jlewis_st

Definitely — our R&D team works on developing new mathematical approaches (for example, how to best leverage TDA for classification problems) and also applying existing approaches to new problem domains. The team also does plenty of prototyping (coding) and then works with engineering to move new algorithms to production. Drop me a line and I can put you in touch with someone who can talk in depth about what we're up to on the research side.

I did simple analysis of overall letter frequency and how that would map to a 98 tile set (not counting the blanks) and this is what I got:

A: 7 B: 2 C: 4 D: 3 E: 11 F: 1 G: 3 H: 2 I: 8 J: 1 K: 1 L: 5 M: 3 N: 6 O: 6 P: 3 Q: 1 R: 7 S: 9 T: 6 U: 3 V: 1 W: 1 X: 1 Y: 2 Z: 1

It makes a lot of sense to reduce the number of Ss for the sake of gameplay, and it seems like Butts redistributed those extra tiles amongst the vowels.

Yes, my distaste for C is probably because I'm not a good enough player, haha. I received an email mentioning the CLARINETS heuristic for choosing tiles to leave in one's rack, and in that context the drop in C's value makes sense, as you say.

Interesting, hooking could argue for weighting letters at the beginning or end of 3+-letter words higher than those in the middle.

I was thinking that you could sum up the transition probabilities from the actual transitions available on the board as the main measure. Then you could use frequency by length to weight legal Boggle plays (3/4 letters and up, so 2-letter words wouldn't even count).

You're right that with a Boggle board you could just count up the available Boggle points by finding all the possible words, but that might miss some aspects of how hard the words are for a human to find.