Don't Wordle[1] is significantly more interesting; I've got a solver but the maximum score takes my lowly python script upwards of a day (per day) to solve using brute force. For now, I solve it with a heuristic that terminates in about 20 minutes. My old wordle solver was useful to find a good but suboptimal tree for identifying the answer in 5 undos or less.
Today:
Don't Wordle 1491 - SURVIVED
Hooray! I didn't Wordle today!
..... 8089
..... 4647
..... 2492
..... 1026
.Y... 231
..G.. 100
Undos used: 3
100 words remaining
x 10 unused letters
= 1000 total score
My puzzle ethics are: you can and should download the dictionaries of valid answers and valid guesses, you're allowed to keep them separate, but you must not keep the list of answers in its original order.My favourite along those lines was solving wordle in 1 guess using the distribution of coloured squares on social media https://www.kaggle.com/code/benhamner/wordle-1-6
But I ended up building an alphaWordle, using MCTS and a reinforcement loop just to get a feel for how AlphaGo approach to solving games works.
It's not a 'smart' way to solve it, but its pretty instructive and I could compare its moves to the theoretical best move to see it progress.
This seems wrong to me, getting a 98%+ solve rate for Wordle is pretty common.
One letter per line is a lie.
wimpy
crowd
thank
fuels
Altering order might give faster results. The order presented leaves the most common letters (e, t) for last. Z is quite uncommon, q is virtually always followed by u, similarly common pairs such as ch, sh, and th, as well as three- and four-letter combinations ing and tion, though those won't show frequently in five-letter words of default Wordle.It would be possible to vary word choice based on revealed matches and hits, but if your goal is simply to solve (rather than minimise attempts), the above list works quite well.
We started using "Solve 100 Wordles programmatically" as our technical interview, and people _love_ it. They get really into it and have fun. It's pretty easy to do inefficiently, and it's great to watch people build on it and try to improve their scores.
It has two benefits: 1/ everyone clearly understands the problem 2/ people see it as fun rather than a drag.
The first page of the published paper ( https://orb.binghamton.edu/nejcs/vol8/iss1/6/ ) also claims that the game was developed by "Josh Wordle", so maybe it just isn't the highest-quality scholarship in the world.
(And amusingly I said "qpu time" when I meant CPU)
I mean, you had to give yourself an artificial constraint because IIRC the next solution was actually built into the page anyway, not obfuscated in any way.
Maybe it's harder if you're a careful player that doesn't waste the first three words.
To be fair, that is a 1 letter typo; the developer is in fact "Josh Wardle".
I only play on hard mode for this reason. My next guess must always be a possible answer based on my current information, and that varies the puzzle enough from day to day that I still find it enjoyable to play occasionally.
You can even go further—there's a set of 5 words which uses 25 out of 26 possible letters, leaving you one more word to enter the right answer.
But here's the thing: while that means you'll almost always win, your # of guesses will always be high.
> but if your goal is simply to solve (rather than minimise attempts)
Pretty much nobody's goal is to simply solve. Once they've played it for a few days, everybody's goal is to minimize guesses. That's the flaw in having a long word list—you always do badly.
I think "Solve 100 Wordles programmatically" sounds like a lot of work, so that'd probably be a "No" from me unless it was last hurdle for a job I was enthusiastic about but unlike "Write a program to solve this class of graph problem" I at least wouldn't be worried that you're trying to get me to do work for free.
Actually Wordle solver as Code Review task sounds like maybe a more interesting live interview than the one we do today. "Here's this mediocre Wordle solver, what is your feedback in review?" has the advantage that they've probably seen a Wordle puzzle before but it's not an example problem they've seen in fifty textbooks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/18/upshot/wordle-hard-mode.h...
Then we encourage people to do whatever they want next: improve their average score, build a frontend UI for it, solve on Hard Mode, etc.
In the past, we never did technical interview questions like this. We always asked people to bring their own project, and work the way they want to. However, with the addition of AI, we hit a wall: we want people to feel they can use AI in a way that mimics how they'd actually work day-to-day, BUT we also need a simple check to make sure they understood engineering basics.
I also impose this additional constraint on myself, which the game doesn't enforce, that I can't reuse letters that have been marked gray. Sometimes you just can't think of the next word, or might be tempted to use a gray letter because that way you could get more information from other letters, but I avoid using them.
Every day, millions of people play Wordle, the popular New York Times game that challenges users to guess a secret five-letter word. Using information theory, a team of researchers at Binghamton University, State University of New York, has developed a method to solve the game with a 99% success rate.
In Wordle, players attempt to solve a five-letter word within six guesses. At the start, players are presented with five blank spaces to play any letter of their choosing, with zero hints offered. When a player guesses a word – say “BRAVE” – the game provides feedback in the form of color highlights.
The player keeps guessing and is presented with clues until they guess the correct word and all five squares turn green – or they run out of guesses and lose the game.
The research team, led by Assistant Professor Congyu “Peter” Wu, applied Shannon entropy – a mathematical measure of uncertainty – to determine which guesses provide the most information. Rather than focusing solely on guessing the most likely answer from the get-go, their method prioritizes guessing words that provide as much information as possible to reduce the pool of possible words.
“Let's say you're at a certain guess. The previous guesses will eliminate a whole bunch of options, and based on the remaining options, guessing some words will send you into a trajectory where information gain is speedier,” said Wu, a faculty member at the Thomas J. Watson College of Engineering and Applied Science’s School of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering.
“A subtle but important insight from the paper is that a guess doesn’t have to be the most likely answer; it simply has to be informative,” said Donald Stephens, a doctoral student at Binghamton University. “By applying Shannon entropy, the objective shifts to maximizing the expected reduction in uncertainty rather than the probability of being right. In practice, this approach can lead to solving the puzzle in fewer guesses.”
Their method might seem more “random,” but it is more likely to lead to a successful guess by the end of the game. To use the method in real time, a player would need to run a script/program on the side. The player would enter the color-coded feedback that the game provides, and the program would spit out the next best guess to attempt to provide more information.
The team tested their strategy against a more traditional approach based on guessing common letters (e.g., “A”, “E”, “R”). In simulations, their approach solved 99% of Wordle puzzles, while the traditional method solved just 90%.
This research paper didn’t stem from a research study but rather a class project where Wu tasked students to demonstrate information theory to solve a problem.
Co-author Talal Aladaileh said that the paper’s growth from a course project into a published paper speaks volumes about the rigor, depth, and quality of the School of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering program at Binghamton.
“The courses here don't just teach concepts; they push you to apply them in ways that have real, lasting impact,” Aladaileh said.
Wu said that the project is a great use of information theory because it actively supports incorporating it to better perform a task.
“What is especially creative and valuable about the team's intellectual contribution,” Wu said, “is that it transformed a static measurement (Shannon entropy) in a scientific domain into a dynamic solution that helps accomplish a popular task better, which showcases the team's deep understanding of class material and their talent as engineers.”
The paper, “Solving Wordle Using Information Theory,” was published in the Northeast Journal of Complex Systems.