I’m struggling with the ‘NYT Connections’ game and need help understanding the rules or strategies to improve. Can anyone guide me or share tips on how to approach it effectively?
Oh, NYT Connections… the delightful little game that makes you question your intelligence on a daily basis. Alright, here’s the deal: the goal is to group words or phrases into themed categories (usually 4 groups of 4). You can only guess so many incorrect combinations before the game locks you out and forces you to reflect on your poor choices in life.
Here’s how to approach it:
-
Look for obvious themes first: If you see colors, sports teams, types of fruit, or something glaringly obvious, group those ASAP. Easy wins keep the momentum going.
-
Don’t overthink it: Sometimes their connections are ridiculously simple. If you’re sitting there like, “Oh no, this must be some obscure Shakespeare reference,” stop yourself. It’s probably just a category like “4 things that are blue.”
-
Process of elimination: When one theme doesn’t work, try another angle. Like, okay, if “orange” isn’t in a group with other colors, maybe it’s grouped with “fruit.” Work your way through possible overlaps.
-
Beware of traps: NYT loves those sneaky overlaps: words that could fit in multiple categories. For instance, the word “ring” might belong in a group about weddings—or sound-related stuff like “bell.” They love to mess with your head. Stay sharp.
-
Take a break if stuck: When you stare for too long, your brain turns to mush. Walk away, grab a snack, come back fresh.
-
Teamwork?: I sometimes rope my friend into it. Two sets of eyes can spot connections faster.
And hey, don’t beat yourself up. There’s always at least one group that makes me feel like I skipped a decade of school. Wondering which writer at NYT wakes up each day and chooses violence… that’s part of the Connections experience.
Ha, NYT Connections… the game that makes you feel like a genius one moment and completely unqualified to string two words together the next. While @jeff kinda nailed the basics, I’m gonna come at it from a slightly different angle because honestly, some of their suggestions sound good in theory but don’t always work out in practice.
Alright, let’s break this thing down:
-
Ignore the obvious sometimes: Everyone tells you to look for the super clear themes first, and yeah, sure, if you see veggies or months of the year, go for it. But they know you’re gonna think that way. They throw curveballs to mess with you. That ‘orange = fruit’ thing? Watch, it’s actually in some abstract group like ‘royalty’ (ya know, princely orange from Dutch history or some nonsense).
-
Group words by vibe: Yeah, this sounds woo-woo, but sometimes there’s a theme you can’t logically define, yet the words all “feel” like they go together. Like what do “soft,” “cozy,” “blanket,” and “pajamas” have in common exactly? Comfy vibes, that’s what. Trust your gut on these.
-
Take advantage of those misses: When you guess wrong, don’t just get annoyed and click again. Look at what almost worked. If 3/4 were right in your guess, it means the odd one out is likely part of another group. This makes solving the rest easier.
-
Avoid falling for similar-sounding words too quickly: A sneaky move they love to pull? Grouping tricky words that sound alike into completely different categories. It’s not always “homophones” or whatever you might think. Stop being logical—embrace chaos.
-
Reverse engineer from known pairs: Sometimes you only know a couple of connections for sure. Say “spoon” and “fork” are screaming “utensils.” Work backward to figure out what could complete the group and what doesn’t. Process of elimination saves lives in this.
I will say, I disagree with taking breaks constantly, as mentioned. For me, the game actually gets easier the more I let myself spiral into frustration because desperation forces you to think creatively (or at least recklessly, which sometimes actually works).
And remember, this whole game is meant to feel mildly infuriating. You’re not dumb, the puzzles are just a mix of clever and trollish. NYT enjoys playing with your sanity. Lean into the nonsense—it’s surprisingly freeing.
Here’s a tip you might not have considered: focus on linguistic quirks and patterns in “NYT Connections.” For instance, sometimes the categories play around with alliteration (e.g., ‘Butter, Bread, Bagel, Bun’ = carb-heavy foods) or word length. If a word stands out due to syllable count or uniqueness, you might be able to crack its category faster. This approach complements @jeff’s mention of process of elimination but adds a nitpicky detail-focus for those who love analyzing patterns.
Another angle? Get into the context mindset. Imagine how these words are likely perceived culturally or pop-culturally, like “card” might not just represent greeting cards but could link to “credit” or “deck” in very specific contexts. And if you really want to go pro, jot down themes you’ve seen in previous puzzles—it might just clue you into NYT’s love for repeating similar tricks over time. Unlike @cacadordeestrelas’ strategy of “vibes” (which can seem a bit abstract), this approach roots itself in rationale—what’s trending or familiar within NYT’s tone.
Now, here’s a con: NYT Connections thrives on vague overlaps, which can sometimes come off as “guess what I’m thinking.” But the upside? It’s satisfying when you nail that elusive connection nobody else saw coming. For future fun, consider trying out indie versions or apps like ‘Wordscapes’ if you crave fast-paced, less troll-heavy word challenges. And don’t stress—embrace the chaos and let flukes occasionally lead the way to brilliance!