This thread centers around the daily Wordle game from the New York Times, where participants share their results, strategies, and experiences. The discussion includes personal anecdotes, strategies for guessing words, and reflections on the game's impact on cognitive skills.
Participants express a variety of opinions and experiences regarding strategies and the nature of the game, with no clear consensus on the best approaches or the implications of playing Wordle on cognitive skills.
Some discussions involve assumptions about the game's rules and the validity of word guesses, which may not be universally agreed upon. There are also references to personal experiences that may not apply to all players.
This thread may be of interest to fans of word games, particularly those who enjoy sharing strategies and results, as well as those curious about the social dynamics of competitive gameplay.
whew!gmax137 said:Wordle 858 5/6
There have been no NY Times Wordle solutions ending O in at least the last week. Yet my attempt that day clearly showed O as the last letter of the solution. So something is amiss.gmax137 said:maybe there's your problem, there?
Does the 'T' in your name stand for 'Time Traveler'?Mister T said:
Fun fact: The Wordle solution on the day the above happened, Oct. 24th, had been: CAUSE. And AMISS was on August 17th! Maybe there is more to that time travel thing than we dare to believe.OmCheeto said:
Oops. Never mind. I need a new brain.OmCheeto said:
Thanks.Noble, noble! And LOSER had already been used.gmax137 said:Wordle 860 2/6
EDIT: a Lucky first word, "LOSER" ha ha
Stupidly tried a word that's missing the "N" from word twoIt should be noted that it is not necessarily stupid to omit lettters you know are in the word. Many times it can give more information, allowing you to guarantee a solve where strictly keeping all known letters would not. This is why I don’t like ”hard” mode. It can happen that actually getting letters (which should be positive) reduce your freedom of guessing - making it impossible to guarantee a solution where you would otherwise be able to.gmax137 said:
Yes, and it would be a fantastic test to determine the personal risk aversion function (##\sigma (\mu)##). You give up a try, i.e. reduce ##\sigma ## to the expense of ##\mu.##Orodruin said:
Yes, I agree. But I have self-imposed the "hard" rules on myself. In this case, my third word leapt out at me, I thought, "oh I know, it is BASIC" and typed it in, not realizing I was not following my own rule. That's what made it stupid, lol.Orodruin said: