NYT Spelling Bee 11-10-20 final

For those who got to experience 11:10:20 today as I did, what a time to be alive!

Today’s puzzle was another short one. That’s two in a row that I haven’t made it to genius.

There were lots of missed opportunities, and I may (but not likely) update this post with more later, but I’m racing against the clock to get this out before midnight.

See, I got an email back from the NYT Puzzle folks. The reply was essentially that if I’m having a problem with the app showing me the prior day’s puzzle, I can just close out the app and then open it back up to fix it. But that wasn’t the issue I’d raised. I was pointing out the flaw that it allows you to have fake Queen Bees by entering yesterday’s answers into yesterday if you haven’t yet closed out the puzzle.

It gives me confidence that the operation is run under Will Shortz, and as you know from the main page of my blog and many mentions of this name that my feelings toward this guy are extremely negative. The tone at the top, though, right?

Anyway, yesterday’s misses:

BEATIFIC: Blissfully happy. That was the pangram.
ABAFT: In or behind the stern of a ship. OK.
EFFETE: I’ve missed this loads of times. (of a person) affected, overrefined, and ineffectual.

I also missed FIEF.

And today!

Final score: 16 words for 48 points.
Genius minimum: 59 points.
Pangram: GODCHILD. Also CHILIDOG, but that wasn’t accepted as an answer. You know, just like HORCHATA and TORTA. Wtg, guys!
First word: DOGGO
Missed opportunities: DOGCHILD, CHILDDOG, CHILIDOG, CHILLDOG, COOLDOG, COLDDOG, GOOGOODOLL, DOODOO, DOGDOODOO

I think I’ve come around to the short puzzles.

This entry was posted in NYT Spelling Bee, Other Games and tagged , , , on by .

About raabidfun

I'm a guy living the #raabidfun lifestyle. I figured I would create a blog about crossword puzzles I do. The idea is to do the NYT crossword and the WSJ crossword daily as much as I can. That includes when I don't finish and have clearly failed. They can be difficult. Also I am not an attorney, and any legal analysis in this blog reflects my interpretation, which means it can be flawed and should not be relied upon for use in legal matters (especially against me).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s