S T E R N (0 green, 0 yellow)
P L A I D (0 green, 0 yellow)
M U C K Y (1 green, 0 yellow)
G O R G E (1 green, 0 yellow)
W O O F Y (3 green, 0 yellow)
B O O Z Y (4 green, 0 yellow)
B O O B Y (5 green, 0 yellow)
You guessed successfully in 7 guesses!
S T E R N (0 green, 0 yellow)
P L A I D (0 green, 0 yellow)
B O U G H (2 green, 0 yellow)
W O O Z Y (3 green, 0 yellow)
B O O K Y (4 green, 0 yellow)
B O O B Y (5 green, 0 yellow)
You guessed successfully in 6 guesses!
T R I A D (0 green, 0 yellow)
H O N E S (0 green, 0 yellow)
C L U M P (0 green, 2 yellow)
B U L K Y (3 green, 0 yellow)
F U L L Y (4 green, 0 yellow)
G U L L Y (5 green, 0 yellow)
Looking at the similarities, I'm wondering if the adversarial nature will generally lead to higher-than-naively-expected frequencies of:
Words with 'y', as people will tend to 'eliminate' the common vowels early, leaving 'y' as a 'substitute vowel' to fill in.
Words with repeated and doubled letters, as a round progresses and the pool ov available letters shrinks.
I wonder what other patterns might emerge from the ruleset?
After 14 failed quesses and only two letters revealed, I read your comment and guessed BOOBY, which left only one letter missing -- the correct answer was BOOZY.
Had you tried BOOZY, then BOOBY would have been the correct answer. It's dynamically filtering the list of available words and trying to prolong the game as long as legally possible.
