Scrabble records SHATTERED: 15-letter words galore and a 476-point play

[@anunoriginalname-tc5yo]

The oxyphenbutazone bit is literally a pattern recognition

[@alfonzog6327]

It's the Scrabble equivalent of Loss

[@alexpotts6520]

I like the humour of UNEXTRAORDINARY. As Mack notes, probably the least self-descriptive Scrabble move ever.

[@mackmeller]

I know right! Awesome coincidence (or intentional genius wordplay?)

[@freya28733]

very proud to have spotten individualizing before it was played

[@Slaydrik]

same

[@tsukiiiiiii]

Same here

[@iwersonsch5131]

very proud to have spotted individualizing before the rack was drawn

[@mackmeller]

Nice!

[@revere1991]

Very proud to have spotted Individualizing, Whipjack and Cetuximab before they were played. Also noticed the Extraordinary hook but didn't know it took the prefixe "un"

[@jnegijnewirgjnbi]

Scrabbles rule number one, never open a triple-triple-triple lane with a big lead.

[@Rafikichu]

"ordinar" and "dividual" are definitely dead giveaways. Very fun games, though.

[@dustinbrown3317]

As soon as I saw HEN I knew what was going down 😂 great video

[@mackmeller]

Dang no love for PARTHENOCARPIES huh? 😂

[@extremepayne]

After the first, I was expecting more 15s, so I quickly saw the opportunity for IN(DIVIDUAL)ISTIC to come down. Crazy that there’s multiple extension bingoes possible there

[@benjaminschmutter]

IN(DIVIDUAL)ITIES is also a possibility here

[@triskai]

@@benjaminschmutter yeah I saw individualities ahead of time but not the other two haha

[@disasterarea9341]

ooh nice amaranth is one of my friends from the pokemon community, it's so cool seeing him involved in the scrabble world as well!!

[@mackmeller]

Oh that's awesome!

[@richardhudson4649]

I giggled the entire way through the video. Well done.

[@mackmeller]

Haha thanks!

[@BrettMKW]

CETUXIMAB might be the weirdest looking bingo I've ever seen in my life. It's one of those words that doesn't even look like it should ever be a word and is a result of someone smashing their first into their keyboard. Proud of myself for finding both 15 letter bingoes, first one took a little bit to find tho.

[@mackmeller]

Nice! And CETUXIMAB (Collins-only) is actually a cancer drug, I think there are a lot of pharmaceutical-related words ending in B that are Collins-only

[@alexpotts6520]

Strong "good morning, that's a nice CETUXIMAB" energy

[@jellomochas]

See also: RITUXIMAB

[@Ray_Ridley]

Obscure pharmaceuticals show up occasionally in The (London) Times Monthly Club Special cryptic crossword, a super-difficult puzzle that really makes you explore the nooks and crannies of the Chambers Dictionary !

[@lovemathboy]

CSW overlaps are way too strong, definitely needs some balancing changes next update

[@orager1]

thats actually a really funny joke i commend you

[@itchy7879]

frr

[@Josephonee]

i love your pfp

[@levelfiftyone]

i cant wait for scrabble 2 by gary scrabble

[@bowlofwhiskey]

CSW 2024 Patch Notes - All words using two letters and below are hereby not considered words. This update was created with the intention that “surprised open-mouth syndrome” would cease its existence. - “BLAHAJ” implemented into dictionary.

[@ExplosiveBrohoof]

The ecstasy that rushed through my blood in the second game when I realized at the end that they were setting up for oxyphenbutazone.

[@extremepayne]

I think I’ve spotted a (CSW-only) loophole in the rules. Every word played must be valid, but you didn’t say anything about challenging! If both players challenge every play, they each get an extra 40 points overall (if I did the math right)

[@AmaranthRBY]

We are ahead of our time and simply play CSW with double challenge. (Alternatively, we are very stupid and bad, and we need the crutch of void challenge. Either way the lexicon doesn't automatically imply the challenge rule, though yes of course CSW traditionally uses 5-point challenge)

[@manmanthirtysix5117]

Technically there's nothing stopping the players from playing illegal words if the opponent chooses not to challenge.

[@rosiefay7283]

What points? A rejected challenge doesn't affect the score.

[@extremepayne]

@@rosiefay7283 There’s multiple challenge rules: double challenge, void challenge, and 5-point challenge

[@makromath]

I think a cool idea like this would be most score from one player. I expect 2600 being the limit.

[@danielzitnik4247]

Thanks for making the challenge and making content covering the best efforts (so far)! I did feel the commentary style was a bit odd, though, since both players are working towards the same goal.

[@mackmeller]

Thanks! And fair point, thanks for the feedback -- was trying to make it feel at least somewhat suspenseful given people presumably knew more or less what was going ot happen

[@tarlkudrick1174]

I'd like to see a cooperative game in which one player has to beat the other by the largest possible difference in scores. Something like 2,000 to 50 or so.

[@richards31415]

One player could just pass and it becomes a solitaire game

[@tarlkudrick1174]

@@richards31415 I hadn't thought of that. Okay, the rule would be that the second player has to score at least two points on every turn.

[@thegodofpez]

Very fun session! I love these random worlds of Scrabble. 🤟

[@banana9494]

I was just sitting in bed last night, wondering what the highest possible constructed tied game using only bingoes with the CSW word list was. So I'm very glad to see this video come out today!

[@mackmeller]

Haha great timing, thanks for watching!

[@throwaway1743]

Legitimately the most satisfying video on KZbin. Could not be happier!

[@mackmeller]

Thanks so much!!

[@AOOA926]

4:44 I smell individualities about to happen

[@AOOA926]

I was close

[@mackmeller]

Right idea!

[@41cata]

i was so confident that it was individualistic but then i saw the rack..

[@rohitg1529]

Awesome construction, huge props to Amaranth and lovemathboy for these ingenious games. Quick question for you: Since you seem to play almost exclusively with the North American lexicon, is seeing CSW only words weird for you? Do you start confusing which words are CSW only and which ones can also be played in NWL?

[@mackmeller]

Very impressive stuff indeed! And good question -- at this relatively small volume of encountering CSW words it shouldn't cause me much confusion (also they'll stick out in my mind as having been in this constructed game), though if I started studying CSW more methodically I wouldn't be surprised if this started to happen more.

[@Xadreco]

16:31 complete missed opportunity to play 8I so for 0 to win

[@orager1]

I saw this video in my notifs and I thought it happened in a tournament game and I was flabbergasted.

[@mackmeller]

Haha that would've been insane! I doubt we'll ever see something quite that crazy in a tournament, unfortunately

[@sophiegrey9576]

15:34 It was at this moment that I realized exactly what word was going to come down... A very famous word in scrabble circles. Amazing, incredible that an entire game was played with ONLY BINGOES to set this up.

[@mackmeller]

For sure! I've seen OXYPHENBUTAZONE set up with silly plays like UTA for 3 somewhere in the middle but doing it with all bingos is absolutely wild

[@craiglarimer1173]

Wow. Bonkers game. Thx for the awesome video.

[@mackmeller]

Thanks for watching!

[@100beep5]

I actually saw W(H)IPJACK before it was played! For something like this, I knew it was going to be a JACK triple-triple, and WHIPJACK was the only semi-reasonable one. An interesting challenge would be this one, but all the bingos *have* to be CSW.

[@mackmeller]

Awesome!

[@Zurround]

If multiverse theory is true then there has to be a universe where this game actually happened as a regular game.

[@MicroYeti]

What if you relax the bingo constriction instead? I’m curious as to how two triple triple triple setups may work alongside each other to end in a tie, and as to how high score that game could be :)

[@Starwort]

This makes me wonder if this could work as a competitive multiplayer format: Each turn, play any word that could be formed with up to 7 tiles that have not yet been played; all other rules as normal. Kinda a cross between a bluffer's game and chicken

[@barracudabob1]

So much open board left. I wonder what the record for letters played is if you have 200 (double starting) letters?

[@mackmeller]

That would be a cool challenge! I doubt it's possible to fit 200 tiles on a 225-square board but who knows... 170 feels possible, maybe 180

[@jellomochas]

@@mackmeller orangetriangle proved 209 tiles in CSW given no restrictions on letter distribution

[@caseydahl1952]

would this actually be easier if they all didn't have to be bingos? how close to optimal do you think these submissions are? I wish there was a way to know what the best one could be!

[@mackmeller]

I still imagine one could get a bit higher without having to bingo every turn (you could have two 3*3*3s for like 1400-1500 each, that's close to 3000 points right there), but probably not wildly higher

[@leafan101]

Crazy that just next to me, as I watch this, is a medecine bottle full of ibuprofen, which is not oxyphenbutazone, but it is similar.

[@tonysim4599]

How about another challenge to fit as many (CSW) bingos as possible on the board with 200 super scrabble tiles? Every play has to be a bingo. My record is 22 bingos with total score of 3356.

[@rosiefay7283]

In that last game, there are several possible orders for the plays. I wonder which would maximise the loser's score. More generally, what theoretical Scrabble game maximises the loser's score?

[@bowlofwhiskey]

4:51 current thoughts: dividual? i think i see individualities coming

[@bowlofwhiskey]

5:36 oh my god.

[@squadxzo]

Xerantic was obviously a content play. That being said is it against the rules in a scrabble tournament to purposely set up a cool play for opponent during the endgame.

[@nautilus269]

Makes me effortlessly wonder what the highest winning score could be in other languages. I saw JACQUARD instantly for the record. XERaNTIC is like Vidit's king sacrifice, given the possibility of the potential outplay.

[@mackmeller]

Haha you mean the blitz game against Hikaru where he moved his king next to Hikaru's? I still laugh at that every time it pops up on my feed

[@nautilus269]

@@mackmeller It was to buy some time, given the hopelessness of the position. I'd flag it as brilliant. I've heard of a situation where someone played a double triple. IE the player put their opening play parallel to the centre square inadvertently, and it was taken advantage of.

[@mackmeller]

@@nautilus269 yep! I believe it was Dave Wiegand -- his opponent opened with VUG or something similar one slot below the star, Dave held AEEGILO and accepted his opponent's play and responded with E(U)LOGIAE for 116

[@nautilus269]

​@@mackmeller This isn't the one I'm thinking of. It's another one with no real detail that was played possibly by someone who many haven't heard of. But thanks for sharing nonetheless. I think my personal best is 722-251 vs a local, with an unexpected outplay in what was a very average tournament otherwise. The opponent kept inventing words out of desperation. He reminded me of Kramnik a little bit emotionally.

[@JorWat25]

You always state that the challenge is to create the highest-scoring tie where every play is a bingo, but I'm curious if removing the 'all plays must be bingos' rule would actually allow higher scores. I suspect not, thanks to the bonus points from bingoing, but there might be something clever you can do involving setting up high-scoring plays.

[@pjet8042]

Now I need to lie down...

[@lylecohen1638]

What if not every play has to be a bingo?

[@burtondewitt1154]

Another constraint alteration: What is the highest possible tie game where every play is CSW bingo but is not valid in NWL.

[@ronniemcgill8868]

TRUELOVE is REVOLUTE

[@axyrl]

NO WAY.

[@Ethan-sc7gq]

12:46 that better not be oxyphenbutazone

[@asheep7797]

5:17 wait was i supposed to not see indiviualizing, or is this a joke

[@PhysicsAdept]

We are all gathered here today in the bathroom to see who has curled the longest turds in the bowl.

[@lr0dl012]

how did i find individualizing lol

[@JDHinten]

I will pose a challenge of my own to Mack's viewers: beat any of the scores that Mack has featured in these videos with the additional restriction that you may not play any 8 letter word that contains JACK 😏

[@Austin101123]

KY native lets gooo!

[@mackmeller]

Haha I didn't actually grow up here but I've lived in Lexington for 2 years and love it! You from here?

[@Austin101123]

@@mackmeller Louisville

[@thenextpoetician6328]

It ain't braggin' if you can do it.

[@AOOA926]

The audio sounds a lot older in this video. Is there a reason for it?

[@AOOA926]

Can you upload these kinda videos week

[@100beep5]

Spoiler blocker comment! (Sorry, normal spoiler blocker guy) Don't read the comments, try to find the plays yourself!

[@AmaranthRBY]

I'd like to dedicate this comment to the graveyard of failed constructions, some close to working, some less so. You tried your best, but you all weren't quite good enough. *ahem* SESQUI(SULPHIDE)S + VUVUZE(L)A instead of IN(DIVIDUAL)IZING + GRECQU(E)S; and a lot of other SESQUI(SULPHIDE)S layouts Various Z(OOGAMETE), Z(OOSPERM), Z(OOLOGIST) etc ideas in many configurations DETOXIFY 8-way overlap with ExAMINEE Playing CONEPATL, then OEDEMA(T)A through the T, then 7-way underlap of FLEXIB(L)Y The word PHYSIQUED, as a whole, many times, in all conceivable configurations CONFIGU(RATIONAL) TOWAWA(Y)S through the Y of UNEXTRAORDINARY, to be front hooked by an S, with a 6-way overlap of TIMONEE(R); and C(Y)TOSOME through the Y of UNEXTRAORDINARY, to be back hooked by an S, with a 6-way overlap of (R)EPOSURE M(Y)STAGOG through the Y of UNEXTRAORDINARY to be back hooked by a Y (no overlaps for this one, sorry) RE(PUBLICAN)IZING + CO(N)J(UNCTION)ALLY (with 'JUNCTIO' being 7-way overlapped by APEHOOD on the right) + BRIN(JAR)RIES + MAS(TOD)YNIA + N(ARROWED), yes all in one layout at once, yes it was relatively close to working (not really but kind of) The EMESISES incident (you don't get context for this one, just know that lovemathboy will forever be hurting) A special shoutout to an 1148-1148 tie that I constructed with all the same rules as the normal challenge, and the extra rule of having to use the word AMARANTH somewhere in the grid. (This one featuring PHYTO(PLANKTON)IC, NITRO(GLYCERIN)ES, BA(N)JAXED, and of course the valid 7 AMARANT being back hooked by the H) A final ultra special shoutout to CETUXIMAB for literally curing cancer (look it up, that's what it does) and to WHIPJACK for curing my thirst for high scores. Thanks for featuring our work Mack!!!

[@lovemathboy]

I will forever be a EMESISES believer

[@jellomochas]

@@lovemathboy did you try to hook it with an N

[@Teehee5772]

I have an idea that can break the 1300 barrier: Game starts like my 1225-1225 tie - A bingo setting up a massive hook, a bingo through the first letter, and a 3x3 through that Then there are 8 bingo extending from the 3x3 to set up a ~1000 point 3x3x3 (very specific score because 1000 points is ~2 3x3s and a few higher scoring overlaps) Then there is another bingo extending the other direction setting up a 3x3 hooking the first play Though this might not be possible because the overlaps have to score a total of >500 points

[@AmaranthRBY]

@@Teehee5772 The problem with x27ers is the tie costraint. Even a relatively low scoring 27 timer (like the 1000 pts you suggest) would leave one of the two players with 1000pts + 6 other bingo scores. That's realistically at least 1300, I'm really not sure if the other player can reach it. Though in fairness, we have not tried it too extensively

[@mackmeller]

Dang I can't believe how many of these you guys tried! That's amazing. Thanks so much for all your work on this and congrats again on both of these records -- please let me know if you ever end up beating it! I'd thought of the possibility of a 27-timer like you guys were discussing below but also thought it would be tough to make it a tie -- maybe if it's an even lower-scoring 27-timer, like 800-900 it could work though? With that and 6 other not super-high scoring bingos you get to around 1300, so if the opponent gets 2 3*3s for 300-400 each (the low-scoring 27-timer wouldn't use power tiles so those could be reserved for the 3*3s) and the higher-scoring of the remaining bingos maybe they could catch up? Hard to say, but if any of you guys give it a shot keep me posted!