# How do you analyze+memorize?



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm wondering about an aspect of blindsolving, of how people analyze to memorize. Do you analyze+memorize...


*Along cycles?* For example you start at place *UF*, see the RB piece there so you look at place *RB* next, see the DL piece there so you look at place *DL* next, etc.

*Statically?* For example you memorize what pieces are at places *UF*, *UL*, *UB*, *UR*, etc (fixed order), ignoring the actual cycle structure of the scramble.

*Another way?*
Poll will be above in a moment, please vote there.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 3, 2010)

Cycles.

Does anyone do it statically? I think it's way harder...


----------



## joey (Mar 3, 2010)

Statically is probably easier to memo fast.. kinda.. but you can't solve it really like that.


----------



## LewisJ (Mar 3, 2010)

Haiyan and Ville both memo with cycles in about 10 seconds....not sure how static is gonna beat that.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2010)

Yeah, I also think it's harder. But also that it might allow faster memorization. The analysis for what to do next could be done while executing the current step. I'm not fast and I don't know how the fast guys are doing it, I saw Ville report a memorization in 6 seconds of a 3x3x3 with no pieces in place and it baffles me. And in the last two days I've heard twice about static memo, so I began to wonder.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 3, 2010)

I've wondered about this, too. Rather, I've considered static (by permutation?).

Also, how about "By algs"?
I memo visual, but I sometimes get a strong sense of the algs I use while memoing.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> Also, how about "By algs"?
> I memo visual, but I sometimes get a strong sense of the algs I use while memoing.



Ah, yeah, I guess I was a bit unclear. This is rather about the analysis than about the memorization, here I don't care about how one memorizes (visual, story, letters, algs, whatever). But I think the poll options make it clear what is meant.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 3, 2010)

Isn't it true that Richard Carr memorized statically, years ago? I remember Chris Hardwick talking about one of the early World Championships, and how the new thing was memorizing in cycles - apparently everyone had been memorizing statically before then.

Now I know there's some talk about going back to static memorization. Chris had a nice idea he formed with Richard Patterson about doing static memorization on centers of big cubes. I think there's some real promise in that idea. But only for centers.

I have to admit that I agree with LewisJ - I seriously doubt anyone is going to beat cycles on a 3x3x3, considering we've already established you can memorize that way in 10 seconds or less. (And I doubt we've even hit the limit yet!)


----------



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Isn't it true that Richard Carr memorized statically, years ago?


Yeah, he's actually one of the above-mentioned two guys from which I've heard that in the last two days. Hmm... I think I might've done it, too, in my first one or two solves, using Richard's method for the 2x2x2. But I made up my own stuff early on and don't remember much of what I did in the beginning.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 4, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > Also, how about "By algs"?
> ...


Okay, how about "by tracing"?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Mar 4, 2010)

Seriously how do people memorize a whole cube in 10 seconds? I understand it's a train your memory sort of thing but that's incredibly fast.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 4, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> Okay, how about "by tracing"?



Alright, now I have no idea what you mean . Alternative name for the "Along cycles" option, or a new option? Or something else entirely?


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 4, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Now I know there's some talk about going back to static memorization. Chris had a nice idea he formed with Richard Patterson about doing static memorization on centers of big cubes. I think there's some real promise in that idea. But only for centers.



To be clear, I had nothing to do with the invention of this idea. Richard Patterson is the one who is trying to make this a viable method. I am only there as support for Richard to bounce ideas off of, and eventually to test the method.

Richard is best described as my cubing coach  He is the theorist, I just try out the stuff he tells me to try out.

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Mar 4, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Richard Patterson is the one who is trying to make this a viable method.



Is he still active? Haven't heard from him in a long time.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 4, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> =Alright, now I have no idea what you mean . Alternative name for the "Along cycles" option, or a new option? Or something else entirely?


This?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 4, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> This?



Ah, yes, speedblind. Well, if someone insists that that's his main blindsolving method, he can use the "Another way" option.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 4, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Patterson is the one who is trying to make this a viable method.
> ...



Yes! I got to meet him at Chicago.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Mar 4, 2010)

I use cycles:

OFF - TOPIC

I am trying this new thing where I permute first and Orient later but only for Corners. I just tried it randomly and it dropped 10 seconds off my solves because now when I start I straight away do the corner Cycles and also memorization is easier because I remember the Corner Orientations in two groups, in the first group are those that need to be rotated clockwise and in the second ccw.


----------



## deadalnix (Mar 5, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> To be clear, I had nothing to do with the invention of this idea. Richard Patterson is the one who is trying to make this a viable method. I am only there as support for Richard to bounce ideas off of, and eventually to test the method.



Can you tell us more about this method ? Center memo is just horrible for me, so I guess I have to try another way to do it.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 5, 2010)

deadalnix said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear, I had nothing to do with the invention of this idea. Richard Patterson is the one who is trying to make this a viable method. I am only there as support for Richard to bounce ideas off of, and eventually to test the method.
> ...



Honestly, as much as I would like to discuss the method, I would rather let Richard bring it up here. Either that or maybe if he OK'd me talking about it I can bring it up. I don't want to steal Richard's thunder if he is close to something very nice, and I also don't want to let the cat out of the bag if Richard would prefer for now to keep it secret.

I will tell you that one of his methods is a static memorization method, but it currently lacks a good solving approach.

Chris


----------



## MarcusStuhr (Mar 6, 2010)

Looks like understanding freestyle may be the best way to go. XD


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Mar 6, 2010)

Ah, a poll with 100% on only 1 answer. You gotta be kiddin' me.
Why would Grandmaster P even ask, if the answer was so 100% obvious?
LOL. I can't resist going against the herdfest here - so I am voting my conscience,

CAUSE I'M NOT AFRAID TO CYCLE BLIND DOWN _STATIC ALLY_!!!

...


----------



## Stefan (Mar 6, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Why would Grandmaster P even ask, if the answer was so 100% obvious?



Because it wasn't?



reThinking the Cube said:


> LOL. I can't resist going against the herdfest here - so I am voting my conscience,
> 
> CAUSE I'M NOT AFRAID TO CYCLE BLIND DOWN _STATIC ALLY_!!!



Please clarify: Do you actually do it statically, or did you just want to mess with the poll?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 7, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Grandmaster P even ask, if the answer was so 100% obvious?
> ...


Certainly. It's just that people who frequent the forum often enough to answer the poll are especially biased.

Anyhow, the poll doesn't ask only for your main method. If speed BLD were an option and I could select multiple options, I would have.

reThinking: Do you actually do BLD like that, or plan to? It's not hard to be afraid not to do it.


----------



## tim (Mar 7, 2010)

I thought about it, but finding the cycles during execution wasn't fun. Memorizing in almost constant time is fun though.


----------



## Micael (Mar 8, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Ah, a poll with 100% on only 1 answer. You gotta be kiddin' me.
> Why would Grandmaster P even ask, if the answer was so 100% obvious?
> LOL. I can't resist going against the herdfest here - so I am voting my conscience,
> 
> ...



Do you actually solve the cube that way?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Mar 12, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Yeah, I also think it's harder. But also that it might allow faster memorization. The analysis for what to do next could be done while executing the current step. I'm not fast and I don't know how the fast guys are doing it, I saw Ville report a memorization in 6 seconds of a 3x3x3 with no pieces in place and it baffles me. And in the last two days I've heard twice about static memo, so I began to wonder.



This is a very good question, but as Lucas correctly points out...



Lucas Garron said:


> It's just that people who frequent the forum often enough to answer the poll are especially biased.



I will try resubmitting this idea, with a more "biased-proof" question.

...


----------

