What is the optimal strategy for the Dictionary Game?In iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, how would a change in...

What does the "ep" capability mean?

Who is the Umpire in this picture?

Mac Pro install disk keeps ejecting itself

How can I practically buy stocks?

Binary Numbers Magic Trick

What are the potential pitfalls when using metals as a currency?

US visa is under administrative processing, I need the passport back ASAP

Unexpected email from Yorkshire Bank

Are Boeing 737-800’s grounded?

Controversial area of mathematics

Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?

Is there a way to get a compiler for the original B programming language?

Is the 5 MB static resource size limit 5,242,880 bytes or 5,000,000 bytes?

French for 'It must be my imagination'?

How could Tony Stark make this in Endgame?

Fizzy, soft, pop and still drinks

Was there a shared-world project before "Thieves World"?

Critique of timeline aesthetic

how to sum variables from file in bash

Reducing vertical space in stackrel

Is there an official tutorial for installing Ubuntu 18.04+ on a device with an SSD and an additional internal hard drive?

How to verbalise code in Mathematica?

How to pronounce 'C++' in Spanish

how to find the equation of a circle given points of the circle



What is the optimal strategy for the Dictionary Game?


In iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, how would a change in the payoff matrix affect strategy?Question about 1 on 1 on 1The Buzzer GameIn a Guess The Color game, what's the optimal strategy?Another Unconventional Dice Blackjack game - is Nash equilibrium here?Higher or lower?Domino Tiling GameSingle-pile Nim with Three PlayersRock, Paper, Scissors and TrumpPaper, pencil and a bunch of bars













3












$begingroup$


In the Dictionary Game, players take turns saying English words. The first player starts by choosing any word, which splits the dictionary in two parts. The next player chooses a part and picks a word in that part which will split that part into two smaller parts. This continues until a player is no longer able to find a word.



Note that the players do not actually use a dictionary, they can only say words they know. Additionally, when a player says a word the other player doesn't know, the other players will learn the word and be able to use it in a future round. Here's an example game between two players:



Here is an example game between three players:




Player 1: puzzle - parts are * - puzzle and puzzle - *

Player 2: game - parts are * - game and game - puzzle

Player 3: hard - parts are game - hard and hard - puzzle

Player 1: hat - parts are hard - hat and hat - puzzle

Player 2: has - parts are hard - has and has - hat

Player 3: I don't know any words between "hard" and "hat" other than "has"



Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.






What is the optimal strategy, assuming the game is played between $n$ players $m$ times?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hmm.. Usually, if there are more than $2$ players, then the strategy will be "biased" as if they may cooperate with other players or stuffs.. And also, why do we need $m$? The strategy usually works with $1$ game, and just apply the same strategy for the other games..
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The players are not allowed to communicate, and that they can't use the words they play to communicate with the other players. You can assume that all players are interested in winning. $m$ is needed since playing the game several time will help you figure out which words other players don't know, or if they know more words than you.
    $endgroup$
    – Stefan
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @athin You need m because, if you use the same strategy every iteration, you can't win, you can only tie.
    $endgroup$
    – João Mendes
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Looks like player three was in haste to leave the game.
    $endgroup$
    – Brandon_J
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The "optimal" strategy depends on how likely it is that other players know certain words, without that knowledge there is no algorithmic solution to solve this.
    $endgroup$
    – Helena
    10 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


In the Dictionary Game, players take turns saying English words. The first player starts by choosing any word, which splits the dictionary in two parts. The next player chooses a part and picks a word in that part which will split that part into two smaller parts. This continues until a player is no longer able to find a word.



Note that the players do not actually use a dictionary, they can only say words they know. Additionally, when a player says a word the other player doesn't know, the other players will learn the word and be able to use it in a future round. Here's an example game between two players:



Here is an example game between three players:




Player 1: puzzle - parts are * - puzzle and puzzle - *

Player 2: game - parts are * - game and game - puzzle

Player 3: hard - parts are game - hard and hard - puzzle

Player 1: hat - parts are hard - hat and hat - puzzle

Player 2: has - parts are hard - has and has - hat

Player 3: I don't know any words between "hard" and "hat" other than "has"



Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.






What is the optimal strategy, assuming the game is played between $n$ players $m$ times?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hmm.. Usually, if there are more than $2$ players, then the strategy will be "biased" as if they may cooperate with other players or stuffs.. And also, why do we need $m$? The strategy usually works with $1$ game, and just apply the same strategy for the other games..
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The players are not allowed to communicate, and that they can't use the words they play to communicate with the other players. You can assume that all players are interested in winning. $m$ is needed since playing the game several time will help you figure out which words other players don't know, or if they know more words than you.
    $endgroup$
    – Stefan
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @athin You need m because, if you use the same strategy every iteration, you can't win, you can only tie.
    $endgroup$
    – João Mendes
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Looks like player three was in haste to leave the game.
    $endgroup$
    – Brandon_J
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The "optimal" strategy depends on how likely it is that other players know certain words, without that knowledge there is no algorithmic solution to solve this.
    $endgroup$
    – Helena
    10 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$


In the Dictionary Game, players take turns saying English words. The first player starts by choosing any word, which splits the dictionary in two parts. The next player chooses a part and picks a word in that part which will split that part into two smaller parts. This continues until a player is no longer able to find a word.



Note that the players do not actually use a dictionary, they can only say words they know. Additionally, when a player says a word the other player doesn't know, the other players will learn the word and be able to use it in a future round. Here's an example game between two players:



Here is an example game between three players:




Player 1: puzzle - parts are * - puzzle and puzzle - *

Player 2: game - parts are * - game and game - puzzle

Player 3: hard - parts are game - hard and hard - puzzle

Player 1: hat - parts are hard - hat and hat - puzzle

Player 2: has - parts are hard - has and has - hat

Player 3: I don't know any words between "hard" and "hat" other than "has"



Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.






What is the optimal strategy, assuming the game is played between $n$ players $m$ times?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the Dictionary Game, players take turns saying English words. The first player starts by choosing any word, which splits the dictionary in two parts. The next player chooses a part and picks a word in that part which will split that part into two smaller parts. This continues until a player is no longer able to find a word.



Note that the players do not actually use a dictionary, they can only say words they know. Additionally, when a player says a word the other player doesn't know, the other players will learn the word and be able to use it in a future round. Here's an example game between two players:



Here is an example game between three players:




Player 1: puzzle - parts are * - puzzle and puzzle - *

Player 2: game - parts are * - game and game - puzzle

Player 3: hard - parts are game - hard and hard - puzzle

Player 1: hat - parts are hard - hat and hat - puzzle

Player 2: has - parts are hard - has and has - hat

Player 3: I don't know any words between "hard" and "hat" other than "has"



Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.






What is the optimal strategy, assuming the game is played between $n$ players $m$ times?







game-theory






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







Stefan

















asked yesterday









StefanStefan

4627




4627








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hmm.. Usually, if there are more than $2$ players, then the strategy will be "biased" as if they may cooperate with other players or stuffs.. And also, why do we need $m$? The strategy usually works with $1$ game, and just apply the same strategy for the other games..
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The players are not allowed to communicate, and that they can't use the words they play to communicate with the other players. You can assume that all players are interested in winning. $m$ is needed since playing the game several time will help you figure out which words other players don't know, or if they know more words than you.
    $endgroup$
    – Stefan
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @athin You need m because, if you use the same strategy every iteration, you can't win, you can only tie.
    $endgroup$
    – João Mendes
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Looks like player three was in haste to leave the game.
    $endgroup$
    – Brandon_J
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The "optimal" strategy depends on how likely it is that other players know certain words, without that knowledge there is no algorithmic solution to solve this.
    $endgroup$
    – Helena
    10 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Hmm.. Usually, if there are more than $2$ players, then the strategy will be "biased" as if they may cooperate with other players or stuffs.. And also, why do we need $m$? The strategy usually works with $1$ game, and just apply the same strategy for the other games..
    $endgroup$
    – athin
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The players are not allowed to communicate, and that they can't use the words they play to communicate with the other players. You can assume that all players are interested in winning. $m$ is needed since playing the game several time will help you figure out which words other players don't know, or if they know more words than you.
    $endgroup$
    – Stefan
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @athin You need m because, if you use the same strategy every iteration, you can't win, you can only tie.
    $endgroup$
    – João Mendes
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Looks like player three was in haste to leave the game.
    $endgroup$
    – Brandon_J
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The "optimal" strategy depends on how likely it is that other players know certain words, without that knowledge there is no algorithmic solution to solve this.
    $endgroup$
    – Helena
    10 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Hmm.. Usually, if there are more than $2$ players, then the strategy will be "biased" as if they may cooperate with other players or stuffs.. And also, why do we need $m$? The strategy usually works with $1$ game, and just apply the same strategy for the other games..
$endgroup$
– athin
yesterday




$begingroup$
Hmm.. Usually, if there are more than $2$ players, then the strategy will be "biased" as if they may cooperate with other players or stuffs.. And also, why do we need $m$? The strategy usually works with $1$ game, and just apply the same strategy for the other games..
$endgroup$
– athin
yesterday












$begingroup$
The players are not allowed to communicate, and that they can't use the words they play to communicate with the other players. You can assume that all players are interested in winning. $m$ is needed since playing the game several time will help you figure out which words other players don't know, or if they know more words than you.
$endgroup$
– Stefan
yesterday






$begingroup$
The players are not allowed to communicate, and that they can't use the words they play to communicate with the other players. You can assume that all players are interested in winning. $m$ is needed since playing the game several time will help you figure out which words other players don't know, or if they know more words than you.
$endgroup$
– Stefan
yesterday














$begingroup$
@athin You need m because, if you use the same strategy every iteration, you can't win, you can only tie.
$endgroup$
– João Mendes
yesterday




$begingroup$
@athin You need m because, if you use the same strategy every iteration, you can't win, you can only tie.
$endgroup$
– João Mendes
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Looks like player three was in haste to leave the game.
$endgroup$
– Brandon_J
yesterday




$begingroup$
Looks like player three was in haste to leave the game.
$endgroup$
– Brandon_J
yesterday












$begingroup$
The "optimal" strategy depends on how likely it is that other players know certain words, without that knowledge there is no algorithmic solution to solve this.
$endgroup$
– Helena
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
The "optimal" strategy depends on how likely it is that other players know certain words, without that knowledge there is no algorithmic solution to solve this.
$endgroup$
– Helena
10 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

Let's assume every player knows the exact same list of words. Player 1 can ensure a loss for player 3 on the first turn by selecting the second word from the list. This allows player 2 to pick the first word, leaving no possible words for player 3. (Equivalently, player 1 can pick the second-to-last word, allowing player 2 to pick the last one.)



Say the dictionary consists of the words aardvark, beerdvark, ceerdvark, ..., zeerdvark.




Player 1: beerdvark - parts are * - beerdvark and beerdvark - *

Player 2: aardvark - parts are * - aardvark and aardvark - beerdvark

Player 3: I don't know any words before "beerdvark" other than "aardvark".



Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
    $endgroup$
    – João Mendes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
    $endgroup$
    – Bass
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
    $endgroup$
    – jafe
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
    $endgroup$
    – jafe
    5 hours ago



















7












$begingroup$

In the unrealistic case of there being two players, both knowing the same $n$ words then it really is a type of Nim game. If $n$ is odd, then the first player can always win, and if $n$ is even then the second player can always win.




Whenever a word is played, it results in two ranges of words from which the next player has to choose a word. One or both of those ranges may be empty, containing zero words.

The winning strategy is to always choose a word from a range containing an odd number of words, and in doing so split that range into two ranges that both have an even number of words (or empty, as zero is even). The opponent either loses immediately when both ranges are empty, or else will have to choose a word from one of those even ranges and thereby leave one range with an odd number of words.







share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    I'm not sure how mathematically rigorously you can analyze this game, given that




    1. the players are not playing under the same set of conditions (dictionaries)

    2. the conditions change as the game progresses (the players learn words from their opponents).


    If everybody agrees to use the exact same dictionary to get their words from, then the game can be considered a heavily modified form of Grundy's game, which is a Nim variant where the players split an initial heap into smaller heaps of unequal size, until someone is given a position with only heaps of size 1 and 2, at which point that someone has lost. In this case, the initial heap is all the words in the dictionary, and the players then take turns splitting it into smaller heaps using the words.



    The main modifications for this game, which in my opinion make it more difficult to analyze, are:




    • there are potentially more than two players (Nim and Nim-variants assume only two players are playing)

    • whenever one of the two existing heaps is used, the other one can no longer be acted upon.


    So far, I haven't been able to find any existing research or informal work done on games with these restrictions; if you happen to stumble across some, let me know!



    Without dictionaries, it becomes a lot more complex. I can see metagaming becoming more prevalent, which essentially turns the game into a subjective analysis of what you think others will do. I don't know how much rigorous game theory you can apply in this scenario other than what people already do to construct the "meta" for a game.





    Given all this, I'm inclined to believe that there is no optimal strategy, but there are ways you can increase your chance of winning, such as




    • having a very, very large vocabulary (or memorizing esoteric words from the dictionary)

    • going first, if you're playing with a very large group

    • always choosing a "midpoint" word between two "endpoint" words e.g. playing "nine" instead of "Nim" if you're given nil - nip. This ensures that your opponents get heaps that are of minimal possible size.


    (Side note: There's also a potential loophole of people saying words that aren't valid but can't be challenged under the current rule set, and this could go on to infinity (a - ab $ rightarrow $ aa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaaa - ab $ rightarrow cdots $). Unless OP declares that that's a valid strategy, I believe there need to be more restrictions on what qualifies as a "word.")






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
      $endgroup$
      – Swiss Frank
      yesterday



















    1












    $begingroup$

    Long time Puzzling.SE reader, first time answering. I believe I have a potentially optimal strategy for this puzzle, though it relies on the foreknowledge that each player only uses a specific set of words. The strategy involves leaving a specific amount of possible words after your turn.



    For example, say we have a dictionary/vocabulary that consists of aa, ab, ac,...az.




    For $n$ number of players, you will attempt to limit the possible words remaining to $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining. So for instance, with 3 players:

    Player 1: af - parts are * - af and af - *.
    Player 2: ap - parts are * - af and af - ap.
    Player 3: al - parts are af - al and al - ap.
    Player 1: ak - parts are ak - al and al - ap.

    At this point, Player 1 has eliminated all possible words from the left part of the alphabet and left only three possible words on the right side (am, an, ao). Regardless of the word chosen, two words will remain.

    Player 2: an - parts are al - an and an - ap.
    Player 3: am - parts are am - an and an - ap.
    Player 1: ao - parts are an - ao and ao - ap.
    Player 2: I can't think of any words between an - ap except for ao.


    For $n + 1$ words left, Player 1 just needs to select aj instead of ak, leaving 4 moves, thus causing Player 3 to lose the round. Alternating this strategy between playing for $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining should amount to a victory for Player 1 where $m > 2$.







    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$





















      -1












      $begingroup$

      The optimal strategy is to pick words that can be built on. So if you end up with has and hat, then pick haste. That's between both of them and from there, you narrow down with tenses. Haste-Hasty-Hat.



      Playing a word that ends in y will force them to only build in one direction, between Haste and Hasty. They might say Haste-Hasten-Hasty. From there you can you can keep going between either of them until there is no other form of the words. Hastens, Hastes, Hasting. It just really becomes a trial of who knows their conjugations the best, and who can plan far enough ahead to make sure that they will be the one to have the last word.



      Edit

      Planning ahead, as in knowing roughly how many word options are left. More than 5? Doesn't matter. Less than 5? Then based on how many people and when it would become your turn again, choose a word in the middle to give your opponents a narrower range and end before your turn, or perhaps choose a word that is right after another to keep the range wide enough that you'll have another turn before the number of words run out.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 2




        $begingroup$
        This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
        $endgroup$
        – Nuclear Wang
        yesterday












      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "559"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83224%2fwhat-is-the-optimal-strategy-for-the-dictionary-game%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      11












      $begingroup$

      Let's assume every player knows the exact same list of words. Player 1 can ensure a loss for player 3 on the first turn by selecting the second word from the list. This allows player 2 to pick the first word, leaving no possible words for player 3. (Equivalently, player 1 can pick the second-to-last word, allowing player 2 to pick the last one.)



      Say the dictionary consists of the words aardvark, beerdvark, ceerdvark, ..., zeerdvark.




      Player 1: beerdvark - parts are * - beerdvark and beerdvark - *

      Player 2: aardvark - parts are * - aardvark and aardvark - beerdvark

      Player 3: I don't know any words before "beerdvark" other than "aardvark".



      Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
        $endgroup$
        – João Mendes
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
        $endgroup$
        – Bass
        11 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        5 hours ago
















      11












      $begingroup$

      Let's assume every player knows the exact same list of words. Player 1 can ensure a loss for player 3 on the first turn by selecting the second word from the list. This allows player 2 to pick the first word, leaving no possible words for player 3. (Equivalently, player 1 can pick the second-to-last word, allowing player 2 to pick the last one.)



      Say the dictionary consists of the words aardvark, beerdvark, ceerdvark, ..., zeerdvark.




      Player 1: beerdvark - parts are * - beerdvark and beerdvark - *

      Player 2: aardvark - parts are * - aardvark and aardvark - beerdvark

      Player 3: I don't know any words before "beerdvark" other than "aardvark".



      Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
        $endgroup$
        – João Mendes
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
        $endgroup$
        – Bass
        11 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        5 hours ago














      11












      11








      11





      $begingroup$

      Let's assume every player knows the exact same list of words. Player 1 can ensure a loss for player 3 on the first turn by selecting the second word from the list. This allows player 2 to pick the first word, leaving no possible words for player 3. (Equivalently, player 1 can pick the second-to-last word, allowing player 2 to pick the last one.)



      Say the dictionary consists of the words aardvark, beerdvark, ceerdvark, ..., zeerdvark.




      Player 1: beerdvark - parts are * - beerdvark and beerdvark - *

      Player 2: aardvark - parts are * - aardvark and aardvark - beerdvark

      Player 3: I don't know any words before "beerdvark" other than "aardvark".



      Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      Let's assume every player knows the exact same list of words. Player 1 can ensure a loss for player 3 on the first turn by selecting the second word from the list. This allows player 2 to pick the first word, leaving no possible words for player 3. (Equivalently, player 1 can pick the second-to-last word, allowing player 2 to pick the last one.)



      Say the dictionary consists of the words aardvark, beerdvark, ceerdvark, ..., zeerdvark.




      Player 1: beerdvark - parts are * - beerdvark and beerdvark - *

      Player 2: aardvark - parts are * - aardvark and aardvark - beerdvark

      Player 3: I don't know any words before "beerdvark" other than "aardvark".



      Player 3 loses, and players 1 and 2 gain a point.








      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered yesterday









      jafejafe

      27k479266




      27k479266












      • $begingroup$
        This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
        $endgroup$
        – João Mendes
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
        $endgroup$
        – Bass
        11 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        5 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
        $endgroup$
        – João Mendes
        yesterday










      • $begingroup$
        Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
        $endgroup$
        – Bass
        11 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        7 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
        $endgroup$
        – jafe
        5 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
      $endgroup$
      – João Mendes
      yesterday




      $begingroup$
      This is good enough to force a loss, but it leads to a tie, not a win. Is there an alternating strategy that player 1 or 2 can use such that they can actually win after m rounds?
      $endgroup$
      – João Mendes
      yesterday












      $begingroup$
      Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
      $endgroup$
      – Bass
      11 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Player 2 can also play "deerdvark".
      $endgroup$
      – Bass
      11 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
      $endgroup$
      – jafe
      7 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @Bass Hmm that's a good point.
      $endgroup$
      – jafe
      7 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
      $endgroup$
      – jafe
      5 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @Bass Although no, playing D is worse for p2. With A p2 always wins, whereas by playing D they give p3 the opportunity to play F which would make p2 lose.
      $endgroup$
      – jafe
      5 hours ago











      7












      $begingroup$

      In the unrealistic case of there being two players, both knowing the same $n$ words then it really is a type of Nim game. If $n$ is odd, then the first player can always win, and if $n$ is even then the second player can always win.




      Whenever a word is played, it results in two ranges of words from which the next player has to choose a word. One or both of those ranges may be empty, containing zero words.

      The winning strategy is to always choose a word from a range containing an odd number of words, and in doing so split that range into two ranges that both have an even number of words (or empty, as zero is even). The opponent either loses immediately when both ranges are empty, or else will have to choose a word from one of those even ranges and thereby leave one range with an odd number of words.







      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        7












        $begingroup$

        In the unrealistic case of there being two players, both knowing the same $n$ words then it really is a type of Nim game. If $n$ is odd, then the first player can always win, and if $n$ is even then the second player can always win.




        Whenever a word is played, it results in two ranges of words from which the next player has to choose a word. One or both of those ranges may be empty, containing zero words.

        The winning strategy is to always choose a word from a range containing an odd number of words, and in doing so split that range into two ranges that both have an even number of words (or empty, as zero is even). The opponent either loses immediately when both ranges are empty, or else will have to choose a word from one of those even ranges and thereby leave one range with an odd number of words.







        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          In the unrealistic case of there being two players, both knowing the same $n$ words then it really is a type of Nim game. If $n$ is odd, then the first player can always win, and if $n$ is even then the second player can always win.




          Whenever a word is played, it results in two ranges of words from which the next player has to choose a word. One or both of those ranges may be empty, containing zero words.

          The winning strategy is to always choose a word from a range containing an odd number of words, and in doing so split that range into two ranges that both have an even number of words (or empty, as zero is even). The opponent either loses immediately when both ranges are empty, or else will have to choose a word from one of those even ranges and thereby leave one range with an odd number of words.







          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          In the unrealistic case of there being two players, both knowing the same $n$ words then it really is a type of Nim game. If $n$ is odd, then the first player can always win, and if $n$ is even then the second player can always win.




          Whenever a word is played, it results in two ranges of words from which the next player has to choose a word. One or both of those ranges may be empty, containing zero words.

          The winning strategy is to always choose a word from a range containing an odd number of words, and in doing so split that range into two ranges that both have an even number of words (or empty, as zero is even). The opponent either loses immediately when both ranges are empty, or else will have to choose a word from one of those even ranges and thereby leave one range with an odd number of words.








          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Jaap ScherphuisJaap Scherphuis

          16.8k12972




          16.8k12972























              3












              $begingroup$

              I'm not sure how mathematically rigorously you can analyze this game, given that




              1. the players are not playing under the same set of conditions (dictionaries)

              2. the conditions change as the game progresses (the players learn words from their opponents).


              If everybody agrees to use the exact same dictionary to get their words from, then the game can be considered a heavily modified form of Grundy's game, which is a Nim variant where the players split an initial heap into smaller heaps of unequal size, until someone is given a position with only heaps of size 1 and 2, at which point that someone has lost. In this case, the initial heap is all the words in the dictionary, and the players then take turns splitting it into smaller heaps using the words.



              The main modifications for this game, which in my opinion make it more difficult to analyze, are:




              • there are potentially more than two players (Nim and Nim-variants assume only two players are playing)

              • whenever one of the two existing heaps is used, the other one can no longer be acted upon.


              So far, I haven't been able to find any existing research or informal work done on games with these restrictions; if you happen to stumble across some, let me know!



              Without dictionaries, it becomes a lot more complex. I can see metagaming becoming more prevalent, which essentially turns the game into a subjective analysis of what you think others will do. I don't know how much rigorous game theory you can apply in this scenario other than what people already do to construct the "meta" for a game.





              Given all this, I'm inclined to believe that there is no optimal strategy, but there are ways you can increase your chance of winning, such as




              • having a very, very large vocabulary (or memorizing esoteric words from the dictionary)

              • going first, if you're playing with a very large group

              • always choosing a "midpoint" word between two "endpoint" words e.g. playing "nine" instead of "Nim" if you're given nil - nip. This ensures that your opponents get heaps that are of minimal possible size.


              (Side note: There's also a potential loophole of people saying words that aren't valid but can't be challenged under the current rule set, and this could go on to infinity (a - ab $ rightarrow $ aa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaaa - ab $ rightarrow cdots $). Unless OP declares that that's a valid strategy, I believe there need to be more restrictions on what qualifies as a "word.")






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
                $endgroup$
                – Swiss Frank
                yesterday
















              3












              $begingroup$

              I'm not sure how mathematically rigorously you can analyze this game, given that




              1. the players are not playing under the same set of conditions (dictionaries)

              2. the conditions change as the game progresses (the players learn words from their opponents).


              If everybody agrees to use the exact same dictionary to get their words from, then the game can be considered a heavily modified form of Grundy's game, which is a Nim variant where the players split an initial heap into smaller heaps of unequal size, until someone is given a position with only heaps of size 1 and 2, at which point that someone has lost. In this case, the initial heap is all the words in the dictionary, and the players then take turns splitting it into smaller heaps using the words.



              The main modifications for this game, which in my opinion make it more difficult to analyze, are:




              • there are potentially more than two players (Nim and Nim-variants assume only two players are playing)

              • whenever one of the two existing heaps is used, the other one can no longer be acted upon.


              So far, I haven't been able to find any existing research or informal work done on games with these restrictions; if you happen to stumble across some, let me know!



              Without dictionaries, it becomes a lot more complex. I can see metagaming becoming more prevalent, which essentially turns the game into a subjective analysis of what you think others will do. I don't know how much rigorous game theory you can apply in this scenario other than what people already do to construct the "meta" for a game.





              Given all this, I'm inclined to believe that there is no optimal strategy, but there are ways you can increase your chance of winning, such as




              • having a very, very large vocabulary (or memorizing esoteric words from the dictionary)

              • going first, if you're playing with a very large group

              • always choosing a "midpoint" word between two "endpoint" words e.g. playing "nine" instead of "Nim" if you're given nil - nip. This ensures that your opponents get heaps that are of minimal possible size.


              (Side note: There's also a potential loophole of people saying words that aren't valid but can't be challenged under the current rule set, and this could go on to infinity (a - ab $ rightarrow $ aa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaaa - ab $ rightarrow cdots $). Unless OP declares that that's a valid strategy, I believe there need to be more restrictions on what qualifies as a "word.")






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
                $endgroup$
                – Swiss Frank
                yesterday














              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              I'm not sure how mathematically rigorously you can analyze this game, given that




              1. the players are not playing under the same set of conditions (dictionaries)

              2. the conditions change as the game progresses (the players learn words from their opponents).


              If everybody agrees to use the exact same dictionary to get their words from, then the game can be considered a heavily modified form of Grundy's game, which is a Nim variant where the players split an initial heap into smaller heaps of unequal size, until someone is given a position with only heaps of size 1 and 2, at which point that someone has lost. In this case, the initial heap is all the words in the dictionary, and the players then take turns splitting it into smaller heaps using the words.



              The main modifications for this game, which in my opinion make it more difficult to analyze, are:




              • there are potentially more than two players (Nim and Nim-variants assume only two players are playing)

              • whenever one of the two existing heaps is used, the other one can no longer be acted upon.


              So far, I haven't been able to find any existing research or informal work done on games with these restrictions; if you happen to stumble across some, let me know!



              Without dictionaries, it becomes a lot more complex. I can see metagaming becoming more prevalent, which essentially turns the game into a subjective analysis of what you think others will do. I don't know how much rigorous game theory you can apply in this scenario other than what people already do to construct the "meta" for a game.





              Given all this, I'm inclined to believe that there is no optimal strategy, but there are ways you can increase your chance of winning, such as




              • having a very, very large vocabulary (or memorizing esoteric words from the dictionary)

              • going first, if you're playing with a very large group

              • always choosing a "midpoint" word between two "endpoint" words e.g. playing "nine" instead of "Nim" if you're given nil - nip. This ensures that your opponents get heaps that are of minimal possible size.


              (Side note: There's also a potential loophole of people saying words that aren't valid but can't be challenged under the current rule set, and this could go on to infinity (a - ab $ rightarrow $ aa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaaa - ab $ rightarrow cdots $). Unless OP declares that that's a valid strategy, I believe there need to be more restrictions on what qualifies as a "word.")






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              I'm not sure how mathematically rigorously you can analyze this game, given that




              1. the players are not playing under the same set of conditions (dictionaries)

              2. the conditions change as the game progresses (the players learn words from their opponents).


              If everybody agrees to use the exact same dictionary to get their words from, then the game can be considered a heavily modified form of Grundy's game, which is a Nim variant where the players split an initial heap into smaller heaps of unequal size, until someone is given a position with only heaps of size 1 and 2, at which point that someone has lost. In this case, the initial heap is all the words in the dictionary, and the players then take turns splitting it into smaller heaps using the words.



              The main modifications for this game, which in my opinion make it more difficult to analyze, are:




              • there are potentially more than two players (Nim and Nim-variants assume only two players are playing)

              • whenever one of the two existing heaps is used, the other one can no longer be acted upon.


              So far, I haven't been able to find any existing research or informal work done on games with these restrictions; if you happen to stumble across some, let me know!



              Without dictionaries, it becomes a lot more complex. I can see metagaming becoming more prevalent, which essentially turns the game into a subjective analysis of what you think others will do. I don't know how much rigorous game theory you can apply in this scenario other than what people already do to construct the "meta" for a game.





              Given all this, I'm inclined to believe that there is no optimal strategy, but there are ways you can increase your chance of winning, such as




              • having a very, very large vocabulary (or memorizing esoteric words from the dictionary)

              • going first, if you're playing with a very large group

              • always choosing a "midpoint" word between two "endpoint" words e.g. playing "nine" instead of "Nim" if you're given nil - nip. This ensures that your opponents get heaps that are of minimal possible size.


              (Side note: There's also a potential loophole of people saying words that aren't valid but can't be challenged under the current rule set, and this could go on to infinity (a - ab $ rightarrow $ aa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaa - ab $ rightarrow $ aaaa - ab $ rightarrow cdots $). Unless OP declares that that's a valid strategy, I believe there need to be more restrictions on what qualifies as a "word.")







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited yesterday

























              answered yesterday









              PiIsNot3PiIsNot3

              2,966541




              2,966541












              • $begingroup$
                Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
                $endgroup$
                – Swiss Frank
                yesterday


















              • $begingroup$
                Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
                $endgroup$
                – Swiss Frank
                yesterday
















              $begingroup$
              Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
              $endgroup$
              – Swiss Frank
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              Aa is actually an English word: basaltic lava forming very rough, jagged masses with a light frothy texture. Ab is one abdominal muscle, usually referred to in plural. (I remember this stuff because I wrote the internet's top Scrabble-type game in 1996.)
              $endgroup$
              – Swiss Frank
              yesterday











              1












              $begingroup$

              Long time Puzzling.SE reader, first time answering. I believe I have a potentially optimal strategy for this puzzle, though it relies on the foreknowledge that each player only uses a specific set of words. The strategy involves leaving a specific amount of possible words after your turn.



              For example, say we have a dictionary/vocabulary that consists of aa, ab, ac,...az.




              For $n$ number of players, you will attempt to limit the possible words remaining to $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining. So for instance, with 3 players:

              Player 1: af - parts are * - af and af - *.
              Player 2: ap - parts are * - af and af - ap.
              Player 3: al - parts are af - al and al - ap.
              Player 1: ak - parts are ak - al and al - ap.

              At this point, Player 1 has eliminated all possible words from the left part of the alphabet and left only three possible words on the right side (am, an, ao). Regardless of the word chosen, two words will remain.

              Player 2: an - parts are al - an and an - ap.
              Player 3: am - parts are am - an and an - ap.
              Player 1: ao - parts are an - ao and ao - ap.
              Player 2: I can't think of any words between an - ap except for ao.


              For $n + 1$ words left, Player 1 just needs to select aj instead of ak, leaving 4 moves, thus causing Player 3 to lose the round. Alternating this strategy between playing for $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining should amount to a victory for Player 1 where $m > 2$.







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                Long time Puzzling.SE reader, first time answering. I believe I have a potentially optimal strategy for this puzzle, though it relies on the foreknowledge that each player only uses a specific set of words. The strategy involves leaving a specific amount of possible words after your turn.



                For example, say we have a dictionary/vocabulary that consists of aa, ab, ac,...az.




                For $n$ number of players, you will attempt to limit the possible words remaining to $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining. So for instance, with 3 players:

                Player 1: af - parts are * - af and af - *.
                Player 2: ap - parts are * - af and af - ap.
                Player 3: al - parts are af - al and al - ap.
                Player 1: ak - parts are ak - al and al - ap.

                At this point, Player 1 has eliminated all possible words from the left part of the alphabet and left only three possible words on the right side (am, an, ao). Regardless of the word chosen, two words will remain.

                Player 2: an - parts are al - an and an - ap.
                Player 3: am - parts are am - an and an - ap.
                Player 1: ao - parts are an - ao and ao - ap.
                Player 2: I can't think of any words between an - ap except for ao.


                For $n + 1$ words left, Player 1 just needs to select aj instead of ak, leaving 4 moves, thus causing Player 3 to lose the round. Alternating this strategy between playing for $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining should amount to a victory for Player 1 where $m > 2$.







                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Long time Puzzling.SE reader, first time answering. I believe I have a potentially optimal strategy for this puzzle, though it relies on the foreknowledge that each player only uses a specific set of words. The strategy involves leaving a specific amount of possible words after your turn.



                  For example, say we have a dictionary/vocabulary that consists of aa, ab, ac,...az.




                  For $n$ number of players, you will attempt to limit the possible words remaining to $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining. So for instance, with 3 players:

                  Player 1: af - parts are * - af and af - *.
                  Player 2: ap - parts are * - af and af - ap.
                  Player 3: al - parts are af - al and al - ap.
                  Player 1: ak - parts are ak - al and al - ap.

                  At this point, Player 1 has eliminated all possible words from the left part of the alphabet and left only three possible words on the right side (am, an, ao). Regardless of the word chosen, two words will remain.

                  Player 2: an - parts are al - an and an - ap.
                  Player 3: am - parts are am - an and an - ap.
                  Player 1: ao - parts are an - ao and ao - ap.
                  Player 2: I can't think of any words between an - ap except for ao.


                  For $n + 1$ words left, Player 1 just needs to select aj instead of ak, leaving 4 moves, thus causing Player 3 to lose the round. Alternating this strategy between playing for $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining should amount to a victory for Player 1 where $m > 2$.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  Long time Puzzling.SE reader, first time answering. I believe I have a potentially optimal strategy for this puzzle, though it relies on the foreknowledge that each player only uses a specific set of words. The strategy involves leaving a specific amount of possible words after your turn.



                  For example, say we have a dictionary/vocabulary that consists of aa, ab, ac,...az.




                  For $n$ number of players, you will attempt to limit the possible words remaining to $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining. So for instance, with 3 players:

                  Player 1: af - parts are * - af and af - *.
                  Player 2: ap - parts are * - af and af - ap.
                  Player 3: al - parts are af - al and al - ap.
                  Player 1: ak - parts are ak - al and al - ap.

                  At this point, Player 1 has eliminated all possible words from the left part of the alphabet and left only three possible words on the right side (am, an, ao). Regardless of the word chosen, two words will remain.

                  Player 2: an - parts are al - an and an - ap.
                  Player 3: am - parts are am - an and an - ap.
                  Player 1: ao - parts are an - ao and ao - ap.
                  Player 2: I can't think of any words between an - ap except for ao.


                  For $n + 1$ words left, Player 1 just needs to select aj instead of ak, leaving 4 moves, thus causing Player 3 to lose the round. Alternating this strategy between playing for $n$ or $n + 1$ words remaining should amount to a victory for Player 1 where $m > 2$.








                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered yesterday









                  Steve-o169Steve-o169

                  1112




                  1112




                  New contributor




                  Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Steve-o169 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.























                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      The optimal strategy is to pick words that can be built on. So if you end up with has and hat, then pick haste. That's between both of them and from there, you narrow down with tenses. Haste-Hasty-Hat.



                      Playing a word that ends in y will force them to only build in one direction, between Haste and Hasty. They might say Haste-Hasten-Hasty. From there you can you can keep going between either of them until there is no other form of the words. Hastens, Hastes, Hasting. It just really becomes a trial of who knows their conjugations the best, and who can plan far enough ahead to make sure that they will be the one to have the last word.



                      Edit

                      Planning ahead, as in knowing roughly how many word options are left. More than 5? Doesn't matter. Less than 5? Then based on how many people and when it would become your turn again, choose a word in the middle to give your opponents a narrower range and end before your turn, or perhaps choose a word that is right after another to keep the range wide enough that you'll have another turn before the number of words run out.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$









                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Nuclear Wang
                        yesterday
















                      -1












                      $begingroup$

                      The optimal strategy is to pick words that can be built on. So if you end up with has and hat, then pick haste. That's between both of them and from there, you narrow down with tenses. Haste-Hasty-Hat.



                      Playing a word that ends in y will force them to only build in one direction, between Haste and Hasty. They might say Haste-Hasten-Hasty. From there you can you can keep going between either of them until there is no other form of the words. Hastens, Hastes, Hasting. It just really becomes a trial of who knows their conjugations the best, and who can plan far enough ahead to make sure that they will be the one to have the last word.



                      Edit

                      Planning ahead, as in knowing roughly how many word options are left. More than 5? Doesn't matter. Less than 5? Then based on how many people and when it would become your turn again, choose a word in the middle to give your opponents a narrower range and end before your turn, or perhaps choose a word that is right after another to keep the range wide enough that you'll have another turn before the number of words run out.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$









                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Nuclear Wang
                        yesterday














                      -1












                      -1








                      -1





                      $begingroup$

                      The optimal strategy is to pick words that can be built on. So if you end up with has and hat, then pick haste. That's between both of them and from there, you narrow down with tenses. Haste-Hasty-Hat.



                      Playing a word that ends in y will force them to only build in one direction, between Haste and Hasty. They might say Haste-Hasten-Hasty. From there you can you can keep going between either of them until there is no other form of the words. Hastens, Hastes, Hasting. It just really becomes a trial of who knows their conjugations the best, and who can plan far enough ahead to make sure that they will be the one to have the last word.



                      Edit

                      Planning ahead, as in knowing roughly how many word options are left. More than 5? Doesn't matter. Less than 5? Then based on how many people and when it would become your turn again, choose a word in the middle to give your opponents a narrower range and end before your turn, or perhaps choose a word that is right after another to keep the range wide enough that you'll have another turn before the number of words run out.






                      share|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      The optimal strategy is to pick words that can be built on. So if you end up with has and hat, then pick haste. That's between both of them and from there, you narrow down with tenses. Haste-Hasty-Hat.



                      Playing a word that ends in y will force them to only build in one direction, between Haste and Hasty. They might say Haste-Hasten-Hasty. From there you can you can keep going between either of them until there is no other form of the words. Hastens, Hastes, Hasting. It just really becomes a trial of who knows their conjugations the best, and who can plan far enough ahead to make sure that they will be the one to have the last word.



                      Edit

                      Planning ahead, as in knowing roughly how many word options are left. More than 5? Doesn't matter. Less than 5? Then based on how many people and when it would become your turn again, choose a word in the middle to give your opponents a narrower range and end before your turn, or perhaps choose a word that is right after another to keep the range wide enough that you'll have another turn before the number of words run out.







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited yesterday

























                      answered yesterday









                      SensoraySensoray

                      4,63611246




                      4,63611246








                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Nuclear Wang
                        yesterday














                      • 2




                        $begingroup$
                        This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
                        $endgroup$
                        – Nuclear Wang
                        yesterday








                      2




                      2




                      $begingroup$
                      This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Nuclear Wang
                      yesterday




                      $begingroup$
                      This will make the game go on longer, but it's not clear how choosing words with many conjugations actually helps you win. As you point out, it just turns into who knows their conjugations better, so this is a sub-optimal strategy for someone who doesn't know them very well. Basically, this answer boils down to two things: "know more words than your opponent" and "plan far enough ahead", the latter of which is so non-specific it's meaningless.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Nuclear Wang
                      yesterday


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83224%2fwhat-is-the-optimal-strategy-for-the-dictionary-game%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      VNC viewer RFB protocol error: bad desktop size 0x0I Cannot Type the Key 'd' (lowercase) in VNC Viewer...

                      Couldn't open a raw socket. Error: Permission denied (13) (nmap)Is it possible to run networking commands...

                      Why not use the yoke to control yaw, as well as pitch and roll? Announcing the arrival of...