# Stackmat test - please help



## Sakarie (May 2, 2010)

Stefan Pochmanns review of the QJ timer showed that the ORDINARY Stackmat Timer, the ones used in competition, maybe isn't totally accurate.

He tried (2:50 in the video) to do 100 times as close to 1.00 as possible, and it showed that it had certain times that didn't occur at all. Every third hundredth of a second, starting at 0.92, didn't get any "hits" at all, while the other ones avareged around 8-9. Coincidence?

I did a hundred tries, and this was the result:

0.81	1
0.82 -
0.83 -
0.84	2
0.85 -
0.86	2
0.87 -
0.88	4
0.89 -
0.90	4
0.91	7
0.92 -
0.93	7
0.94	25
0.95 -
0.96	16
0.97	11
0.98 -
0.99 -
1.00	11
1.01 -
1.02	20
1.03	14
1.04 -
1.05	12
1.06	19
1.07 -
1.08	6
1.09	11
1.10 -
1.11	7
1.12 -
1.13	8
1.14 -
1.15	4
1.16	3
1.17 -
1.18	2
1.19 -

(Yes, I wasnt very good at it, but that's not the point.)

My timer does the exact same thing!! I have NO hits on every third hundredth of a second, starting at 0.89, until 1.13!! This is NOT what a as-professional-as-a-hobbytimer-can-be should be! Also I get no hits on 0.99, which very unlikely is a coincidence.

I want as many as possible to do at least 50 times try to stop at 1:00, in one way or another write down your result, and post it. Both me and Pochmann used the "new" one with two extra buttons and a line-in. If you are NOT using that version, write it down. The reason you should do at least 50 is that otherwise that the statistic is better with as large number as possible (100 tries take like 3 minutes, totally reasonable).

How to do it pretty easy in the next post.


----------



## Sakarie (May 2, 2010)

Use CCT, and plug in your Stackmat Timer. That way, you can just do it, and every time will be recorded. When you've done enough tries, you highlight all the tries you've made, and ctrl+c.

Paste it in Excel or equivalent, mark the column with the time, and sort them alphabetically. Count how many times you got the time, and write in the next column. When you're done, delete every row without a number of how many times it occurred, so the only remaining is what time it's about, and how many times that time occurred. Then, select both columns and sort it alphabetically again. Copy and paste into this forum, and add the times that didn't get any hits. 

I'm sure there are better ways, but this works. If you have a better one, please share it.


----------



## iasimp1997 (May 2, 2010)

I don't think that the extra 0.01 of a second really matters. Unless you get a 7.08 single in comp.


----------



## Sakarie (May 2, 2010)

In magic, every .01 is valuable...


----------



## plechoss (May 2, 2010)

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org...ears=only+2010&show=100+Results&single=Single 
It seems like every stackmat doesn't show this times:confused:


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

Well, I just analyzed WCA data to illustrate the patterns. Here's the distribution for 3x3x3 times from 10 to 20 seconds:







And here's the distribution for 3x3x3 times from 8 to 80 seconds:
http://stefan-pochmann.info/misc/stackmat/stackmat_accuracy.html


----------



## r_517 (May 2, 2010)

i checked 2*2, 3*3, Clock, Master Magic (all single) but only found one 9.99s
also there's no 0.99s in any results 

actually when my friends & i had a cube meet last year, we had tried a whole hour to hit a 0.99s, but no one made it


----------



## ben1996123 (May 2, 2010)

I will do this 50 times with a glow in the dark timer

0.95 - 4
0.96 - 2
0.97 - 7
0.98 - 7
0.99 - 4
1.00 - 4
1.01 - 8
1.02 - 7
1.03 - 4
1.04 - 1
1.05 - 2


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

r_517 said:


> i checked 2*2, 3*3, Clock, Master Magic (all single) but only found one 9.99s


There are four in 2x2x2 and one in Pyraminx.



r_517 said:


> also there's no 0.99s in any results



http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2006KUTI01#magic
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2006BUUS01#magic
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008HUXI01#magic
http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2007CHUE01#magic

Please, if you do something like this, do it right (you could've, this data is solely taken from the public export).


----------



## r_517 (May 2, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> r_517 said:
> 
> 
> > i checked 2*2, 3*3, Clock, Master Magic (all single) but only found one 9.99s
> ...



sorry i found i only checked the best single result:fp a big facepalm


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

And here's the decline over the years:


----------



## Stefan (May 2, 2010)

The most extreme competition btw was Japan Open 2008 with 887 solves and not a single gap time (should've been around 355, not 0).


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (May 2, 2010)

I have a feeling that is is just a coincidence. My timer does not do that.


----------



## Gunnar (May 2, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> I have a feeling that is is just a coincidence. My timer does not do that.



Can't really be a coincidence since Stefan's statistics are for all competition solves for 3x3. These results have been set on probably over a hundred different timers.


----------



## deadalnix (May 2, 2010)

This issue is known for a long time now. I remember having discused that with giles roux at least 2 years ago.


----------



## Sakarie (May 3, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> I have a feeling that is is just a coincidence. My timer does not do that.



I don't believe in girls, 'cause I'm not one.


----------



## Ryanrex116 (May 3, 2010)

Here are my trials on a normal speedstacks timer:
(Note: If I was more then .15 off, then I didn't count it.)

.85:
.86: 3
.87:
.88: 2
.89:
.90: 6
.91: 2
.92:
.93: 15
.94: 9
.95:
.96: 10
.97: 12
.98:
.99:
1.00: 7
1.01:
1.02: 10
1.03: 5
1.04:
1.05: 12
1.06: 6
1.07:
1.08: 6
1.09: 14
1.10:
1.11: 7
1.12:
1.13: 14
1.14:
1.15: 5


----------

