How I Designed My Perfect Connections, Solved

Perfection is in my job description. I lead The New York Times' flexible editorial team, a group that is relentlessly committed to perfecting the language, grammar and quality of our news stories. It's hard to turn off the switch, especially after work when I'm trying to follow distractions that most people find relaxing.

Like connections.

When I play, solving the categories in any order should lead to a satisfying win. But my perfectionist brain can't handle that. When I first started comparing results with a friend, we often found that we had both solved the game in four lines. Instead of congratulating each other, we needed to know who had the 'best' solution. WHO won?

“I have a new game within the game,” that friend, Sean, texted me one November morning. “Try to get the purple line first.”

“Challenge accepted,” I replied without hesitation. Then I immediately started thinking: what if I created a scoring system that encouraged solving not just the first line, but the entire game in a specific way? That would make perfection more elusive – and, by extension, more satisfying to achieve. It would also allow me to compare my results more objectively with Sean's.

We've been keeping score ever since.

The idea of ​​turning Connections into a head-to-head competition will certainly be polarizing for some players. Part of the game's appeal for many is how easy it is to pick up. So, you might ask, why muddy the water by adding a difficulty level and introducing a numerical scoring element?

When a reporter asked a century ago why he would want to climb Mount Everest, English mountaineer George Mallory is said to have replied, “Because it's there.” As an editor, I might satisfy my desire for adventure in less dangerous ways (think splitting infinitives and pushing the boundaries of The Times's stylebook), but my answer is no more complicated than Mallory's: this way it's just more fun for me.

Think of it as the rough equivalent of playing Wordle on hard mode, although I recognize this isn't for everyone. So if a scoring system is ruining the game for you, don't use one.

But if you want to turn Connections into a competition, start by finding an opponent who shares your competitive spirit. Then agree on some basic rules. The possibilities are endless, but I'll describe the system I've been using to compete with Sean over the past few months.

Each color is assigned a value based on its difficulty level. Purple (the most difficult category) is worth 4 points, followed by blue for 3, green for 2 and yellow for 1. A strikeout on a line scores nothing.

Each line is also assigned a multiplier, again in descending order:

Line 1 = × 4
Rule 2 = × 3
Rule 3 = × 2
Line 4 = × 1

The total for each line is determined by multiplying that color's value by the line's multiplier. Add the totals of the first four lines together to find your total score.

A perfect score of 30 requires not only that you solve Connections in exactly four lines, but also that you solve it in perfect descending order of difficulty, from purple to yellow. This is what a perfect grid looks like:

🟪🟪🟪🟪 (4×4 = 16)
🟦🟦🟦🟦 (3 × 3 = 9)
🟩🟩🟩🟩 (2 × 2 = 4)
🟨🟨🟨🟨 (1 × 1 = 1)
30/30 (16 + 9 + 4 + 1)

Pursuing a perfect score in this system adds a twist: you almost always have to solve the entire grid in your head or on a piece of paper before entering a guess into the game. And after you think you've solved it in your head, you then have to make a mental judgment about the order of difficulty. This is harder than it sounds because there is some psychology involved. You don't decide which category was actually the most difficult youbut which category the game editor determined to be the most difficult. Warning: you will often disagree.

I get my share of perfect scores, but more often than not I come painfully close. My most common result since I've been keeping track is a 29, a testament to how subjective this exercise is.

A full whiff of the first four lines will get you a dreaded zero, but it's theoretically possible to win with any other score. If your opponent is having a tough day and strikes out in four lines, even a pitiful score of 1/30 can still lead to victory. For example:

🟪🟪🟩🟦 (0 × 4 = 0)
🟪🟪🟦🟦 (0 × 3 = 0)
🟦🟦🟦🟩 (0 × 2 = 0)
🟨🟨🟨🟨 (1 × 1 = 1)
🟩🟩🟩🟩 (2 × 0 = 0)
🟦🟦🟦🟦 (3 × 0 = 0)
🟪🟪🟪🟪 (4×0 = 0)
1/30

When Sean and I text our results to each other, usually a few minutes after midnight, we omit the numerical scores per line but manually type in the total below the grid:

Connections
Puzzle#253
🟪🟪🟪🟪
🟦🟦🟦🟦
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟨🟨🟨
30/30

I'm actually more than a little surprised that I got a perfect score today. It took me a few minutes to figure out the wrong direction and solve the grid. But after I came up with the categories, three of them seemed to be about equally difficult. I wasn't confident at all in my guess for purple. Sometimes you just get lucky.

The more I play, the more I think that Sean and I can't be the only ones who have found a way to make Connections (or any other endeavor) more difficult. Have you ever tried to make something harder for yourself so that you would enjoy it more? Or do you associate convenience with enjoyment? Tell me your thoughts in the comments. And if I didn't ruin the game for you, show me your scores from today.