# Ratio of Memorization:Solving



## byu (Mar 9, 2009)

I thought this might be an interesting topic.

What is the ratio of your Memorization:Solving?

Mine is 35 seconds:2 minutes (120 seconds)

35:120 simplifies to 7:24 which is pretty close to 1:3.5, which means 1 second of memo is almost the equivalent of 3.5 seconds of solving.

What is your ratio?


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 9, 2009)

I haven't solved it for a while, but at my best, my average is something like 80s memo:110s solving.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 9, 2009)

My ratio is over 1.


----------



## byu (Mar 9, 2009)

What method do you use? It must be either very fast, or your memo is very slow.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 10, 2009)

When I was at my best (before I stopped practicing as of late) I could do:

3x3x3 BLD:
45 seconds memorizing : 40 seconds solving = 9:8 ratio

4x4x4 BLD:
3 minutes 30 seconds memorizing : 3 minutes 0 seconds solving
7:6 ratio

5x5x5 BLD:
8 minutes memorizing : 7 minutes 30 seconds solving
16:15 ratio

Chris


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2009)

3x3x3 BLD:
30 seconds memorizing : 50 seconds solving = 3:5 ratio

4x4x4 BLD:
3 minutes memorizing : 4 minutes 30 seconds solving = 2:3 ratio

5x5x5 BLD:
6 minutes memorizing : 12 minutes solving = 1:2 ratio


----------



## Pedro (Mar 10, 2009)

my execution is alway slower than memo, but I'm not sure of the averages
I can get low-20 to ~35 for memo
and anywhere between sub-40 to 60 for execution


----------



## Ellis (Mar 10, 2009)

My ratio is almost always around 1:1, I'm really bad at memo.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 10, 2009)

im not exactly sure, im inconsistant, my memo is sometimes 4 minutes and sometimes 6, and my execution is about 3 minutes


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 10, 2009)

50:80 = 5:8
I really need to work on my execution


----------



## TheBB (Mar 10, 2009)

Interesting. Looks like execution, and not memorization, as previously believed, is my problem.


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Mar 10, 2009)

3x3x3: 13/30
4x4x4: 1:40/2:40
5x5x5: 3:30/4:50

I really don't know what my average memo times are. On 4x4x4 it's normally from 1:10 to 2:00, on 5x5x5 from 3:00 to 4:20.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 10, 2009)

20-40 for 3x3?


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 10, 2009)

2 minutes memo, 3 minutes execution for single
10 minutes memo, 7 minutes execution for 2/2


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2009)

byu, in case you haven't picked up on it yet, yes, your case is EXTREMELY strange. It'll probably change fast now that you're switching to M2/R2. You should really be getting close to world class speeds, based on your memo times. Of course, so should I, but I'm not anywhere near it because I'm probably just about the worst at execution relative to memorization out there, other than you. 

3x3x3: 0:45 memorizing : 1:30 solving
4x4x4: 4:30 memorizing : 5:00 solving
5x5x5: 9:30 memorizing : 8:30 solving
6x6x6: 19:00 memorizing : 18:30 solving
7x7x7: 27:00 memorizing : 30:30 solving

It's really interesting to me how my solving gets faster and my memorization gets slower as I get to larger cubes, at least to 5x5x5.

On the really big cubes, it looks like I'm still not really comfortable with solving. I know I tend to REALLY slow down on the inner X and + centers on 7x7x7 - I always find those particularly hard to do. I don't think the obliques cost me much, which is why I'm still faster at solving than memorizing on 6x6x6.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> It's really interesting to me how my solving gets faster and my memorization gets slower as I get to larger cubes, at least to 5x5x5.



I think that's quite normal. If your memo is good and you don't have any recall delays, you can solve in almost linear time, but you definitely can't memo in linear time.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2009)

tim said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > It's really interesting to me how my solving gets faster and my memorization gets slower as I get to larger cubes, at least to 5x5x5.
> ...



Meaning you're quite abnormal?  Seriously - why are you so slow at 5x5x5 execution? You're a way faster cuber than me (even at 5x5x5) - I can't imagine why you'd be so slow at 5x5x5 execution.


----------



## dChan (Mar 10, 2009)

I average probably 2:30 memo with 2:00 execution currently. Of course, I'm not any good right now at BLD so it always changes up. Sometimes I get 1:30 memo on normal solves and then sometimes I just find it so hard to memo permutation that it goes up to 3.


----------



## KJiptner (Mar 10, 2009)

3x3x3 BLD:

Old method
25 seconds memorizing : 45 seconds solving
Memo was often faster. Solving was often slower. I can still use this method pretty well but I forgot most of my CO algs.

New method
45 seconds memorizing : 45 seconds solving
I will get faster.

4x4x4 BLD:
4.5 minutes memorizing : 4.5 minutes solving
Memo should be faster. Exec is sometimes sub-4.


----------



## Markus Pirzer (Mar 10, 2009)

Gparker said:


> im not exactly sure, im inconsistant, my memo is sometimes 4 minutes and sometimes 6, and my execution is about 3 minutes



I have almost the same times than you. I'm very slow at memorization, but I don't practise blindsolving much.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Hughey said:
> ...



Way faster? Not really, i average about 2:20 on the 5x5x5. And actually i've got no idea why i'm that slow.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2009)

tim said:


> Way faster? Not really, i average about 2:20 on the 5x5x5. And actually i've got no idea why i'm that slow.



All right, I guess, on 5x5x5, although I've worked REALLY hard at 5x5x5 (it's my primary focus in speedsolving), and yet I'm still about 2:45 average. My best ever is right around 2:20. So you're still a lot faster than me. And let's not even mention 3x3x3.

But do you have a lot of pauses while solving 5x5x5 BLD? It seems like you would have to, if you're that slow. And I can't imagine that's due to memory recall, based on your multi speed. I guess it could just be lack of experience - it sounds like you try 5x5x5 BLD very infrequently.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > Way faster? Not really, i average about 2:20 on the 5x5x5. And actually i've got no idea why i'm that slow.
> ...



Mhh, i've done about 30 5x5x5 bld attempts until now. I wouldn't call that lack of experience . And usually i don't have any huge recall delays. I'll film myself the next time i try a 5x5x5 bld to see where i'm losing so much time.


----------



## KJiptner (Mar 10, 2009)

Excellent idea. Even though you probably didn't mean that: I'd love to see new Youtube stuff from you


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 10, 2009)

tim said:


> Mhh, i've done about 30 5x5x5 bld attempts until now. I wouldn't call that lack of experience .


Yeah, neither would most people (other than me). 



tim said:


> And usually i don't have any huge recall delays. I'll film myself the next time i try a 5x5x5 bld to see where i'm losing so much time.


For me, I know I was losing a lot of time for a while on + centers. That was just due to the fact that I suddenly got relaxed and slowed down for no particularly good reason on + centers. I just made it a point to try to speed up on them and boom - a sudden 3 or 4 minute time improvement, just through willpower.

So filming yourself might really help - you might find some easy-to-correct thing like I did with the + centers. And I agree with Kai - it would be nice because of the side-benefit of getting to see another YouTube video from you.


----------



## TheBB (Mar 10, 2009)

tim said:


> I think that's quite normal. If your memo is good and you don't have any recall delays, you can solve in almost linear time, but you definitely can't memo in linear time.


Solving should always happen in quadratic time. The number of pieces scale as n^2 after all. I guess it's fair to assume that memorization is quadratic in terms of number of elements memorized, so quartic in this case, but this is probably harder to check.


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2009)

TheBB said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's quite normal. If your memo is good and you don't have any recall delays, you can solve in almost linear time, but you definitely can't memo in linear time.
> ...



4 cubes in 4:30 minutes
12 cubes in 20 minutes

12 = 3 * 4, so the memorization time for 12 cubes should be 9*4:30 minutes = 40:30 minutes. I don't think memorization is quadratic.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 11, 2009)

TheBB said:


> Solving should always happen in quadratic time. The number of pieces scale as n^2 after all. I guess it's fair to assume that memorization is quadratic in terms of number of elements memorized, so quartic in this case, but this is probably harder to check.



This is interesting. For pieces you can say that there are

6n^2 - 12n + 8 pieces to the n x n x n cube. Of those we expect the following number of pieces to be solved from the start (law of probabilities).

Of the edges or wings there are: floor[(n-2)/2] wing orbits. Each wing orbit is expected to have 1 piece solved after the scramble, and I mean mathematical expectation here.

Each center orbit is expected to have 4 pieces solved (this is using mathematical expectation, but using an approximate method that Daniel Beyer and I worked out when studying BH probabilities).

There are floor[(n-2)^2/4] center orbits, so this gives 4*floor[(n-2)^2/4] solved centers.

If you have an odd cube then you can expect one of the centralmost edges to be solved half the time (the mathematical expectation of pieces being in the solved location is 1, but it is flipped half the time). This gives 0.5 expected solved central edges. There are 1/3 solved corners expected by the same reasoning.

Let's assume n is even first to get rid of the cumbersome notation.

I am examining the following equation:

[Number of pieces] - [expected number of solved pieces] = [number of pieces to be solved during a solve]

6n^2 -12n + 8 - [(n-2)/2 + 4*[(n-2)^2/4] + 1/3] = (30n^2 - 51n +28)/6 if n is even

--edit--
Just realized that this approach is wrong on the even case, since you can rotate the cube to maximize solved pieces. Ignore the even case, the odd case is really the one to go by. I'm a bit lost as to how to approach the even case now.
--edit--

If n is odd you get

[Number of pieces] - [expected number of solved pieces] = [number of pieces to be solved during a solve] 

6n^2 -12n + 8 - [(n-3)/2 + 4*[((n-2)^2-1)/4] + 1/3 + 1/2] = (30n^2 - 51n +34)/6 if n is odd

Again this formula is approximate only because I don't know how to exactly calculate the number of expected solved centers. I only estimate it to be that 1/6 of each orbit is solved (every piece has an approximately 1/6 chance to land in a "solved" location if placed randomly on the cube).

These formulas count the mathematically expected number of unsolved pieces on the cube. These pieces must be memorized and solved. I was simply interested in knowing more precisely how increasing the size of the cube increases the amount of memorization and solving that must be done.

Chris


----------



## Kian (Mar 11, 2009)

about 1:1 for me.


----------



## Faz (Mar 11, 2009)

90:50
= 9:5

Lol memo.


----------



## TheBB (Mar 11, 2009)

tim said:


> 4 cubes in 4:30 minutes
> 12 cubes in 20 minutes
> 
> 12 = 3 * 4, so the memorization time for 12 cubes should be 9*4:30 minutes = 40:30 minutes. I don't think memorization is quadratic.


Well I did mean asymptotically. At least it looks superlinear.


----------



## stanleysabara (Mar 11, 2009)

mine is 120 secs memo and 80 secs execution so its like 1 : 1.5
my execution sucks because im using old poch for corners. i know 3 cycle corners but i don't want to orient corners because that will slow down my memo.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Jun 12, 2009)

Memo around 40 Solve around 100
Ratio 1:2.5


----------



## yoruichi (Sep 7, 2009)

memo: 18-20, exe: 28-32
ratio is like 2:3 ish


----------

