Wordle

[gshaw]

Wordle 413 3/6

[gshaw]

Right, found a scale that works. Probability of a three or less taken from a scrape of 15million twitter posts I found.

Drawn on a rather large graph:

Gshaw - roughly the height of the Walkie Talkie

Me and Lsn - about the height of the BT tower

Gtp - about the height of the Natwest Tower

Dunners - 8 Canada square

Spike - The Bishorn (really very good, in the top 4% of players)

Tuffers last 31 games - Cruising altitude of Concorde

Tuffers first hundred games - There and back to the furthest galaxy observed by the James Webb telescope 10 times (corrected as I realised I converted metres to astronomical units as if they were kilometres initially).

Please take this with a pinch of salt and in the spirit intended. I'm sure there's all kinds of flaws in my methodology, but anyway you look at it tuffers scores are off the scale. I know you're not suddenly going to say it's a fair cop, so we'll put it down to my dodgy maths and up the O's and all that.

I initially read that as "height of A walkie talkie" and thinking "ouch harsh"

Model of consistency with my 4 score, makes sense as I pick the same starting word every time (so little opportunity of luck) and focus on iterating quickly to solve.

Wordle doesn't have a way to get a stat for it but I'd love to see time taken to solve in there as well. Quicker time with more guesses vs. fewer guesses but more thinking time. What say you?

[tuffers#1]

.

[Long slender neck]

Wordle 414 5/6

[BoniO]

Wordle 414 3/6

[StillSpike]

Wordle 414 6/6








Double bogey. I blame the hangover

[Mick McQuaid]

BoniO currently in low earth orbit just above the now defunct Envisat on my chart.

[BoniO]

- it’s all Kosher! Trust me, I’m a Doctor!

It does prove what many already know - you can’t rely on statistics!

[tuffers#1]

BoniO currently in low earth orbit just above the now defunct Envisat on my chart.

Are you still bothering people ?

[Long slender neck]

Are you still cheating?

[Mick McQuaid]

Yes.

As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.

For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).

For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.

[tuffers#1]

Are you still cheating?

Libelous ! where is your proof ?

[tuffers#1]

Yes.

As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.

For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).

For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.

Your biggest flaw was calling someone a cheat but ignoring a plumbers alledged admittance of dating a school kid

[Max Fowler]

Yes.

As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.

For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).

For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.

Also,

Wordle 414 5/6

[BoniO]

Yes.

As I've said I think the biggest flaw in my method, particularly for small datasets, is that people take a punt on a guess rather than playing the game logically. On larger samples I think it's much more reliable. Hence why everyone else gets a sensible score.

For context, in the dataset of 15000000 I took the probability from you would expect 255,000 people to match BoniO. His score is unlikely but plausible (more so because its only 7 games).

For your score, if every person on earth played a game every second for a hundred million years you would expect 2 people to have the same luck.

So we know one is Tuffers, who is the other one?

[tuffers#1]

Think you need to read this Mick

https://www.avclub.com/wordle-isnt-actu ... 1848303710
The annoying thing about anything going viral online these days—in this case, the Twitter-friendly word game Wordle—is that all the fun metaphors have gotten a little grim. You can’t talk about Josh Wardle’s hyper-shareable web game “sweeping the nation,” or people “catching the Wordle bug,” anymore, because… well.
Even so: A lot of people have been playing and sharing Wordle lately, in a way that in no way invokes any other things people have been indiscriminately sharing with each other of late. And it is, in fact, the rapid transmissibility of Wardle’s game that’s made it novel.

That’s not a knock on the game’s actual mechanics—which see you play a daily bout of Mastermind with a five-letter mystery word, using hints about your previous guesses to narrow down the search. Unlike many things associated with Chuck Woolery, the core gameplay of Wordle (derived from games that date back to nearly a century of code-breaking quizzing) has aged surprisingly well.
But it’s also not why Wardle’s game has taken off, and suddenly begun clogging your Twitter feed with all those little green and yellow boxes. Instead, Wordle has parasitically latched onto people’s brains—that one’s not depressingly reflective of reality just yet, right?—by lifting an element from another classic word game: the daily crossword.

Outside the genuine thrills of a well-crafted puzzle, the appeal of the crossword is obvious: Everybody gets the same one, and they only get one a day. The end result is a communal experience with a healthy underpinning of smug competition, one that Wordle ably replicates. It’s not for nothing that the game only took off for real in December, when Wardle implemented an easy way to allow players to show their daily attempt on Twitter.

Those little graphs of green and yellow boxes are about more than bragging, too—although that’s definitely in there. They’re also an invocation of shared struggles, as you look at someone else’s grid and see that they also got f*cked over by a surprise double-letter lurking in a recent puzzle.
What’s especially interesting about this is that it helps highlight what Wordle isn’t about, which is words. Yes, your vocabulary constrains the possibility space of the letters you input, and you have to at least have some grasp of English to find the proper solutions. But successful Wordle play is much more about figuring out how to game the solution algorithm. (Personally, I always start with “orate,” since it gives me data on three of the five vowels; I’m sure there are infinitely better strategies out there waiting in the weeds.) It’s similar to the way that Scrabble tests, not for vocabulary or literacy per se, but for memorization of a vast and specific set of letter sequences. (See also: Babble Royale, the other big recent revolution in online word games, which marries battle royale elimination mechanics to Scrabble to make a game that’s the tense, frenetic opposite of Wordle’s quiet simplicity.)
The real question, of course, is: Can Wordle last, or is this just another easily shared, easily disposed online fad? That core simplicity is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, every game is a low investment of time and energy, making it an easy inclusion in daily routine and habit. On the other hand, nobody loves playing a solved game, and the longer people have to learn the system’s quirks, the more likely it’s going to get reduced to a game of Tic-Tac-Toe with 24 extra letters to use.

For now, though, it’s shockingly nice to have a communal experience that doesn’t involve screaming at people on Twitter or, uh, dying. Here’s hoping it can hold out at least a few more weeks. (Or until my streak breaks, in which case, I’m out!)

[tuffers#1]

.

[Max Fowler]

Wordle 415 4/6

[Long slender neck]

Wordle 415 3/6

[StillSpike]

Wordle 415 4/6

[BoniO]

Wordle 415 3/6

[gshaw]

Wordle 415 4/6

[Mick McQuaid]

I'm calling it. After a review of available evidence, no way is BoniO's 8/8 legit.

Spike and Gshaw have each managed 3 in a row once (from 180 and 139) posts respectively. 8 in a row from a standing start is ridiculous.

Please join tuffers in the wordle sin bin.

[BoniO]

Regrettably, I can state that my 8/8 is 100% Kosher.

Seriously. No fiddling involved. It won’t last but at the moment I’m on fire!

[Max Fowler]

Boom!

Wordle 416 3/6