111–120 of 122 posts
Or take all the fun away and just get it through browser console ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ JSON.parse(localStorage.gameState).solution
Or you can look at the source and see the list of words. They're sequential, so you know every future word. The "Wordle 222" is actually just the 222 index into the array.
/s
Or take all the fun away and just get it through browser console ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ JSON.parse(localStorage.gameState).solution
Or you can look at the source and see the list of words. They're sequential, so you know every future word. The "Wordle 222" is actually just the 222 index into the array.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you can look at the source and see the list of words. They're sequential, so you know every future word. The "Wordle 222" is actually just the 222 index into the array.
That's a real bummer. Is there any way the author can prevent this? Can he generate random indexes that don't repeat while keeping this random number generator code public?
I think Wordle doesn't server-side validate because of volume, and also because it's a fun little game and cheating brings you nothing of value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Posting with such assurance without knowing what the actual response would be, lmao. Very on-brand for HN (and myself too, honestly).
I blindly trusted the post’s claim that “Maybe” means “the letter is in the answer but in a different position”. If you use that definition, you’ll arrive at the same conclusion. The post should be updated with the correct definition.
Waiting for a bot that guesses based on Google Trends: * Wordle 218: https://i.imgur.com/PbYfLm6.jpg * Wordle 221: https://i.imgur.com/pTPbquL.jpg
But I hope the game is increasing people's literacy... They should make a version for SAT words.
I did something similar last week using the Twitter Stream API: https://github.com/basile-henry/twitter-wordle
It's not resistant to adversarial tweets, but it usually collects enough tweets to have an answer in around 1 minute, so it's not too bad to restart if some bad tweets were sampled.
Maybe I should try to use your wordle-tweets dataset to make it work offline as well. :)
This is a really cool approach, definitely did not think of trying this! If you'd prefer to play without the crowdsourced data, I spent a couple hours on the following dictionary search algo yesterday which can typically solve puzzles in 3-4 guesses: https://github.com/rgkimball/wordlebot
nice! i did similar, but used character frequencies in the remaining word sets to rank: https://github.com/keredson/wordle_solver
If I may make two small suggestions as a user, I noticed you have a dictionary with nearly 13k words which often results in invalid suggestions like 'clery' and 'meryl'. In testing I found the Scrabble dictionary to be much more likely to yield valid Wordle words (found here: https://github.com/redbo/scrabble), though the official Wordle answers tend to be an even smaller set of ~2,500 common words.
Second, though the implementation is very clean in code (much more concise than mine!), I found the use of the green/gray/yellow methods to be a bit cumbersome when adding constraints. You could wrap these three in a method like guess(word, reply) where your response encodes the feedback as something like [g]=green, [b]=black, [y]=yellow:
Given: [('arose', 27122), ('aeros', 27122), ('seria', 27095), ('riesa', 27095)]
>>> w.guess('arose', 'bybby')
vs.
>>> w.gray('aos') >>> w.yellow('r', 2) >>> w.yellow('e', 5)
You could even have the guess method trigger a new round of suggestions since the response implies that we've advanced a turn.