Stealing wins at Letterpress

Posted on by

[Yes, this is another in my continuing series of articles about the game of Letterpress. For those of you who do not play this game, feel free to move on.]

Occasionally, winning a Letterpress game requires taking a step back and rethinking your entire approach. Such was the case with a recent game of mine. Had I stuck with my typical strategies, I would have lost the game. Luckily, I became aware of the danger before it was too late. As a result, I managed to “steal” a victory—in just two moves!

Position after opening move of REMARKING

My opponent opened with the word REMARKING. Before reading further, take a moment and decide on what word you would play next.

My initial take was that I was in considerable trouble. My opponent had already protected squares in two corners—not a good sign. Worse, if I wasn’t careful, I could easily imagine him expanding to a third corner on his next turn. Alternatively, he could significantly expand his two corners at the top of the board. Either way, the game would likely be effectively over. He would be helped by the fact that the board overflowed with easy-to-find long words, such as LOVEMAKING or MISCARRIAGES or PARLIAMENTS.

I figured that, to have any chance at all, I’d have to secure both the two lower corners on my first word. Further, it would be almost as critical to simultaneously attack my opponent’s position at the top of the board. Doing all of this at once would require a fairly long word—likely 11 letters or more.

While I had no trouble coming up with 11+ letter words, none of then hit the right combination of squares. For example, OPERATIONALISM omitted the essential V, needed to grab the southwest corner. Similarly, a 15 letter word(!), IMPROVISATIONAL, amazingly did not contain an E, needed to protect the southeast corner.

Then the nickel dropped. I was looking at this game completely wrong. I was actually in much more trouble than I had realized. Paradoxically, I was also in much better shape than I had thought.

The bad news was that, even if IMPROVISATIONAL contained an E (imagine that it was spelled EMPROVISATIONAL), I couldn’t afford to play it. It would leave CMPRR as the only remaining unclaimed letters. My opponent could then play any number of possible word, such as CRIMPERS or PROCLAIMER or PARAMETRIC, and immediately win the game! Uh-oh! The same unhappy logic applied to all other super-long words I might play.

But wait! There was actually an up side to this situation. I didn’t have to play a super-long word. I didn’t even have to take both lower corners. In fact, it would be better if I didn’t. Instead, I could play a word like CARMAKERS — which is what I did.

Position after I played CARMAKERS

This word secured the southeast corner, protecting three squares. More importantly, it left 11 unclaimed squares. I couldn’t be 100% certain, but I was almost sure that there was no one word that used all of these remaining letters. Even if there were, I figured it was unlikely my opponent would find it. In fact, unless he understood the situation as I now did, he probably wouldn’t even be looking for it.

For example, if my opponent came back with IMPROVISATIONAL, it would still leave one P unclaimed. That would almost certainly be sufficient for me to find a word that contained that P and enough other unprotected squares to give me a win on my next turn. Actually, my position was even better. If my opponent played any word that contained a P, other than IMPROVISATIONAL,  I could play IMPROVISATIONAL and immediately win.

My opponent came back with PARKINGS. Yes! He had taken the bait and played a word with a P in it, leaving 9 unclaimed letters. He was probably feeling pretty good about his position at this point, unaware of what was about to happen.

Position after my opponent played PARKINGS

I play IMPROVISATIONAL and win the game 17-8

I played IMPROVISATIONAL and “stole a win” with a score of  17-8 — ending the game with just two moves.

One final question to ponder: What should my opponent have played instead of PARKINGS?

I’m not sure. Without the help of a complete list of all possible words (that would be cheating!), he would have to be concerned that any word that took even one unclaimed square might allow me to win the game on my next turn (as, in fact, I did). Given that, it might be best for him to play a word that took no new unclaimed squares. The main exception would be if he could find a word that left him with 13 or more protected squares, blocking any chance of me winning on my next turn.

Of course, if he did play a defensive word, leaving 11 unclaimed squares, I would find myself in almost the identical dilemma. That is, both of us would likely have to play to avoid the 11 squares—and continue to do so as long as it remained a viable option. Eventually, one of us would stumble and lose. What a strange situation. But that’s what makes Letterpress such a great game.

To see a replay of the entire game, click here.

Another “stolen” victory

In this next game, I deliberately gave my opponent a winning position—with the hope that he would not see it. When things went as I had hoped, I was able to surprise my opponent and “steal” the victory on my next turn.

The game was hard-fought over the first eight moves. However, playing second, I was definitely on the losing end of the battle. After my opponent played MOLTEN on move 9, I was unable to see any clear path to victory.

The position after my opponent played MOLTEN

The gist of the situation was that both of us were avoiding the 5 unclaimed squares (XTKLL) for the typical reason: there was no one word that used all 5 letters and the fear was that claiming any one of the 5 letters could allow the opponent to take the remaining 4 and win. For example, if either of us had taken the K, the other player could play EXTOLLING and win. As I recall (my memory’s a bit hazy here), it probably would have been safe to take the T in the southwest corner; however, this would have required a word with two T’s, as neither of us wanted to leave the upper T in the opponent’s hands. There weren’t many words with two T’s that also included the other required squares. ALLOTMENT was a possibility (my opponent might have played it instead of MOLTEN). As for me, I valued the R more than the second T. So the T was left alone.

As such, we were left to skirmish over the claimed but unprotected squares (LMRNTO), exchanging possession of most or all of them with each turn.

If we continued to maintain this see-saw exchange, it’s possible I would have wound up with a final advantage. But it seemed unlikely. With the advantage of having gone first, my opponent was always just a bit ahead. So, out of a sense of “desperation,” I decided to attempt a swindle and go for a quick win. I played EXCLAMATION, taking the X of the unclaimed squares.

The position after I played EXCLAMATION

If my opponent could now find and play a word that used KLLT, he was almost certain to win the game. Actually, I already knew there was at least one such word: CLOTHLIKE. This word would win the game for my opponent. My hope here was that my opponent would not discover this word and (incorrectly) assume he instead needed to continue the see-saw. It seemed worth a shot in a game that I was otherwise likely to lose anyway.

I got my wish. My opponent played EXAMINATOR. It was a great word, reclaiming the MNTO squares as well as taking the newly claimed X. Had I continued the see-saw, I didn’t know of any word that I could use to take back MNTOX. Most likely, I would have had to leave my opponent with the X and an increased advantage. I’m sure that’s what my opponent was expecting to happen.

Fortunately, I didn’t have to do that. Instead, I played CLOTHLIKE and stole the victory by the thinnest of margins, 13-12.

To see a replay of the entire game, click here.

Macintosh reviews from 1984

Posted on by

When the Macintosh arrived back in January 1984, every personal computer magazine in existence reviewed Apple’s new baby. Recognizing that these articles might be of more than passing interest some day, I collected and saved as many of them as I could.

I recently scanned four of the best of these articles — from BYTE, Personal Computing, A+ and Newsweek — and posted them here for your perusal.

By far, the “must-see” of this group is the gargantuan BYTE magazine material. Newsweek’s take on the Macintosh is more of a news article than a review and thus offers a different, but still worthwhile, perspective. They all offer a great time-capsule look back at one of the pivotal points in the history of computers. Enjoy!

The Mac at 30: The last laugh

Posted on by

I bought my first Macintosh thirty years ago this month, within days of the original Mac going on sale. It was my first personal computer purchase. I had used Apple II’s and even Atari’s where I worked, but I had never owned a computer. Until January 1984.

I had been deliberating for several months prior to January, trying to decide what computer to get. Should it be an Apple IIe, an IBM PC, or this Macintosh thing that was coming? I decided to wait and check out the Mac. I was glad I did. After playing with one at a computer store for all of about two minutes, I was sold. I bought a Mac that day.

The only mystery to me at the time was why everyone in the market for a personal computer did not instantly come to the same conclusion. Why didn’t IBM and Microsoft simply go out of business by the end of the year? For me, the comparison was as if you were back in the days of the earliest mobile phones (the ones that were about the size of a shoebox, which were coincidentally the models available around 1984) and suddenly a company came out with the equivalent of a fully functional iPhone 5S — and the reaction of most consumers was something like “Eh! That iPhone is just a toy. You can’t make real phone calls with it. I’ll stick with my Motorola DynaTAC.”

Yes, the original Mac was that much of a leap forward. Unless you were there back in 1984, it’s hard to imagine how startlingly radical it all was. Heck, I was there and it’s still hard for me to imagine. The Mac featured a graphical display navigated by a mouse; it had an intuitive Finder desktop metaphor, WYSIWYG fonts and the ability to create pictures with the likes of MacPaint. No other computer had anything close to this (except perhaps for Apple’s own Lisa computer, which cost 4X as much). The rest of the bunch were all still stuck using a command line.

The rational part of my brain understood that the original Mac had significant limitations. With only 128K of memory, a single floppy drive and virtually no application software, it clearly wasn’t ready to replace existing PCs. But the emotional part of me would have none of that. At the very least, you had to be rooting for the Mac to succeed, even if you weren’t ready to buy one. Or so I thought.

As you likely know, my expectations did not translate into reality. Many people were not rooting for the Mac. At least not at first. The Mac did not become an overnight blockbuster — despite generally rave reviews. Numerous obstacles, some quite huge, blocked Apple’s (and Mac’s) path to a successful future.

But the story has a happy ending. Apple’s vision for the Mac — and my initial reaction to it — were eventually vindicated. Within less than a decade, with Microsoft “translating” the Mac OS into its Windows software, every personal computer in existence was using a mouse and a Mac-like graphical user interface. Apple had won the war, even if they almost died in doing so.

But Apple didn’t die. Further, not one of the companies that was making personal computers back in 1984 is still in the business of doing so today. Not one of the original computer model names is still in use. Except for Apple and the Mac.

It may not be a tactful, socially correct thing to do, but I can’t resist a bit of gloating here on Apple’s behalf. To all those who laughed at the Mac back in 1984: the last laugh’s on you. The Mac has survived, continues to thrive, and stands alone. Apple itself has become the biggest company on earth!

That’s certainly something worth celebrating. So Happy Anniversary, Mac! Congratulations. Well done. It’s been a fantastic 30 years.

On personal note, as is true of many others, I owe my career to Apple. Without the tools that the Mac provided and the culture that surrounded the Mac, I would not be where I am today. Thank you, Apple.

And now…let the next thirty years of Mac begin…

[For Apple’s take on the Mac’s 30th anniversary, including a look back at highlights from the past three decades, check out Apple’s website.]

Setting the record straight re my article on Adobe Reader

Posted on by

I’d like to set the record straight regarding my recent Bugs & Fixes article for Macworld — the one on problems opening PDF files in the latest version of Safari when the Adobe Reader plug-in is installed. To put it as kindly as possible, I could have done a better job on this one.

In a nutshell, the problem cited in the article is that, after installing Adobe Reader, you get continually warned by Safari every time you try to a load a PDF file—requiring a couple of clicks before the PDF will load. I found this so annoying that I decided I’d rather bypass any security advantage and eliminate the warnings altogether. I then detailed how I had some trouble figuring out where and how to do this.

I placed the onus of the blame for this on Adobe and its Reader app. In retrospect, I should have placed the lion’s share of the “blame” (if the term is even appropriate here) on Safari itself. And on myself. Adobe was only making use of a new feature in Safari, one that Apple touts as a providing enhanced security for Internet plug-ins. At some level, this was obvious to me: The fix I cited (which I should have recalled without needing to search for it) required going to a Safari Preferences setting (as shown in a figure in the Bugs & Fixes article). Further, the Preferences screen lists numerous plug-ins besides the one for Adobe Reader. This is a clear tip-off that the situation extends beyond the Reader plug-in. Still, partly because of my prior bias against the Reader, as well as because Apple’s own PDF software does not trigger the same warnings and because I had not had any similar problems with any other plug-in, I viewed it as an Adobe failing. Not so.

I compounded my error by adding a comment that said Adobe “could have handled {the matter} much better.” What could Adobe have done to help ameliorate this? Actually, not much. However, I would have suggested two things. First, on the assumption that many Adobe Reader users may not be clear as to what is going on here, the Adobe Reader app (perhaps in its Preferences screens) should have included the pertinent information—bypassing the need to search Adobe’s or Apple’s support sites. Second (although I understand Adobe would be reluctant to do this), Adobe could provide a simple way to disable or uninstall the plug-in altogether (short of manually having to drag the plug-in files out of the /Library/Internet Plug-Ins folder)—for the benefit those who would like to keep Reader around but not use the plug-in (if there is a setting that does this, I couldn’t find it). Still, as I said, this is minor stuff. And to its credit, Adobe Reader’s Preferences>Internet screen does link to a relevant article on how to manually disable the plug-in.

On a related note, my Bugs & Fixes article also raised the question as to what is the difference between the “Allow” and “Always Allow” options in the Safari settings. I found none. This, as it turns out, is explained in an Apple support document. The answer is: when selecting “Always Allow,” “Safari loads and displays the content without prompting, even if the Internet plug-in is blocked by OS X File Quarantine.” With “Allow,” the Quarantine content remains blocked.

Overall, I fell down on the job with this article. More than once. For that, I apologize. Thankfully, it’s quite rare for this to happen. And I’ll do my best to make sure that it never happens again.