Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
1–10 of 181 posts
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#2Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I think it narrows the search space better.
If you want to go fancy somehow calculate with bigramms. If you guess c you don't have to guess k blindly too, etc.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#3Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I think it narrows the search space better. If you want to go fancy somehow calculate with bigramms. If you guess c you don't have to guess k blindly too, etc.
> Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position.
I haven't yet experimentally tested this, but I hope to soon! It may be that a green letter in position rules out more possible targets than a grey letter.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#4Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I think it narrows the search space better. If you want to go fancy somehow calculate with bigramms. If you guess c you don't have to guess k blindly too, etc.
> Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I haven't yet experimentally tested this, but I hope to soon! It may be that a green letter in position rules out more possible targets than a grey letter.
I thought of yellows. Taking frequent letters over words with sub-optimal letters but in the right positions.
But manually I'm no where close to 3.6 either :). Also often too lazy.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#5Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I think it narrows the search space better. If you want to go fancy somehow calculate with bigramms. If you guess c you don't have to guess k blindly too, etc.
If you want to get really fancy, a full minimax solution is probably feasible without massive resources. Pretend it’s a two player game with one player guessing and the other player thinking of a potentially different word for each guess subject to the constraint of being consistent with all previous answers.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#6It's interesting to see the edge cases where the algorithm struggles to find the last letter.
> shave: [slate: 20202, share: 22202, shame: 22202, shape: 22202, shake: 22202, shade: 22202]
I guess it needs to find the right choice of [r, m, p, k, d, v] to get "shave" (since 'v' is so rare it takes 6 guesses!). Trying "marks" and "paved" would narrow that list down in 2 guesses (and a third to actually try "shave")
Anyone code this up yet? (I haven't, I took a greedy approach too [0]). Wonder how to generalize such a plan.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I haven't yet experimentally tested this, but I hope to soon! It may be that a green letter in position rules out more possible targets than a grey letter.
I thought of yellows. Taking frequent letters over words with sub-optimal letters but in the right positions. But manually I'm no where close to 3.6 either :). Also often too lazy.
Yeah, I think my average is closer to 4, ugh! But the program has shown me some strategies that seem interesting. It always guesses "slate" first, and if that has no greys it guesses "crony", and that one-two punch seems to do me well fairly often.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#8Why not simply choose a guess which narrows the set of possible solutions the most?
This could be improved by looking one step further, but this would probably require some kind of optimization / heuristic / approximation to make it computationally feasible.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#9Why optimize for greens? Better to rule out more first no matter the position. I think it narrows the search space better. If you want to go fancy somehow calculate with bigramms. If you guess c you don't have to guess k blindly too, etc.
If you want to get really fancy, a full minimax solution is probably feasible without massive resources. Pretend it’s a two player game with one player guessing and the other player thinking of a potentially different word for each guess subject to the constraint of being consistent with all previous answers.
Somebody had already tweeted about solving it and finding that 3 guesses suffice, using alpha beta search (though he didn’t use the term “alpha beta” because he might have reinvented it).
Unfortunately, I can’t seem to dig up the tweet.
Re: Solving Wordle in 3.64 guesses on average, 99.4% of the time
#10It's interesting to see the edge cases where the algorithm struggles to find the last letter. > shave: [slate: 20202, share: 22202, shame: 22202, shape: 22202, shake: 22202, shade: 22202] I guess it needs to find the right choice of [r, m, p, k, d, v] to get "shave" (since 'v' is so rare it takes 6 guesses!). Trying "marks" and "paved" would narrow that list down in 2 guesses (and a third to actually try "shave") Any…
Yeah, I don't want to give the game away on my next program but its along those lines, and there are some challenges to making it work that I'm still figuring out haha.