords puzzles, just for the sake of making of them, so I always have that to fall back on.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Par for the Course (Of Course)
My string of perfectly average Scrabble tournaments continues. In the annual Annapolis tournament, in 7 games I went 4-3 with a +12 spread . I think my rating will take a slight hit as my expected win total was probably somewhere between 4 and 5 against the field I played. I was rated 6th out of 20-some and surprisingly I did not play anyone with a higher rating than me. Anyway, on to the games.
My first opponent is Teresa Schaeffer and she beats me in a low-scoring, closed-board game, 309-341. After falling behind early, I have both blanks late, but also have the Q and the board is not bingoable. I use the blanks for a 66-point non-bingo (TUQUES) to pull within 5, but I can't pull out a victory. I make a mistake at the end playing ORZO instead of BOZO, but it only costs me spread points. I could not have won at that point.
Next up is Stan Williams. This is my sixth time playing Stan in a tournament, and heading into this game I'm 4-1 against him (now 5-1). It's a shoot-out early. I hit back-to-back bingos for 68 and 87 (ATONIES and MALTEDS) and he counters with a 54 point play (EXPAND) and a 75 point bingo of his own (TUBBERS). I break it open about at about the midway point, though, with CAROUSEL for 68, and subsequently cruise to victory, 478-376.
My opponent, Jermaine Harris, completely botches the next game and I capitalize, eking out a 365-360 victory. With a 9-point lead and no tiles left in the bag Jermaine plays TORIS, instead of several sure winners. I challenge the phony off the board (any mathematician worth his salt knows TORI is a plural) and after that the game is mine.
Dour Ralph Moore snatches a victory from my clutches in round 4. I have a 62-point lead near the end, it's my turn, there are three tiles left in the bag, one nice bingo line open, one so-so bingo line open and I'm pretty sure he has a blank. The strategy is to block the best line and try not to empty the bag. I do block the line, but I also empty the bag, because I'm more worried about dumping garbage in my rack than I should be. To make things worse I subsequently draw the J to add to my cluster-eff of tiles. Ralph deftly bingos through the other line and I lose 405-433. It was definitely a mistake emptying the bag, but again it was probably just lost spread points. I don't think there is any scenario that, following his bingo, allows me to score and clear enough of my rack to pull it out. Instead of being 3-1 at the lunch break I have to (dis)content myself with 2-2.
My first game after lunch is one of those games. One of those games you just get whooped and can do absolutely nothing about it. These games especially suck in a 7 game tourney because they just destroy your spread. On my first play I leave myself GENA, which is decent, and then proceed to draw E, E, and E. It was that type of game. My opponent, Laura Moyer, starts with COX for 37, FEZ for 44 and QUIETER for 101. Later in the game she bingos TRAINER (73) and VERIEST (91). I lose 344-514.
I rebound my next game and beat Ronnie Thomas 434-318. It is actually a very tight game, but she loses 50 points for going over her time limit looking for a 9-lettered, desperation bingo. She eventually settles on AMIRLINES, which of course I challenge off the board. Playing Ronnie is not very fun. She talks throughout the entire game, frequently griping about how bad her tiles are. She even made comments to the people playing next to us about their game. Apparently, bothering just me wasn't enough. Also, she monopolizes the space surrounding the board. She had two jugs of juice, a spilled open bag of cough drops and a several pound bag of walnuts on the table. Oh well, at least I won.
My final game of the day is the best one. I'm playing Ben Lefstein who I am 0-0-1 against. We tied several years ago in the D division in my very first tournament. We've both moved up since then (B divsion). In the Rockville tourney Ben went 13-0 in the C division which is impressive. He starts thing off with BUSTIER for 74, and I counter with QUARTZ for 48. A few plays later he bingos ANTIARS, which I know is good, but he makes BUSTIERS in the process, which I have never seen. Motivated by my misadventures last tournament I challenge, but the play is good. By my next turn I am down by 128. I quickly rally though with LEX for 36, followed by GROANERS for 72 and then RECOPIED for 76. A play later I am up by 3 when he puts down BOATLINE. I challenge again, this time successfully. (Marlon Hill later points out the valid anagram TAILBONE, but this didn't play, anyway). The endgame is rather anticlimactic for such a solid comeback. I get the last blank and the last S and play conservatively to secure a 429-410 victory. Not a bad way to end the day.
I'm not sure when my next tourney will be. Possibly Richard Popper's tournament in Delaware, possibly Nationals (which would be awesome, but also a serious commitment), possibly neither.
My first opponent is Teresa Schaeffer and she beats me in a low-scoring, closed-board game, 309-341. After falling behind early, I have both blanks late, but also have the Q and the board is not bingoable. I use the blanks for a 66-point non-bingo (TUQUES) to pull within 5, but I can't pull out a victory. I make a mistake at the end playing ORZO instead of BOZO, but it only costs me spread points. I could not have won at that point.
Next up is Stan Williams. This is my sixth time playing Stan in a tournament, and heading into this game I'm 4-1 against him (now 5-1). It's a shoot-out early. I hit back-to-back bingos for 68 and 87 (ATONIES and MALTEDS) and he counters with a 54 point play (EXPAND) and a 75 point bingo of his own (TUBBERS). I break it open about at about the midway point, though, with CAROUSEL for 68, and subsequently cruise to victory, 478-376.
My opponent, Jermaine Harris, completely botches the next game and I capitalize, eking out a 365-360 victory. With a 9-point lead and no tiles left in the bag Jermaine plays TORIS, instead of several sure winners. I challenge the phony off the board (any mathematician worth his salt knows TORI is a plural) and after that the game is mine.
Dour Ralph Moore snatches a victory from my clutches in round 4. I have a 62-point lead near the end, it's my turn, there are three tiles left in the bag, one nice bingo line open, one so-so bingo line open and I'm pretty sure he has a blank. The strategy is to block the best line and try not to empty the bag. I do block the line, but I also empty the bag, because I'm more worried about dumping garbage in my rack than I should be. To make things worse I subsequently draw the J to add to my cluster-eff of tiles. Ralph deftly bingos through the other line and I lose 405-433. It was definitely a mistake emptying the bag, but again it was probably just lost spread points. I don't think there is any scenario that, following his bingo, allows me to score and clear enough of my rack to pull it out. Instead of being 3-1 at the lunch break I have to (dis)content myself with 2-2.
My first game after lunch is one of those games. One of those games you just get whooped and can do absolutely nothing about it. These games especially suck in a 7 game tourney because they just destroy your spread. On my first play I leave myself GENA, which is decent, and then proceed to draw E, E, and E. It was that type of game. My opponent, Laura Moyer, starts with COX for 37, FEZ for 44 and QUIETER for 101. Later in the game she bingos TRAINER (73) and VERIEST (91). I lose 344-514.
I rebound my next game and beat Ronnie Thomas 434-318. It is actually a very tight game, but she loses 50 points for going over her time limit looking for a 9-lettered, desperation bingo. She eventually settles on AMIRLINES, which of course I challenge off the board. Playing Ronnie is not very fun. She talks throughout the entire game, frequently griping about how bad her tiles are. She even made comments to the people playing next to us about their game. Apparently, bothering just me wasn't enough. Also, she monopolizes the space surrounding the board. She had two jugs of juice, a spilled open bag of cough drops and a several pound bag of walnuts on the table. Oh well, at least I won.
My final game of the day is the best one. I'm playing Ben Lefstein who I am 0-0-1 against. We tied several years ago in the D division in my very first tournament. We've both moved up since then (B divsion). In the Rockville tourney Ben went 13-0 in the C division which is impressive. He starts thing off with BUSTIER for 74, and I counter with QUARTZ for 48. A few plays later he bingos ANTIARS, which I know is good, but he makes BUSTIERS in the process, which I have never seen. Motivated by my misadventures last tournament I challenge, but the play is good. By my next turn I am down by 128. I quickly rally though with LEX for 36, followed by GROANERS for 72 and then RECOPIED for 76. A play later I am up by 3 when he puts down BOATLINE. I challenge again, this time successfully. (Marlon Hill later points out the valid anagram TAILBONE, but this didn't play, anyway). The endgame is rather anticlimactic for such a solid comeback. I get the last blank and the last S and play conservatively to secure a 429-410 victory. Not a bad way to end the day.
I'm not sure when my next tourney will be. Possibly Richard Popper's tournament in Delaware, possibly Nationals (which would be awesome, but also a serious commitment), possibly neither.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Great Words
I have a tournament coming up this Saturday. It's only a one-day event. I haven't had time to do any studying recently, but I'm looking forward to it.
Most Scrabble players don't pay any attention to a word's definition. It' s superfluous information. All that matters is whether it is a valid play or not. I'm not really an exception to this, but every now and again I'll look up a definition. Usually it's something boring -- a chemical or a monetary unit of a small nation. But sometimes it's a gem. Here are 5 great words with definitions taken from the Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary.
1. Iotacism -- excessive use of the letter iota
The only time I think I've every used the letter iota is as a symbol to represent an isomorphism in writing mathematics. I used it sparingly though. I have my problems, but iotacism is not one of them.
2. Reremind -- to cause to remember (again)
"Rerepeat" and "rereview" are also valid, "rereremind", however, is no good.
3. Vasty -- vast
Makes sense.
4. Thirlage -- an obligation requiring feudal tenants to grind grain at a certain mill
Pretty obscure, but you'd be surprised how frequently you find the need to use it once you know it.
5. Outcavil -- to surpass in caviling
"Man, that guy sure does carp a lot."
"Puh-lease, I've got a friend who can outcavil him easily."
Most Scrabble players don't pay any attention to a word's definition. It' s superfluous information. All that matters is whether it is a valid play or not. I'm not really an exception to this, but every now and again I'll look up a definition. Usually it's something boring -- a chemical or a monetary unit of a small nation. But sometimes it's a gem. Here are 5 great words with definitions taken from the Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary.
1. Iotacism -- excessive use of the letter iota
The only time I think I've every used the letter iota is as a symbol to represent an isomorphism in writing mathematics. I used it sparingly though. I have my problems, but iotacism is not one of them.
2. Reremind -- to cause to remember (again)
"Rerepeat" and "rereview" are also valid, "rereremind", however, is no good.
3. Vasty -- vast
Makes sense.
4. Thirlage -- an obligation requiring feudal tenants to grind grain at a certain mill
Pretty obscure, but you'd be surprised how frequently you find the need to use it once you know it.
5. Outcavil -- to surpass in caviling
"Man, that guy sure does carp a lot."
"Puh-lease, I've got a friend who can outcavil him easily."
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Rockville Scrabble Tournament
I played my first Scrabble tournament in over a year and a half this weekend. I haven’t skipped a beat -- perfectly average just like last tournament. Seven wins, seven losses, and an average spread of a few points a game. I had one spectacular game and one terrible game. It’s funny though, the extent to which the bad feels bad is far greater than the extent to which the good game feels good. I am going to be dwelling on it for a while.
DAY 1
Things began calamitously before the tournament even starts. Because of the National Marathon a strip of streets in D.C. is shutdown. I have to take a completely roundabout route and arrive a half hour late. It ends up not being big a deal, other than pissing me off and stressing me out. I quickly settle in by being handily beat by Grant Guenzel 358-428.
My next game against Stan Williams is my closest of the tourney. It was looking bleak for me with him up by 90 early, but I rally behind two late bingos and eke it out 426-424. He would have won had he played IRES instead of ORES at the end, but he was not 100% on IRES – lucky for me. This victory incites a mini-run as I win my next three games over Eric Lutz, Verna Berg, and Edward Stewart, respectively. The wins are rather unspectacular, but I do get a chance to play TALIPED, a word I like. It means one afflicted with clubfoot.
Next is a disappointing match against Lorraine Burton. After falling behind early I bingo to go up by 11 and I pick a blank and an S on the ensuing draw. A few plays later I see INVERSED (it's valid), but decide against playing it under the logic that “invert” is a verb, and “inverse” is a noun. Plus the board is open and I have a 39 point play elsewhere. It might have been the right move given I’m only about 50-50 on INVERSED, but it did not work out for me. I don’t have racks with any synergy the rest of the game. I don’t draw a single A or E. It seems like I have IIVUUS? every turn. Not only can I not bingo, I can’t score, and I can’t open new bingo lines. Meanwhile, she is playing 2 and 3 letter words – FA for 20, BE for 18, NAH for 27, BAP for 26 – that are scoring and closing the board. Despite getting both blanks and three S-s I lose 327-274. Lorraine so graciously points this out, saying that she won despite being “outdrawn”. Not exactly. Given the board and my supporting tiles, the blanks and S-s were not that great to have. I would have traded my racks for hers in a heartbeat.
Seth Mandel draws the bag and the slaughters me 344-456 in the next game. I end the day with a good win against Tobey Roland 424-391. The key play late is ANENT which he unsuccessfully challenges. I was slightly worried because I have never looked this word up in a Scrabble dictionary nor recall ever seeing it played. But I have looked it up in a “regular” dictionary (after seeing it in a crossword puzzle) and about 99.9% of the words you can find in a regular dictionary are good in Scrabble (“iter” being a notable exception). I’m mostly satisfied at 5-3 on the day.
DAY 2
Day two starts well as I outpick Doug Hoylman (who, incidentally, is a 6-time champion of the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament) and coast 403-341. I lose my next game to Jeff Cook 363-435. We draw pretty evenly, and both bingo twice, but he beats me to the punch on the good lines. The wheels start to fall off against Lucas Hayden (the eventual champ) my next game as not only do I allow a phony bingo (MALARIUM), but I try to hook it with an S on a bingo of my own leading to a successful challenge from him. From there on out he draws the bag and beats me 333-402. I have no legitimate complaint for being outpicked, though, as had I challenged his phony we would have entered an alternate reality in which I would have bingoed and he would have still had AAILMRU on his rack. The future in that reality isn’t looking so bad for me.
The next game against Diana Grosman is the one I am going to be losing sleep over for quite some time. Still feeling the sting from MALARIUM I allow Diana to play two phonies on me, UNPURSE and MACHINER. The first one I suspected was phony, but it was not completely idiotic for me to not challenge since I had a bingo, and there was a decent chance she would block the only line if the challenge was unsuccessful. However, not challenging MACHINER is quite likely the stupidest thing I have ever done in a Scrabble game (maybe just ever, period). It is near the end of the game and there is no way I can win other than challenging. I have nothing to lose. But I completely panic. My clock is low, I have mistracked the letters, and she only has a slight lead, so I just immediately play the best play I see. Then I instantly realize that I am going to lose because she is going to go out and I will be stuck with points on my rack. Yep, that’s what happens – 396-415 her victory. I feel sick.
I lose my next game, as well, to Edward Stewart, the fourth in a row, but I’m not unhappy about it, because he drew the bag on me. However, with him up by 115, I play an unchallenged phony bingo myself (DETERING) and then successfully challenge three straight phony bingos of his (FORESAVE, OVERBASE, FOVEATES) to come back and take the lead. Unfortunately, he gets lucky at end (drawing 2 tiles with 3 in the bag, I don’t pick the only one I need to win) to edge me 399-409. I feel I played about as well as I could. I just didn’t get the tiles.
Salvaging my tournament I destroy Dan Milton 553-310 in my final game. I hit INQUESTS for a 203 point triple-triple (my first ever in a tournament). It was the high play of the tournament by far. Then the next play I bingo BANTIES for 81, and a few plays later POLENTA for 75. The high game for the tournament was 565 and had I known this I might have been able to beat it. I was not really spending a lot of time looking for my best play at the end. Oh well, there was no cash prize for high game or high play, anyway.
Until next time…
DAY 1
Things began calamitously before the tournament even starts. Because of the National Marathon a strip of streets in D.C. is shutdown. I have to take a completely roundabout route and arrive a half hour late. It ends up not being big a deal, other than pissing me off and stressing me out. I quickly settle in by being handily beat by Grant Guenzel 358-428.
My next game against Stan Williams is my closest of the tourney. It was looking bleak for me with him up by 90 early, but I rally behind two late bingos and eke it out 426-424. He would have won had he played IRES instead of ORES at the end, but he was not 100% on IRES – lucky for me. This victory incites a mini-run as I win my next three games over Eric Lutz, Verna Berg, and Edward Stewart, respectively. The wins are rather unspectacular, but I do get a chance to play TALIPED, a word I like. It means one afflicted with clubfoot.
Next is a disappointing match against Lorraine Burton. After falling behind early I bingo to go up by 11 and I pick a blank and an S on the ensuing draw. A few plays later I see INVERSED (it's valid), but decide against playing it under the logic that “invert” is a verb, and “inverse” is a noun. Plus the board is open and I have a 39 point play elsewhere. It might have been the right move given I’m only about 50-50 on INVERSED, but it did not work out for me. I don’t have racks with any synergy the rest of the game. I don’t draw a single A or E. It seems like I have IIVUUS? every turn. Not only can I not bingo, I can’t score, and I can’t open new bingo lines. Meanwhile, she is playing 2 and 3 letter words – FA for 20, BE for 18, NAH for 27, BAP for 26 – that are scoring and closing the board. Despite getting both blanks and three S-s I lose 327-274. Lorraine so graciously points this out, saying that she won despite being “outdrawn”. Not exactly. Given the board and my supporting tiles, the blanks and S-s were not that great to have. I would have traded my racks for hers in a heartbeat.
Seth Mandel draws the bag and the slaughters me 344-456 in the next game. I end the day with a good win against Tobey Roland 424-391. The key play late is ANENT which he unsuccessfully challenges. I was slightly worried because I have never looked this word up in a Scrabble dictionary nor recall ever seeing it played. But I have looked it up in a “regular” dictionary (after seeing it in a crossword puzzle) and about 99.9% of the words you can find in a regular dictionary are good in Scrabble (“iter” being a notable exception). I’m mostly satisfied at 5-3 on the day.
DAY 2
Day two starts well as I outpick Doug Hoylman (who, incidentally, is a 6-time champion of the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament) and coast 403-341. I lose my next game to Jeff Cook 363-435. We draw pretty evenly, and both bingo twice, but he beats me to the punch on the good lines. The wheels start to fall off against Lucas Hayden (the eventual champ) my next game as not only do I allow a phony bingo (MALARIUM), but I try to hook it with an S on a bingo of my own leading to a successful challenge from him. From there on out he draws the bag and beats me 333-402. I have no legitimate complaint for being outpicked, though, as had I challenged his phony we would have entered an alternate reality in which I would have bingoed and he would have still had AAILMRU on his rack. The future in that reality isn’t looking so bad for me.
The next game against Diana Grosman is the one I am going to be losing sleep over for quite some time. Still feeling the sting from MALARIUM I allow Diana to play two phonies on me, UNPURSE and MACHINER. The first one I suspected was phony, but it was not completely idiotic for me to not challenge since I had a bingo, and there was a decent chance she would block the only line if the challenge was unsuccessful. However, not challenging MACHINER is quite likely the stupidest thing I have ever done in a Scrabble game (maybe just ever, period). It is near the end of the game and there is no way I can win other than challenging. I have nothing to lose. But I completely panic. My clock is low, I have mistracked the letters, and she only has a slight lead, so I just immediately play the best play I see. Then I instantly realize that I am going to lose because she is going to go out and I will be stuck with points on my rack. Yep, that’s what happens – 396-415 her victory. I feel sick.
I lose my next game, as well, to Edward Stewart, the fourth in a row, but I’m not unhappy about it, because he drew the bag on me. However, with him up by 115, I play an unchallenged phony bingo myself (DETERING) and then successfully challenge three straight phony bingos of his (FORESAVE, OVERBASE, FOVEATES) to come back and take the lead. Unfortunately, he gets lucky at end (drawing 2 tiles with 3 in the bag, I don’t pick the only one I need to win) to edge me 399-409. I feel I played about as well as I could. I just didn’t get the tiles.
Salvaging my tournament I destroy Dan Milton 553-310 in my final game. I hit INQUESTS for a 203 point triple-triple (my first ever in a tournament). It was the high play of the tournament by far. Then the next play I bingo BANTIES for 81, and a few plays later POLENTA for 75. The high game for the tournament was 565 and had I known this I might have been able to beat it. I was not really spending a lot of time looking for my best play at the end. Oh well, there was no cash prize for high game or high play, anyway.
Until next time…
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Number Five (is alive)
On Monday, a crossword puzzle I created was published in the New York Times -- number five for the Times (2 Mondays, 1 Tuesday, a Thursday, and a Sunday) and number 35 or so overall. This one was not nearly as clever as my last one in the Times, but it was a Monday puzzle so it was accessible to a wider audience. (For a review of the puzzle click here and go to the February 2nd puzzle.) I like the idea of making a big name for myself in the world of crossword puzzle constructing (especially with NY Times editor Will Shortz), but I still have a way to go yet. Still, all I need to make it happen is a few more hours of free time each week and a bunch of kick-ass theme ideas. No sweat.
I use the software Crossword Puzzle Compiler for making my puzzles. Sometimes for fun I'll will have the computer auto-fill certain sections. I never actually use what the computer suggests though, for two reasons. One, I would feel somewhat fraudulent if I attached my name to a puzzle that a computer had a prominent part in constructing, and two, I can always do better than the computer. Sometimes it will tell me that the section cannot be filled and other times it fills it, but only after using a slew of obscure words. Things like IXIA and ELATER and SNED. Words that can be great to use in Scrabble, but are terrible to use in crossword puzzles. The reason for this, I imagine, is twofold: the word list that CPC uses is not very extensive -- it probably doesn't have many proper names (e.g., AESOP) nor many multi-word phrases (e.g., SUREENOUGH), and the algorithm CPC uses probably does not make much of a distinction between good crossword puzzle words (e.g., JAZZMEN, SHOWBIZ) and bad ones (e.g., IXIA, ELATER, SNED).
All of this got me thinking, what if you made a giant database of words and phrases and then gave everything on the list a score -- good crossword puzzle fill would get a high score, so-so fill a medium score, and bad fill a low score -- then, you wrote a program to fill a grid in a way that maximizes the sum of the scores of all the entries. Surely then a computer could make a very good crossword puzzle, at least as good, maybe even better than a human. When I thought of this I was very excited, thinking I had come up with a great original idea, but then I quickly thought, "wait, somebody has probably already had this idea." I did a Google search, and sure enough, I found this article.
Even though it meant my idea was not original I still found this article quite interesting. Also, I think crossword puzzle constructing will stay primarily a human endeavor for a long time to come, because most crossword puzzles rely heavily on a theme, and I don't think computers will be coming up with good themes any time soon. The traits computers don't have, creativity, cleverness, wit, humor are exactly the traits one needs to develop a decent theme. Sure, one could use a computer to fill a grid after the theme words have been entered, but c'mon, where is the fun in that?
I use the software Crossword Puzzle Compiler for making my puzzles. Sometimes for fun I'll will have the computer auto-fill certain sections. I never actually use what the computer suggests though, for two reasons. One, I would feel somewhat fraudulent if I attached my name to a puzzle that a computer had a prominent part in constructing, and two, I can always do better than the computer. Sometimes it will tell me that the section cannot be filled and other times it fills it, but only after using a slew of obscure words. Things like IXIA and ELATER and SNED. Words that can be great to use in Scrabble, but are terrible to use in crossword puzzles. The reason for this, I imagine, is twofold: the word list that CPC uses is not very extensive -- it probably doesn't have many proper names (e.g., AESOP) nor many multi-word phrases (e.g., SUREENOUGH), and the algorithm CPC uses probably does not make much of a distinction between good crossword puzzle words (e.g., JAZZMEN, SHOWBIZ) and bad ones (e.g., IXIA, ELATER, SNED).
All of this got me thinking, what if you made a giant database of words and phrases and then gave everything on the list a score -- good crossword puzzle fill would get a high score, so-so fill a medium score, and bad fill a low score -- then, you wrote a program to fill a grid in a way that maximizes the sum of the scores of all the entries. Surely then a computer could make a very good crossword puzzle, at least as good, maybe even better than a human. When I thought of this I was very excited, thinking I had come up with a great original idea, but then I quickly thought, "wait, somebody has probably already had this idea." I did a Google search, and sure enough, I found this article.
Even though it meant my idea was not original I still found this article quite interesting. Also, I think crossword puzzle constructing will stay primarily a human endeavor for a long time to come, because most crossword puzzles rely heavily on a theme, and I don't think computers will be coming up with good themes any time soon. The traits computers don't have, creativity, cleverness, wit, humor are exactly the traits one needs to develop a decent theme. Sure, one could use a computer to fill a grid after the theme words have been entered, but c'mon, where is the fun in that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)