Latest revision as of 14:46, 4 October 2021

This page discusses the downsides to playing using the Collins lexicon, and is part of our introduction to Collins (SOWPODS) in North America. For brevity, we will refer to the North American and International lexica as NWL and CSW respectively.

While these downsides are certainly not intended to discourage anyone from playing CSW, it is useful to be aware of them before committing to learning and playing the CSW game.

What Are the Downsides to Collins?

It is difficult to play well in both lexica

While one does not have to study many words to play CSW quite well, it could become difficult when playing NWL again to remember which words are only acceptable in CSW. This difficulty of remembering can inhibit the CSW-er's play in NWL because any word that is CSW-only is likely to be challenged off by a nWL player who is not familiar with it. Having a word challenged off is one of the worst things that can happen in a game with respect to optimal play. And while CSW contains more obscure words, simply using the maxim "if it's weird, it's Collins" will lead to many mistakes.

Smaller North American community

While the number of CSW players is growing, the North American community contains far more NWL players, and in many clubs there are no CSW players at all. In tournaments, the fields are often small, with uncertainty about whether an event will happen because a minimum quorum of 4 is needed for rating. If the event does happen, you will more likely encounter the same players frequently, or have to play them multiple times. The CSW field is also dominated by highly rated players who are often motivated to play Collins because of the opportunities for international play. And because the fields are small, usually all players are in a single division. While having many top players may be good or bad depending on your point of view, if you are not a top player, you will likely play and lose a lot of games in CSW.

The challenge rule may be less challenging

Some players like the double-challenge rule and feel that it is an essential part of the game. While there is still a penalty for an incorrect challenge, and there is no reason a CSW game cannot remain double-challenge given the rules, 5 or 10 points per word is a more common de facto standard. This is enough to make you at least pause before challenging, so the aspect of the game embodied by double challenge is not completely lost, but it is not the same decision making process.

CSW is not North American English

CSW reflects a more global usage of the language and as such is not just reflective of the language in the U.S. and Canada. However, this is also true for all of the countries that use CSW when it is considered in relation to their usage of English.

There are obscure words in Collins

While NWL contains obsolete and archaic words, the CSW contains more of them.

The existence of CSW play splits the U.S. SCRABBLE scene

While the large majority of North American players are NWL, a significant number of top players either play only TWL or only CSW. This divides the top divisions of tournaments and lowers the prestige of winning any particular one. Because the Scrabble community is relatively small, fragmentation in general is bad. There are, however, many other ways in which the scene is fragmented. For example, we have School play with the School lexicon; unsanctioned, recreational club, competitive club and tournament play; online and in-person play; and a long list of variant rules that people like to try. It is part of the strength of the basic game that its many variations appeal to different people. Officially sanctioned CSW play lets us keep players who prefer it to NWL play in the fold, and encourages immigrants and tourists to join our community.

There is no single official Collins dictionary with all the definitions

The published Collins English dictionary does not contain all the words in CSW. This is because some words are only in the North American dictionaries, and some are in the Collins language corpus but not the printed dictionary. However, keep in mind that the U.S. lexicon is also spread over more than one dictionary (5, in fact), and that a companion volume to CSW, the Collins Official SCRABBLE Dictionary, contains short definitions for the 2-9 letter words, in a similar manner to OSPD. The Collins edition of the Zyzzyva word study program likewise contains short definitions, for all word lengths up to 15 letters. Nevertheless, the lack of a coherent published dictionary-standard set of definitions is a notable downside to an official lexicon for a word game.

Existing study may have to be redone

A player who has spent a lot of time becoming expert in NWL is understandably reluctant to undertake the effort again merely to become proficient in a game at which they are already proficient. This is why it is important to note that a player expert in NWL can do well in CSW with a relatively much lower level of study. But there is still work for them to do, and, depending on the study method, it can add up. For example, using "stems" of 6 or 7 letters combined with mnemonics to know which combinations make a bingo will require significant revision because extra letters make bingos (see, e.g., here).

A Collins player can take advantage of a NWL player

Although as mentioned a NWL player can do well in CSW by learning relatively few words compared to what they learned for NWL, this does mean that an expert Collins player can use their knowledge of the lexicon to take advantage, by, for example, deliberately playing obscure words they know to be CSW only, or setting up and using CSW-only hooks. (For example, your author once played WHOW, then later hooked it to EWHOW for a lot of points, albeit in a rated tournament against another expert player.) This taking advantage is mitigated somewhat by the challenge rule, but penalties for challenging can still add up, and with hooks the opponent may not even know there is a possible play.

Differing strategy

The relative importance of different aspects of strategy, such as offense versus defense, may change, meaning that those players particularly skilled at one may be disadvantaged. However, these aspects are not publicly well quantified. For more details, see How Collins differs.

Please direct comments about this page to its author, Nick Ball.