# Video of the Blindfolded WR



## KJiptner (Jul 27, 2007)

Hey guys,

I'm sorry for the two weeks delay.
I'm very happy, that I'm finally able to share this with
you.

Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqZWVT82Ekc

The video also includes his second solve at the
competition.
The ending of both clips turned out a bit bad.
I'm sorry that you can barely see the solved cube. On the
second solve my girlfriend even pressed 'stop' too early.
But at least we have some footage of this. I hope you
still like it a bit.


Enjoy.
Kai.


----------



## joey (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks alot! I'm glad you found our charger!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks for this! It's very inspiring. I'm going to work extra-hard on decreasing my memorization times after seeing that. If he can do it in 14 seconds, surely I can do it in a minute, right? (I'm usually about 1:30 now.)


----------



## Jason Baum (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks for posting this! Matyas is amazing to watch. I love how he paces back and forth during his memorization. It is also crazy how he can memorize the cube in 13 seconds.


----------



## hait2 (Jul 28, 2007)

i am in awe.. screw my sub60 memo goal, aiming for sub 30 now (sad that it's still twice as slow as matyas, and looks nearly impossible for me)


----------



## tim (Jul 28, 2007)

Mike Hughey said:


> Thanks for this! It's very inspiring. I'm going to work extra-hard on decreasing my memorization times after seeing that. If he can do it in 14 seconds, surely I can do it in a minute, right? (I'm usually about 1:30 now.)



Me too . I memorized 20 cubes a few hours ago and timed myself every time. And i'm really getting faster. I also tried to improve my recall times, but that's not as easy as improving the memorization time.

And thanks Kai. You saved my weekend .


----------



## Karthik (Jul 28, 2007)

hait2 said:


> i am in awe.. screw my sub60 memo goal, aiming for sub 30 now (sad that it's still twice as slow as matyas, and looks nearly impossible for me)


Before you started Cubing,if you had seen someone solve blindfolded you must have thought even that is nearly impossible right?


----------



## hait2 (Jul 28, 2007)

karthikputhraya said:


> Before you started Cubing,if you had seen someone solve blindfolded you must have thought even that is nearly impossible right?



yes but mostly because I didn't know how/what's involved. At this point I know the information needed to memorize a 3x3x3, and while it's not a lot, I can't see myself doing it in 15 seconds ;( I mean, let's say I memorize my permutations at 3 pieces every 5 seconds (which, while not lightning fast, is pretty damn quick, at least for me). Assuming a standard non-lucky case, that would probably be about 25-30 seconds of memo. Then I glance over the orientations in about 5-10 seconds, so that would give me a roughly 35sec memo time

to memo something like matyas, you'd need to memorize permutations in 9-10seconds and orientations in like 2-4sec. i don't even wanna think about it >_<


----------



## Karthik (Jul 28, 2007)

Well yes I agree with you up to some extent.But thats not all that impossible unless Matyas has some sort of photographic memory.
Matyas are you listening?


----------



## hait2 (Jul 28, 2007)

i am going to work on another way of memorizing.. i am not sure if you guys have ever experienced this, but sometimes when i BLD, i can't say what the cycles are, but i can execute them because my mind knows it. it's like a complete blank during that time and i don't think, it just happens.

i am thinking this is some sort of short-term muscle memory.. so i will try to use my hands such that i will remember what movements they made while memorizing and do the entire solve in that 'blank state'. this should get rid of all the nasty business of imagining/converting pieces to images/recall/etc.

i don't even know if it's possible, but hell, i am sure going to try it


----------



## tim (Jul 28, 2007)

I think you are not able to execute as fast as Matyas does with a photographic memory.

It's really possible to memorize that fast. You guys know speed cards? It's a memory sport, where you have to memorize a deck of cards as fast as possible (and recall it in the correct order). The world record is under 30s. This means you have to memorize more than 1.7 cards in a second. And all this is done by converting each card into an image and putting this image at a location of your routing system.

And in order to memorize a Rubik's Cube you "only" have to memorize 20 (12 edges + 8 corners) pieces of information. If people can memorize 52 cards in 30 seconds. 20 cubies in 30 seconds should be really easy.

hait2: That's what i did for edge orientation. I often didn't know which pieces were unoriented. And it worked pretty well.


----------



## pjk (Jul 29, 2007)

You think he has a photographic memory? I doubt it. Just good method, lots of practice, and efficient. Very impressive nonetheless. He shattered the WR.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 29, 2007)

Is there any scientific prove that a "photographic memory" actually exists? I personaly don't believe anyone is born with the ability to "just remember" anything they see.


----------



## tim (Jul 29, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> Is there any scientific prove that a "photographic memory" actually exists? I personaly don't believe anyone is born with the ability to "just remember" anything they see.



dito . The only times i read about "photgraphic memory" is at the comments to a bld solve at youtube...


----------



## pjk (Jul 29, 2007)

Not sure... but from what I understand, some people can visualize things very well with no practice at all. They can look at something and then recall it all very easily. Those are the people referred to with a "photographic memory".


----------



## Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) (Jul 29, 2007)

*Photographic memory? NO!*

No, I don't have photographic memory. 
Just practice, practice, practice...


----------



## gillesvdp (Jul 29, 2007)

If I were to practice BLD, would solving 20 cubes per day be enough ?

(Damn that's about 1 hour for just BLD cubing..how am I gonna practice OH cubing now)


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 29, 2007)

20 cubes blindfolded in only 1 hour sounds like you already had a lot of practice


----------



## joey (Jul 29, 2007)

Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) said:


> No, I don't have photographic memory.
> Just practice, practice, practice...



When recalling what do you do? Some use shapes, some use 'lights' etc

For me, I dont really know what happens. I just know the next piece, its not always right though


----------



## tim (Jul 29, 2007)

He once said, that each edge has a category and he tries to make funny stories out of them.
A few days ago, i also started to use a memory system. If you recall your story/routes/... you see the image and just know to which piece it belongs. At first it takes some time, but then recalling isn't a problem with a memory system. But memorizing is one - for sure :/. It takes me about 100s to memorize 11 images/cubies. That's about 9 seconds per image. For recalling all those 11 images i need about 20 seconds. And that's faster than my execution time .
I think i should also give 20 bld solves a day a try .


----------



## joey (Jul 29, 2007)

I wonder if he still uses that method or if he has moved to visual.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 29, 2007)

cin said:


> I think i should also give 20 bld solves a day a try .


I've been doing 10 (successful) BLD solves a day for quite a while. (I started a couple of weeks before the US Open.) It really helps, but sometimes it gets to be rather overwhelming. I'm probably going to stop that now. But first I'm going to do 100 BLD solves on my flight to the Philippines.


----------



## hait2 (Jul 29, 2007)

Yeah, I believe Matyas has mentioned somewhere that he uses a story/image method, and has a somewhat ridiculous number of images for his pieces (i, for instance, only have 3 per piece, whereas I believe matyas has somewhere in the realm of 500?

Surely that must make it easy and hard at the same time, whatever pops first in your head, you can use, but with that many objects, there might be some overlap? i don't know..

when i memorize, i used to do this: look at the piece, determine its location, from the location determine the letter, from the letter determine the image associated with it, and then repeat 3 times. then visualize the scene.

now, with a tiny bit of practice (like i said, i only solve maybe 3-4 BLD per week), i can look at a piece, and instantly tell its image, then repeat x3, and visualize

i guess the next step would be, looking at a piece and instantly visualizing it in the scene=/ if matyas still uses the image system, then i guess there is no reason for me to switch after seeing its potential


----------



## pjk (Jul 30, 2007)

If you did 20 successful solves a day consistantly you would be sub-2 pretty quickly, of course you'd need to work on things daily like memo/recall, etc.


----------



## AlexandertheGreat (Jul 30, 2007)

20 successful solves a day? wow that takes practice
I'm still a noob at BLD, hopefully I be able to do 5 or maybe 10 successful solves in a day soon

that video was insane....thnx for uploading


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 30, 2007)

I can do 20 (unsuccesfull) solves within an hour 

Seriously, I am not going to tell anyone to stop enjoying cubing, but there really ARE other things in live!


----------



## gillesvdp (Jul 30, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> I can do 20 (unsuccesfull) solves within an hour
> 
> Seriously, I am not going to tell anyone to stop enjoying cubing, but there really ARE other things in live!



I hope that was not meant for me. 
(By the way, there is no way I am going to ractice 20 BLD solves a day )


----------



## Stefan (Jul 30, 2007)

pjk said:


> Not sure... but from what I understand, some people can visualize things very well with no practice at all. They can look at something and then recall it all very easily. Those are the people referred to with a "photographic memory".



- Name one.
- Explain why they never participate in memory competitions.
- People are sometimes amazed that I solve without looking. When I'm actually just scrambling or looking away during an algorithm execution. In other words, people often get things wrong. Often on purpose, in order to have something to say. Especially the media.
- Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it.

Matyas:
Do you use a mental route to store the data or do you just connect the data pieces as a story? I've always used routes, but at least for a single 3x3 I'm now thinking it's not necessary and slows me down. What's your opinion/experience?


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 30, 2007)

> Not sure... but from what I understand


That is the problem with "photograpic memory" everyone keeps telling that they *heard of* someone that has it, but nobody *knows of* someone that has it. Hearsay is not the same as prove, otherwise there would be definitive prove that god/heaven/hell exists just because a lot of people say so. (I am not saying it doesn't exist, I just don't know for sure. I guess that's why it is called believe/faith)


----------



## Johannes91 (Jul 30, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> That is the problem with "photograpic memory" everyone keeps telling that they *heard of* someone that has it, but nobody *knows of* someone that has it.


That's quite a common problem in cubing community. One good example is that people keep saying that you should never lube any puzzles with oil, even though it's an excellent lubricant (I've been using it for 2 years). I don't remember anyone saying that it has done any actual damage to chinese DIY's or other new cubes. They just say that it _will_ damage them.


----------



## pjk (Jul 30, 2007)

> - Name one.


I personally don't know anyone.



> - Explain why they never participate in memory competitions.


That is easy... why would they want to? 



> - Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it.


How is that insulting? That would be a compliment in my mind. Look at people who are considered "genius". They don't have to try very hard to understand things that most people really do. Is calling them a genius insulting?



> That is the problem with "photograpic memory" everyone keeps telling that they *heard of* someone that has it, but nobody *knows of* someone that has it.


Okay, well before I answer that, please define "photographic memory".


----------



## Karthik (Jul 30, 2007)

I would call photographic memory as the ability to remember abstract(photograph like?) without actually connecting it to something you can easily remember.
In the case of cubing,"photographic memory" would be like having a look at each face and remembering the colours of the cubies as different positions in the same image(not like a story/numbers/etc)
I dont know how cycles can fit into photographic memory.(If at all they do)

PS:These are all my understandings of photographic memory.I am no expert 
Interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_memory


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 30, 2007)

> Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it.





> How is that insulting? That would be a compliment in my mind. Look at people who are considered "genius". They don't have to try very hard to understand things that most people really do. Is calling them a genius insulting?


 
Calling a genius a genius is not an insult, neither is it a compliment.
Saying that someone (Mátyás) that does not have a photographic memory is so fast because he has a photgraphic memory (and not because he practised a lot) is definately not a compliment.

By the way, a born genius without training (schooling) might be capable of a lot, but will probably not achieve a lot.

Thanks for the link, I heard about this experiment before:


> Support for the belief that eidetic memory could be a myth was supplied by the psychologist Adriaan de Groot, who conducted an experiment into the ability of chess Grandmasters to memorize complex positions of chess pieces on a chess board. Initially it was found that these experts could recall surprising amounts of information, far more than non-experts, suggesting eidetic skills. However, when the experts were presented with arrangements of chess pieces that could never occur in a game, their recall was no better than the non-experts, implying that they had developed an ability to organise certain types of information, rather than possessing innate eidetic ability.


 
I would even go one step further to explain what I would call a photograpic memory: "A memory that works like a photo-camera. After a short amount of time (shuttertime) it would take a picture and capture the original in great detail. Recalling from that memory would be like looking at the picture as if looking at the original."

Memory can and should be trained and exercised. Nobody is born with the ability to memorize a cube in 12 seconds, a deck of cards in 30 seconds or 100.000 decimals of pi. Just like noone is born with the ability to run 100 meters in sub 10 seconds. Talent will only get you so far, training can get you much further!


----------



## AlexandertheGreat (Jul 30, 2007)

Yeah, I agree. If you look at any successful person in the cubing commmunity, or in any field for that matter, they always got there with a lot of practice, even if they did have considerable talent. The amount of practice required to achieve a certain level, however is unique to each person.


----------



## pjk (Jul 31, 2007)

> Calling a genius a genius is not an insult, neither is it a compliment.


Well, depends on who it is, how it is expressed, etc. The person being called a genius could take it as a compliment and at the same time the person telling them they are a genius meant to have it as a compliment. Your statement was too broad to be considered correct.



> Saying that someone (Mátyás) that does not have a photographic memory is so fast because he has a photgraphic memory (and not because he practised a lot) is definately not a compliment.


Hmmm.... where did this come from? Who are you directing it to? If it was to be, all I simply said was he didn't have a photographic memoy and it came from practice, which was info I got from Matyas himself. On a side note, if I tell him that he is a genius, I'd bet he would take it as a compliment.



> By the way, a born genius without training (schooling) might be capable of a lot, but will probably not achieve a lot.


That is so broad. There is no way you can say that truthfully. There would have to be a fine line on who is really considered genius and what each of them accomplished, which is nearly impossible.

anyway, lets get a set definition of "photographic memory" down that we can all agree in, and then I will tell you why or why not I think it is exists. In the meantime, I do think it exists, based off my understanding.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 31, 2007)

Nobody in this thread has claimed that Mátyás has a photographic memory (someone asked him though, just to be sure). It is just something that I have heard to many times and it is not often meant in a positive way. It is said more like a jealous statement, implying that "if I would also have a photgraphic memory, I would also be really fast". Apparently some people some to think that if you are really good at something it is because of a natural ability (talent) and not because of all the work someone put in to it (training).

It also worked the other way around for me. In my childhood a lot of people called me a genius and because of that I got lazy and thought that I didn't have to study to get good results. That turned out to be semi-true. Without studying I still got sufficient results and I graduated in 10 courses instead of the required 7 at the highest level of schooling (VWO). But if I would have actually studied I might have graduated top of my class or 1 or 2 years earlier. And some other students got better marks than me because they actually studied hard, not because they had a "natural understanding" of the courses.

Looking back I respect them more than myself!


----------



## pjk (Jul 31, 2007)

Ah, I see, and yes, I totally agree what you're saying. The general public (particuarly in America) does make many asumptions about things, like the cubing sport.

anyway, back on subject. Congrats Matyas!


----------



## KJiptner (Jul 31, 2007)

Johannes91 said:


> That's quite a common problem in cubing community. One good example is that people keep saying that you should never lube any puzzles with oil, even though it's an excellent lubricant (I've been using it for 2 years). I don't remember anyone saying that it has done any actual damage to chinese DIY's or other new cubes. They just say that it _will_ damage them.



You are right, I've used the evil, evil, evil WD-40 on the cube I've build this week. The puzzle did not melt away at all.


----------



## gillesvdp (Jul 31, 2007)

I think oil works vero good.
But now I am used to a silicone spray.

Just a thought: when you use one type of lubricant in your cube, don't use another unless you have cleaned every piece of your cube. A chemical reaction is always dangerous (and even more dangerous, your mix of lubricant might make your cube a lot less smooth to turn).
I speak by experience .


----------



## Stefan (Aug 1, 2007)

pjk said:


> How is that insulting?


Same as suggesting someone had a lucky solve when it wasn't.



pjk said:


> That is easy... why would they want to?


For all the reasons you and I go to competitions, and more. To meet and talk with similar people. To learn from others and share your knowledge. To get a measure for how good you are. To enjoy competition. To win prizes.

To get publicity to help sell their books and paintings (which they do!). Beating the world's best known memory athletes by far and collecting some world records would be good advertisement for that. Why don't they want that? First they write a book and sell it and then they don't want free great attention?

And the TV guys who make documentaries about them... why don't they ever make them participate in real competitions? You think the TV guys don't want serious attention? Right...

And look at this: http://youcantbeatme.com/gm/index-gm33.php
The guy sells a "How To Develop A Photographic Memory" course. Why doesn't he participate in the competitions? Why doesn't he want to be officially acknowledged? Why doesn't he want the free great advertisement?

I'll go with Occam and say the simple explanation is that it/they just don't exist.

You said you believe in it. My question: Why? Surely there's some reason why you believe in it. What is that reason?


----------



## pjk (Aug 1, 2007)

> Same as suggesting someone had a lucky solve when it wasn't.


I don't see any relation between a lucky solve and the photographic memory deal. You stated: "Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it." If they got it for free, that is great. But I don't see anything insulting. 



> Explain why they never participate in memory competitions.
> 
> For all the reasons you and I go to competitions, and more. To meet and talk with similar people. To learn from others and share your knowledge. To get a measure for how good you are. To enjoy competition. To win prizes.


Yes, I do agree that going to competitions is a good way to learn, get exposure, and have fun. But what if you have absolutely no interest in learning more, or spending money to travel to a competition, yet you are very good as memorizing things? Just one example that popped into my head now was that Marcus Stuhr issue. He was/is very good at blindfold solving, but he never really had any interest in going to a competition. From his view, why go to a competition? People on the forum were bashing him saying he was fake. Why would he care to prove them wrong... as it doesn't even matter what anyone else thinks about it. Yes, going to a competition would prove them wrong (if he was really legit), but maybe he has no interest in competing.



> You said you believe in it. My question: Why? Surely there's some reason why you believe in it. What is that reason?


Well, for one, I know that everyone has a unique mind. Some people can think and deal with things much easier than others naturally (for example, understanding calculus. Some people can't understand it very easily. Others can read a chapter and pick up on it right away). Genius' obviously can think differently than others as well. I have a friend who is double majoring at a pretty tough school, doing training for his future major, sits back and parties every other night, yet can pull off a 3.5-4.0 GPA every semester. Most people at that school single major, don't party, don't train, and study hours a night to barely get a 3.0 GPA. Obviously his mind is working different. All of this related back to a memory. Some people (I believe) have a stronger memory just naturally. They can walk into a room, and subconsciously remember nearly the entire room in great detail. It is hard to say whether someone has a "photographic memory" without defining a fine line between what is a "photographic memory" and what is not a "photographic memory". The fact of the matter is that some people can naturally do things better than others. Hence the reason why I believe a "photographic memory" exists, in the sense that some people can memorize images much much better than others with little or no practice.


----------



## tim (Aug 1, 2007)

It becomes a bit off-topic, but i also want to say a few words:
I doubt, that genies exist. Everyone can become a genius, if he/she really wants to become one. We are all born with a completely formatted brain. So everyone has the chance to become a so called genius. If your parents let you watch TV 6 hours a day, your chances to become one, will defintely decrease. People are good in maths / languages, because they are interested in maths / languages and want to learn new things. But why are they interested? Because they have something like an "interested in"-gene? I don't think so. I don't know the exact reasons, but the parents and your friends play a big role in developing such interests.
Why am i sure that no "genius" exists? A friend of mine was very bad at school, wasn't very interested in learning or using his mind at all. But suddenly he threw all his "bad" habbits away and started to juggle, program and to read many books. He became much better at school (with less learning effort), switched to higher schools twice and made a perfect graduation. And he overtooked me in programming skills within a year, damn .

P.S.: I don't like the word "normal", but i only spoke for "normal" (i mean non-disabled) people. And sorry for my bad english, please don't hesitate to say, if something is completely wrong .


----------



## hait2 (Aug 2, 2007)

cin said:


> It becomes a bit off-topic, but i also want to say a few words:
> I doubt, that genies exist. Everyone can become a genius, if he/she really wants to become one. We are all born with a completely formatted brain. So everyone has the chance to become a so called genius. If your parents let you watch TV 6 hours a day, your chances to become one, will defintely decrease. People are good in maths / languages, because they are interested in maths / languages and want to learn new things. But why are they interested? Because they have something like an "interested in"-gene? I don't think so. I don't know the exact reasons, but the parents and your friends play a big role in developing such interests.
> Why am i sure that no "genius" exists? A friend of mine was very bad at school, wasn't very interested in learning or using his mind at all. But suddenly he threw all his "bad" habbits away and started to juggle, program and to read many books. He became much better at school (with less learning effort), switched to higher schools twice and made a perfect graduation. And he overtooked me in programming skills within a year, damn .
> 
> P.S.: I don't like the word "normal", but i only spoke for "normal" (i mean non-disabled) people. And sorry for my bad english, please don't hesitate to say, if something is completely wrong .



i think you're confusing lazyness with stupidity  your friend was smart all along, he was just too lazy to care
im no genius, i might be a little smart because i learn things faster than most people i know, and never have to study or anything to ace my courses (i'm @ a fairly well-known university for those that care), but this doesn't compare at all to a friend of mine.

he is, i believe, the only genius i know. he dropped out of highschool because it was too boring for him. he used to do the tests halfway, never giving what you or i would consider as answers, because to him, what he left on paper *was* an answer. Think if the answer was 4, and you left it as 2+2. technically you didn't write the answer but come on, nobody's gonna say you didn't know it. same thing for him except on a more complicated scale. 
he plays chess blindfolded, kicks my ass at it (i'm not too good but hell, that's impressive. i wasn't wearing a blindfold obviously), among other amazing things, and he indeed does have an amazing memory. i won't say photographical because it's hard to define it, i'll just leave it at 'really really damn good'. and no, he's not currently a bum/blue collar etc. or anything close to it in case you were wondering of the consequences of him dropping out

and, because of this cin, i am pretty sure that geniuses do, in fact, exist, and not everyone is born equal, and there's nothing you can do. there's a genetic lottery going on and most of us are losers (don't despair though, we're only losers relative to the winners, and there aren't too many of those )


----------



## Stefan (Aug 2, 2007)

pjk said:


> You stated: "Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it." If they got it for free, that is great. But I don't see anything insulting.


If they indeed got it, yes. But I claim in at least almost all cases where someone suggests someone else has photographic memory, it is not true, and the person has instead worked hard to earn his/her skills. Thus in at least almost all cases it is an insult.



pjk said:


> Just one example that popped into my head now was that Marcus Stuhr issue. He was/is very good at blindfold solving, but he never really had any interest in going to a competition.


You give me a single person as example to explain why *none* of the people with claimed photographic memory *ever* go to competitions? That doesn't work. Plus Marcus doesn't work as example anyway. He doesn't claim to have superpowers. He says he's using regular memorization and solving methods like the rest of us.

An example from wikipedia for photographic memory: "could take a glance at a page of a book and recite it later, without errors, from the beginning to the end."

Compare that to reality, the record for memorizing digits:
http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/quick-memory/quick-memory.html

As you can see, the record for four seconds (which I'd already call a "long" glance) is 26 digits. Impressive, yes. But nothing compared to a full book page.

So we're not talking about people with "natural photographic memory" being as good or slightly better than the world records (as far as I know all achieved by people who use memory techniques and a lot of practice). We're talking about absolutely *shattering* the records *by far* and *with ease*.

I do agree people are different, like in your example story. But the tales about photographic memory are much more extreme. It's like claiming there are people who can run 100 meters in let's say 3 seconds. And why do *those* never go to competitions? I can use the exact same defense for that story as you used for photographic memory.

Also, nothing of this explains why people who make money from this kind stuff are not interested in the extra advertising. Instead of writing "He's really good" they could write "He's so good that he demolished the world's elite competitors at the latest world championship". The people who make money from this, who *want* to get attention, who *want* to be believed, why do they not simply prove it?


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 2, 2007)

Stefan: Very well explained. Hopefully nobody will ever think someone has a photographic memory after reading this. Apparantly conversations like this trigger your interest!



> We are all born with a completely formatted brain


 Hopefully not. Although a lot of primary functions of your body (breathing, circulation) are autonomous, they do require brain activity.

But I do understand your point and one of the best "scientific" proves for this is a Eastern-European piano-teacher that taught his children to play chess from a very early age. All three children grew up to be world-class chess-players although he himself wasn't a chess player!

When I met the Dzoan's I saw a lot of resemblences to that story. Their parents surely weren't born with a "cube-gen" and the likelyhood of them being so good at one-handed just because of a talent is really low. It is so much more likely that they are so good at one-handed because they trained AND motivated each other that I would consider that prove.

Another prove of training versus talent is Michaëlla Krajicek. When she was about 4 years old I saw her started training with her father and it didn't seem that there was anything special about her. But every day they were "hitting some balls over the net" and after a couple of years you could see that she was definately better than other girls of her age, but she couldn't beat many girls that were older than her and had also been playing for a couple of years. She and her father kept on training daily and intensified the training and now she is on her way to becoming a top 10 player. I don't think that has much to do with talent, but everything with training and motivation.


----------



## pjk (Aug 2, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> If they indeed got it, yes. But I claim in at least almost all cases where someone suggests someone else has photographic memory, it is not true, and the person has instead worked hard to earn his/her skills. Thus in at least almost all cases it is an insult.


I see what you're saying. The general public is incorrect with their observations, and I can now see why you take that as an insult. 



> You give me a single person as example to explain why *none* of the people with claimed photographic memory *ever* go to competitions? That doesn't work. Plus Marcus doesn't work as example anyway. He doesn't claim to have superpowers. He says he's using regular memorization and solving methods like the rest of us.


Why doesn't 1 example work? And I wasn't using him as an example to say he had superpowers of any sort. I was using him as an example to show that people with very good skills of a certain subject may not be interested in competing, even if they are the best in the world. I am not saying that was the case, but it is true.



> An example from wikipedia for photographic memory: "could take a glance at a page of a book and recite it later, without errors, from the beginning to the end."


Well, everything on Wikipedia isn't correct, so we can't necessarily go by that. However, if we did go by that definition, you would have to define "glance" and the font size of the book and/or # of words/length of words, etc. Obviously looking at a page in 10 seconds with 50 lines and memorizing is most likely not reality. But memorizing say 5 words a second for 10 seconds is possible. For some people, that may take years of practice. From my view and thoughts, I do believe there are people out there that can do that with no practice, and can do that as a natural skill. As I explained in the previous post, people have unique minds, which leads me to believe that this is possible.



> Compare that to reality, the record for memorizing digits:
> http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/quick-memory/quick-memory.html
> 
> As you can see, the record for four seconds (which I'd already call a "long" glance) is 26 digits. Impressive, yes. But nothing compared to a full book page.


Well, this is tough to compare to the book deal without defining what I said above. Remember, we can't really go directly by the info on Wiki, because some of it is bogus.



> So we're not talking about people with "natural photographic memory" being as good or slightly better than the world records (as far as I know all achieved by people who use memory techniques and a lot of practice). We're talking about absolutely *shattering* the records *by far* and *with ease*.


What if someone with no practice at all could match or come very close to the World Records? Would that be considered a "photographic memory"? I would make a bet that there are over 250 people in the world today that could do that. Also, what if the WR holder could memo 10 digits in 1 second with no practice, and then it took him years of practice to get to 13 digits.... would he be considered to have a photographic memory?



> I do agree people are different, like in your example story. But the tales about photographic memory are much more extreme. It's like claiming there are people who can run 100 meters in let's say 3 seconds. And why do *those* never go to competitions? I can use the exact same defense for that story as you used for photographic memory.


Comparing memory to a 100 meter dash is not good. To me, those are 2 totally different things. I often see people comparing those, when in my opinion, that shouldn't be done. The mind is so much more mysterious than the phyical outside of the human body. Yes, there are people born natually athletic. But a muscle is proven to need work before it strengths. That is *not* the case with the mind.



> Also, nothing of this explains why people who make money from this kind stuff are not interested in the extra advertising. Instead of writing "He's really good" they could write "He's so good that he demolished the world's elite competitors at the latest world championship". The people who make money from this, who *want* to get attention, who *want* to be believed, why do they not simply prove it?


Well, this all leads back to "if you're so good, why don't you compete?". Well, that is easy, you don't want to. It is simple.


----------



## Karthik (Aug 3, 2007)

I think this discussion of ours about whether "Photographic Memory" exits or not will not lead to a conclusion.This is like the case of UFOs and extra-terrestrial life.People claim to have seen them.But I wont believe it until I see it myself.But I am compelled to think that extra-terrestrial life may exist by the fact that there are 10^21 stars and at least one of these will have an earth-like planet where life exists.
It is the same with "Photographic Memory".I haven't actually seen anyone have real photographic memory(as defined by Arnaud),but I have heard and read so much about the existence of it that I am forced to give it's existence a second thought.
As for Matyas,I never meant to insult him(If that is what anyone thinks).I really respect him for what he has achieved.But the video is so ridiculously fast that I thought that it was way beyond regular memory techniques(Now I know it is not).In fact when I showed the video to some of my friends they tried all possible "tricks" to prove that it was a fake!Though the WCA stats convinced them finally.


----------



## Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) (Aug 3, 2007)

Oh my god! You REALLY can talk about that? pfff... :S


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 3, 2007)

Hopefully most of you will know this program: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html

Just because almost everyone says something it is not necessarily true. Just remember this:
500 years ago, everyone thought the earth was flat (like a pancake)
Currently, everyone thinks the earth is round (like a pancake )


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2007)

pjk said:


> Why doesn't 1 example work?


Because there are many great cubers who *do* compete. So one example only shows that not 100% of all serious cubers want to compete. But I think most want to, at least 90%. Claimed photographic memorizers however have a 0% appearance rate. You can't explain 0% with 90%.

Btw, did Marcus really say he doesn't want to go to competitions? As far as I know, he wasn't desperate to, but expressed some interest and wanted to try to go to one.



pjk said:


> Well, everything on Wikipedia isn't correct


It's not just Wikipedia. You can find these tales in so many places.



pjk said:


> Obviously looking at a page in 10 seconds with 50 lines and memorizing is most likely not reality.


But that's what people claim over and over again. Some claim even much more, for example:
http://www.execuread.com/press_media.htm

_"Louise Howell, 42, a mother of twins and member of IT giant CS Holdings marketing team, earlier read a 30 000 word book about Albert Einstein in 12s. Following that, she wrote a comprehension test and scored 95%."_

These people offer courses to teach people to read superduperfast. They make money with it. Why don't they want the great advertisement that shattering world records would provide? (note I'm slightly digressing towards "speedreading" or "photoreading" here, but it's a closely related topic).



pjk said:


> But memorizing say 5 words a second for 10 seconds is possible.


Even if that were true, what does that have to do with the fantastic tales we hear about photographic memory and the vast amounts of memorized data? Nothing.



pjk said:


> But a muscle is proven to need work before it strengths.


Yeah, the people I know who run the 100 meters in 3 seconds did work for it. So what?



pjk said:


> Well, this all leads back to "if you're so good, why don't you compete?". Well, that is easy, you don't want to. It is simple.


No, my question is "if you're so good, and you make money with it, why don't you compete and get the great advertisement?" (besides all the other good reasons). And don't forget the people who offer to teach you this stuff in courses or books, or the media covering that subject. You tell me these guys just don't want the attention?



Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) said:


> Oh my god! You REALLY can talk about that? pfff... :S


Yeah I know... I should better use the time to improve my cubing. Will stop now.


----------



## pjk (Aug 3, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> Claimed photographic memorizers however have a 0% appearance rate.


Can you prove that ?



> Btw, did Marcus really say he doesn't want to go to competitions? As far as I know, he wasn't desperate to, but expressed some interest and wanted to try to go to one.


Not sure, just from my understanding I used him as an example.



> It's not just Wikipedia. You can find these tales in so many places.


Yes, the internet is full of junk. I am not saying it isn't 100% real, but I don't believe that, so why should I argue for it?



> ut that's what people claim over and over again. Some claim even much more, for example:
> http://www.execuread.com/press_media.htm
> 
> _"Louise Howell, 42, a mother of twins and member of IT giant CS Holdings marketing team, earlier read a 30 000 word book about Albert Einstein in 12s. Following that, she wrote a comprehension test and scored 95%."_
> ...


That is called "bait" in my mind. You make up a false story that will get attention, and then make money from it. I don't believe in this, so why should I argue it?



> I guess that's true, but what does that have to do with the fantastic tales we hear about photographic memory and the vast amounts of memorized data? Nothing.


That is a vast amount of data in a short amount of time. People can do that without any practice (PM), in my mind.



> Yeah, the people I know who run the 100 meters in 3 seconds did work for it. So what?


You replied to only half of my statement, I said: " But a muscle is proven to need work before it strengths. That is *not* the case with the mind." The reason I said that was that you are comparing two unlike things of this matter, you can't do that.



> No, my question is "if you're so good, and you make money with it, why don't you compete and get the great advertisement?" (besides all the other good reasons). And don't forget the people who offer to teach you this stuff in courses or books, or the media covering that subject. You tell me these guys just don't want the attention?


Simple, no interest. Yes, people would rather not put up with the hassle and time, and couldn't care less about the media. Yes, the majority of the popular would care, but some people couldn't care less.



> Yeah I know... I should better use the time to improve my cubing. Will stop now.


These replies take like 3 minutes . And yeah, I should probably be practicing too.


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 3, 2007)

pjk said:


> These replies take like 3 minutes


Ah, that explains why your posts aren't really making sense to me.


----------



## pjk (Aug 3, 2007)

Post a couple things that you need help understanding.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2007)

pjk said:


> people would rather not put up with the hassle and time, and couldn't care less about the media.


I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean PMers seeking attention (of the media), but *the media* seeking attention (of the public). You say the media doesn't want attention? Have you watched any of the documentaries about the subject?


----------



## pjk (Aug 3, 2007)

Of couse the media wants attention, that is what the media is. I don't see how that is related to this at all. My point is, someone with a PM may not want to compete, for whatever reasons.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2007)

Have you watched any of the documentaries about the subject?


----------



## pjk (Aug 3, 2007)

About PM? No.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 3, 2007)

And that explains why you don't see the point about the media.


----------



## pjk (Aug 3, 2007)

Okay. I am guessing you have seen a PM documentary then, if you can speak for it. If you are talking about the media in general w/ documentaries, then I think I know what you are talking about.


----------



## Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) (Aug 3, 2007)

I'm bursting into tears...


----------



## pjk (Aug 4, 2007)

Matyas, do you believe a photographic memory exists?


----------



## Lofty (Aug 4, 2007)

wow this has definitely inspired me to want to learn how to BLD solve.
Ok so what about savants, people like Kim Peek? Is his memory not as good as I have heard in the documenteries about him? I think a photographic memory does exist. Some people are just born smarter than others...that should not insult either those born with it nor those who got there from practice, both are incredible.


----------



## aznblur (Aug 5, 2007)

Something awesome my friend said 2 years ago. 

"Everyone has photographic memory, its just that some people actually have film"


----------



## Stefan (Aug 5, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> I guess that's true [that it's possible to memorize 50 words in 10 seconds]


I take that back. When I said that, I somehow had reading books (or this forum) in mind. But here's what 50 words might look like if you don't impose the artificial restriction of meaningfulness:

_however for toys grace hold opening pinion processing gnash thickened avail illustrations accommodation collided vision torturing unalteredly intersystem spurs specfies ask inquire That goggle restaurants skulk That municipality sport heat bursting dimensioning the turn throw mushroom aids distributed copies bitter nonentities wades rape festers can astronaut desponded discrimination ankle describing_

I don't think anybody can memorize that in 10 seconds.


----------



## pjk (Aug 5, 2007)

The WR for 1 second is 19 digits. 5 words a second seems possible, and for sure if you have a PM .


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 5, 2007)

pjk said:


> 5 words a second seems possible


5 words in 1 second is not the same as 50 words in 10 seconds.


----------



## tim (Aug 5, 2007)

Memorizing digits is "easy" compared to memorizing words. You have a couple of images for each number from (usally) 1 to 99. But you can't have images for each word .


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 5, 2007)

Cohesion is necessary for quick/easy memorization... Like chess (as Arnaud already pulled the quote out).


----------



## pjk (Aug 6, 2007)

> 5 words in 1 second is not the same as 50 words in 10 seconds.


Johannes, you never replied to my last reply to your post. Please explain when you post, as I am unsure what you needed help understanding, and what you mean here.

Of course it isn't the same, but it is a similar rate to keep the same amount of memo over that period. That is obvious. What was your point?



> Memorizing digits is "easy" compared to memorizing words.


Definitely an opinion there.



> You have a couple of images for each number from (usally) 1 to 99. But you can't have images for each word


Who says you have to use images?


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 6, 2007)

I've been following this thread and wanted to post that I also don't beleive that anyone with a photographic memory exists. The definition of photographic memory that I have heard as the ability to remember every stimulus and sensory input you receive and have ever received. I think there are people like Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet with an extraordinary ability to remember more than most people, but I don't think they remember everything.

I do think different people have different natural abilities, especially when it comes to memory and just general intelligence. I like to think it's possible for someone even of average ability to train/learn enough to equal or at least come close to those with natural ability.

I think there is a barrier though. I mean look at the 100 meter dash as just one example, and yes I know this was already brought up but I like to use it too. There are people who simply have the right physique/body style and the training and the drive to succeed which is a powerful combination. I think at some point you can't catch up to someone who has natural ability and training in combination. That is just my opinion, but based on the olympics and other sports where people of different heights/physiques can excel in ways that others can't it seems at least possible that some people's brains are just able to think/learn much better than others. Give someone like that a drive to succeed too and I think there is a point where someone without that natural ability just can't catch up, even with the same or greater amount of training.

Chris


----------



## pjk (Aug 6, 2007)

Hey Chris, I was curious about what you thought on this, glad you posted.


> The definition of photographic memory that I have heard as the ability to remember every stimulus and sensory input you receive and have ever received.


Well, if that is the case, I would say it doesn't exist either. That definition is certainly not my understanding of a PM.



> I think there are people like Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet with an extraordinary ability to remember more than most people, but I don't think they remember everything.


Well, of course. I'd have to agree. But if they naturally can remember an enormous amount info/images/data (with little or no practice), then I believe they have a PM, from my understanding of a PM. A PM in my mind is someone who can naturally see, remember and recall large amounts of data with little or no practice. I'd have to define the word "large", but I am basically talking about data close or beyond what many the best memory champions can do (in that sense, it doesn't have to be digits and whatnot).



> I do think different people have different natural abilities, especially when it comes to memory and just general intelligence. I like to think it's possible for someone even of average ability to train/learn enough to equal or at least come close to those with natural ability.


I totally agree.

Overall on this matter, I think our views are really based off what a PM memory is. Just as an example, I totally agree with Chris based off what he said. There are 2 discrepancies though::
1) his understanding of a PM vs. my understanding of a PM
2) he believes a PM does not exist while I believe it does exist


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 6, 2007)

pjk said:


> Johannes, you never replied to my last reply to your post. Please explain when you post, as I am unsure what you needed help understanding


Because I was in a big blitz tournament last weekend and didn't have time to reply (I won 21 games in a row, btw).

I don't understand they way you think in some of your posts. Just an example, Stefan said:


> Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it.


This is plain obvious to me and, of course, I agree. But you didn't get it, compared it to calling someone a genius, etc.. I didn't understand your point at all. If you only spend 3 minutes to write these posts, then I understand that you don't really think about what you (and others) are saying.



pjk said:


> and what you mean here. Of course it isn't the same, but it is a similar rate to keep the same amount of memo over that period.


But that period is 10 times longer, and that was my point. I can memorize 13-14 digits in 1 second, but I can't memorize 16 in 2 seconds or 20 in 3 seconds.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 6, 2007)

pjk said:


> Of course it isn't the same, but it is a similar rate to keep the same amount of memo over that period.


Can Asafa Powell and Justin Gatlin run a marathon in 69 minutes?



Johannes91 said:


> I can memorize 13-14 digits in 1 second, but I can't memorize 16 in 2 seconds or 20 in 3 seconds.


Dude, check your math. With 13 digits in 1 second you're not supposed to memorize 16 in 2, or 20 in 3. You're supposed to memorize 26 in 2 and 39 in 3.


----------



## hait2 (Aug 6, 2007)

all of these memorization records etc.. how does this work exactly? I'm particularly interested in that 19digits in 1 sec record. what is the time between memorization and recall? unless it's a significant amount (a few days, maybe a week), then i don't see how you can claim you have memorized it, if you're only forced to recall it maybe a mere 10 minutes later

edit: also the recall, how is this done? if it's just a mere reciting of the numbers, that's far less impressive than answering "what is the 12th number?" "what is the 4th number?" etc in no particular order.

anyone shed light on this?


----------



## pjk (Aug 6, 2007)

> Because I was in a big blitz tournament last weekend and didn't have time to reply (I won 21 games in a row, btw).


Ah, okay, no problem. Just was curious since you had replied to this post again prior to replying to my reply. Congrats on the 21 btw.



> -Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it.
> 
> This is plain obvious to me and, of course, I agree. But you didn't get it, compared it to calling someone a genius, etc.. I didn't understand your point at all.


Saying something is an insult is really based off who you are saying it to, how it was expressed, etc. You can't say it is an insult, because to some people it isn't. If you are referring to yourself as taking it as an insult, that is understandable.



> If you only spend 3 minutes to write these posts, then I understand that you don't really think about what you (and others) are saying.


Notice I said it takes me 3 minutes to *write*. Eventhough this is unrelated, I do indeed read all the posts and if you need more help understanding, just ask. I don't think Stefan had a hard time, but either way, he didn't ask for help (assuming he understood). 



> But that period is 10 times longer, and that was my point. I can memorize 13-14 digits in 1 second, but I can't memorize 16 in 2 seconds or 20 in 3 seconds.


I see what you're saying. I should have rephrased my statement there, as it was incorrect.



> Can Asafa Powell and Justin Gatlin run a marathon in 69 minutes?


Not sure who either of them are, but you are comparing a muscle attribute to a mind. As I described before, I don't think those are comparable for this matter. Physically running is totally different from memory (mind).


----------



## Stefan (Aug 6, 2007)

pjk said:


> Not sure who either of them are


Only the world record holders for running 100 meters.



pjk said:


> I don't think those are comparable for this matter. Physically running is totally different from memory (mind).


Try to abstract and see the underlying general scalabilty issue.

Two forum suggestions:
- Please don't omit the message authors/numbers when you quote. I do want to see who wrote the quote and I do want the possibility to jump to the original message. At least as long as this is necessary because of:
- Please turn nested quoting on (or can I do this myself somehow?). I know perfectly well what to quote and what not to quote, but the system treats me like a baby and doesn't let me.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 6, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> Please turn nested quoting on (or can I do this myself somehow?). I know perfectly well what to quote and what not to quote, but the system treats me like a baby and doesn't let me.
> 
> 
> it said:
> ...



I believe it does work. But you have type it in manually.


----------



## pjk (Aug 6, 2007)

Okay Stefan, I will put the name in from now on for you.



StefanPochmann said:


> Try to abstract and see the underlying general scalabilty issue.


I know what you are getting at, but it doesn't work. As I have mentioned before, you don't necessarily have to exercise your mind to make it powerful. Some people naturally have a very "strong" brain. Muscles have to be worked to become "strong". That is the reason why you can't compare, but PM is a natural thing, in my mind.


----------



## Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) (Aug 9, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> Will stop now.



You didn't stop.


----------



## Karthik (Aug 11, 2007)

Matyas: Not only your memo,but your execution is also superfast.Can you please list the algs you use.I know the list must be pretty exhaustive, but still can you list atleast a few "good" ones.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 11, 2007)

Mátyás Kuti(shaipo) said:


> You didn't stop.


 
So sue me.


----------



## Kristoffer Absalonsen (Aug 26, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> I take that back. When I said that, I somehow had reading books (or this forum) in mind. But here's what 50 words might look like if you don't impose the artificial restriction of meaningfulness:
> 
> _however for toys grace hold opening pinion processing gnash thickened avail illustrations accommodation collided vision torturing unalteredly intersystem spurs specfies ask inquire That goggle restaurants skulk That municipality sport heat bursting dimensioning the turn throw mushroom aids distributed copies bitter nonentities wades rape festers can astronaut desponded discrimination ankle describing_
> 
> I don't think anybody can memorize that in 10 seconds.



I couln't even read that in 10 seconds.


----------



## pjk (Aug 27, 2007)

Did you know the WR for memorizing the most digits in 1 second is 19? Can you look over 19 digits in 1 second? Doubtful. It takes practice.


----------



## hait2 (Aug 28, 2007)

pjk said:


> Did you know the WR for memorizing the most digits in 1 second is 19? Can you look over 19 digits in 1 second? Doubtful. It takes practice.



look over? sure thing S2
19 digits isn't a lot

for example
9078012976203586732

i can glance at it easily in a second and get a rough idea of what's in it. in fact i just tried this and what i could point out about that sequence is

starts with 907
has a 129762 somewhere in the middle
no 0's towards the end
has an 8 near the end
ends with a 32

i did it by closing my eyes and imagining what i saw, sorta like going over again in my mind. not too bad for first try but i won't even bother improving cause it's probably difficult. i don't even know how you'd improve in something like this.. i doubt i can get much better than what i've put up there. maybe 2-3 more numbers but that's it.

much harder than words i think, since you can't really glance at their shape and get a sense of what it is when recalling (not as easy as with numbers anyway)


----------



## pjk (Aug 28, 2007)

50 words was an example. However, with practice, I think it is possible. And we are talking 10 seconds, not 1.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 28, 2007)

Let's see:

You cannot compare words with digits because there are only 10 digits and about 500.000 words (depending on the language)

Comparing letters with digits would be more comparable but there are still 2.6 times more letters. But let's try that:
---19 numbers in 1 second -> 190 numbers in 10 seconds
---190 letters in 10 seconds in 50 words is 3.8 letters per word
Conclusion: You would have to use extremely short words and maintain the same memory pace for 10 seconds as you did for 1 seconds (not possible as Stefan pointed out with the 100m->marathon example and as Mátyás shows with his "1 cube in sub 60", "5 cubes in sub 600, not sub 300", "8 cubes in sub 1800, not sub 480" records)

I don't understand that after all this scientific analysis, people still think that photographic memory exists.

Once more: The definition of a photographic memory is not "a very good natural memory". It is "a memory that works like a photo-camera", meaning you look at something for a very short time (shutter-time), save the picture to memory, than be able to look at that picture in memory whenever you want to and see a detailed image with everything you looked at on it.


----------



## pjk (Aug 28, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> Let's see:
> 
> You cannot compare words with digits because there are only 10 digits and about 500.000 words (depending on the language)
> 
> ...



No one here is yet to prove it doesn't exist, nor does exist. That is because we don't have a set definition. At the end of your post of above, you added another definition to the book. We will have to bring this up in person next time we meet.


----------



## Henrik (Aug 28, 2007)

Here is the video of Mátyás solving his 8 cubes blindfolded. The World record he set this weekend in Sweden.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3960924843509082661
Im sorry for the quality but it wont get better.
He is amazing to look at when he solves. Very few words or even anything comes from him he is just solving.


----------



## pjk (Aug 28, 2007)

Very nice, thanks for posting. By the way, you may want to start a new thread for it, as some people may be confused on which WR is in this post


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2007)

pjk said:


> Did you know the WR for memorizing the most digits in 1 second is 19?


Yeah but the same guy also holds the 4 seconds record and no, it's not 76 digits, not even close. It's merely 26 digits!



hait2 said:


> for example
> 9078012976203586732


Nonononono, that's not how it should look. View the attached picture. Ok, so don't view it. Darn system doesn't let me upload my picture, always results in an error without telling me the reason. I tried both jpg and png and it's very small, both in screen and file size. Stupid system. Oh well, here it is as text:


```
90 78 01 29 76 203
               586
               732
```

Watch:
http://www.ramoncampayo.com/Videos/campayodachau2005.avi

And this is how he arranged 25 digits for memorizing them in 4 seconds:


```
83 18 94 823
16 03 40 18 11 854
               3
```


----------



## pjk (Aug 29, 2007)

Interesting, I didn't know that. Nice video too.

Sorry about the upload error. There are some server issues with uploading on the forum which I have been working on for months. Unfortunately, I have been extrememly busy with classes and haven't had as much time to work with it as I wanted.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2007)

I watched the video again, this time I had sound. About 28 seconds into the video I think he mentions "photographica". Any Spanish guys here who could translate for us what exactly he said there? Also what he said about Rubik's Cube blindcubing which he mentions about 1:36 into the video. And starting at 1:53 I just heard "photographica" again.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 29, 2007)

I don't speak spanish, but I think he mentioned 5 cubes. If nobody can answer this before next weekend I will try to find someone from Spain at the Lyon Open to translate it.


----------



## pjk (Aug 29, 2007)

I just had a friend who translated it for me piece by piece. I will list here what I got out of it:
-At the 28 second part where he mentions "photographica", my friend said he was basically saying that you need somewhat of a photographic memory.
-When he memorizes, he doesn't skim his eyes over each number very quickly, he glances at the screen and takes a picture in his mind.
-Takes a lot of practice to do.
-About the cube at 1:36 or so, he said that he can glance at the top of a cube and then tell someone the exact position that it was in, and get it to that point.
-They mention that he has an IQ over 190.
-He teaches this memo stuff to his class, eventhough he isn't considered a teacher.
-He is working (or his goal possibly) on memorizing 40+ digits in 2 seconds.

If there are other exact pieces you want me to have my friend look at, let me know. Quite an interesting video.


----------



## hait2 (Aug 30, 2007)

StefanPochmann said:


> Nonononono, that's not how it should look. View the attached picture.



that's not how _ it should look_ ?
they can arrange them in any way they like to memorize it? who came up with that?
why don't they just arrange them based on what number they are then? 1's go to top left, 2's to top middle ,etc. wtf? don't even bother answering that that affects the order, because putting it vertically does the same thing. 

hell, next thing you know, they'll be color-coding the numbers and arrange them in a smiley face

what a joke. i thought these records were made by people following standardized rules not making up their own to make it easier for them


edit: just to clarify, i don't really care. i just think it's ridiculous to do what they've (according to you) done because that means they can't memorize 19 digits in 1 second in every case. plain and simple. the equivalent would be like "hey i can solve a rubik's cube, but only if you arrange it such that a 2x2x3 block is already solved and all the other pieces are in the u2r2f2b2l2d2 group"


----------



## tim (Aug 30, 2007)

Keep cool, they still have to memorize 19 digits.
Arranging them in a way they want them to be is comparable to using the same color schema on your cube every time. Your 2x2x3 comparision is really out of context (means 13 remaining pieces instead of 20...)


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 30, 2007)

I think it is weird also. It also disproves the idea of a photographic memory once more. In this case the comparision would be that you can't take a mental photo of everything, just one type of specific photo.

Actually it is very comparable to the example of the chessplayers (amateurs vs grandmasters) memorizing a normal state of a chessboard and memorizing a random state of a chessboard.


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 30, 2007)

hait2 said:


> they can arrange them in any way they like to memorize it? who came up with that?


I always thought that's obviously allowed. It's still the same number of digits you are memorizing. I'll have to try if I can break my records, the way he does it seems much better than simply 4 per row, which I've been using without thinking about it too much.



hait2 said:


> why don't they just arrange them based on what number they are then? 1's go to top left, 2's to top middle ,etc.


That's an entirely different thing. The digits are obviously (pseudo)random, and they can't know what will come up.



hait2 said:


> i thought these records were made by people following standardized rules


What makes you think this is not the case?



hait2 said:


> they can't memorize 19 digits in 1 second in every case.


Of course he can't (why did you use "they", are there more people who can do it?). An average would be another event. Or do you think Thibaut Jacquinot can solve a Rubik's Cube in 15.81 seconds OH in every case?


----------



## Karthik (Aug 30, 2007)

I totally agree with cin and Johannes91.
@hait2: Keep it cool man.Whatever you think, you cant simply blast off the guys abilities.An IQ of 190 is no joke.Moreover the pattern he uses is something he is comfortable with.The pattern is fixed and not based on the random numbers he gets.So what ever the set of numbers he gets, they are arranged in the same manner.


----------



## pjk (Aug 30, 2007)

AvGalen said:


> I think it is weird also. It also disproves the idea of a photographic memory once more. In this case the comparision would be that you can't take a mental photo of everything, just one type of specific photo.


It disproves???!!?? If anything, that shows he believes a photographic memory exists, or why would he bring it up if he didn't think so? Of course, his definition is different than ours, however, I do agree with the way he put it, which also fits my definition of a PM.


----------



## tim (Aug 30, 2007)

pjk said:


> It disproves???!!?? If anything, that shows he believes a photographic memory exists, or why would he bring it up if he didn't think so? Of course, his definition is different than ours, however, I do agree with the way he put it, which also fits my definition of a PM.



So everyone has a photographic memory. If you watch at your desk and close your eyes in order to remember as much details as possible, you'll have a picture of your desk in your mind. What's so special about a PM? If you want to memorize more details in less time, you just have to practice your brain to be good at this photographic stuff.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 30, 2007)

There's a great difference between trying to memorize a "picture" and a long string of text/numbers. The problem with the latter is that the numbers/letters are all uniform (black, thin) and otherwise a large amount of data in a small amount of space, whereas in the former you can make cohesion out of randomly placed objects.

Compare a clean (organized) desk vs. a messy (disorganized) one. I am sure that the former would be easier to memorize simply because you can take everything in small bits and put it together, instead of having to see everything at once.

Then compare with these two:
askgho4y614ahsoighvhcb085yq8h2

ask gho 4y 614 ah so igh vh cb 085 yq 8h2

Same characters, just there is more "organization" in the second.

Then compare a desk with a string of letters and digits like above.

As far as photographic memory is concerned, I think it would be unfair to say "mental picture of anything and everything". I doubt a person who can picture strings of text and recall them instantly; odds are, if they claim they can, they are reading the text and memorizing as they go, instead of a "mental snapshot". However, it is much more feasible that people can take "mental snapshots" of their surroundings or pictures.

Just my two cents.


----------



## hait2 (Aug 31, 2007)

cin said:


> Keep cool, they still have to memorize 19 digits.
> Arranging them in a way they want them to be is comparable to using the same color schema on your cube every time. Your 2x2x3 comparision is really out of context (means 13 remaining pieces instead of 20...)



keep cool, they still have to solve a rubik's cube. see the problem with my analogy of your analogy? "but it's much easier now, they don't have to worry about every case of the cube, only last layer". ditto for the numbers "it's much easier now ,they don't have to worry about every arrangement of the numbers, only the one they picked"

edit:
i wrote a long counter to every point in johannes/kathrik's posts but i figured it's pointless to argue about this as we obviously have different views. i'll just leave it as: when someone says they can memorize 19 digits in 1 second or less, i naturally assume (mistake?) that they can do it in every case. Just as if someone tells me they can solve the cube in 15 seconds or less, i naturally assume that they can do it in every case.

i'd actually like to know their "dnf" rates.. is it like (using specifically their pattern) 1.0 1.0 1.0 dnf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 etc..
or more like
dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf 1.0 (OMG WR WR WR ) dnf dnf dnf dnf etc..

this would be pretty interesting i'd think.


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 31, 2007)

hait2 said:


> "but it's much easier now, they don't have to worry about every case of the cube, only last layer". ditto for the numbers "it's much easier now ,they don't have to worry about every arrangement of the numbers, only the one they picked"


It seems like you are not even trying to understand. They are not choosing what numbers they will get, just the way they are displayed. Similarly, cubers don't choose the scrambles, but they can choose what cube to use.



hait2 said:


> i'd actually like to know their "dnf" rates.. is it like (using specifically their pattern) 1.0 1.0 1.0 dnf 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 etc..
> or more like
> dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf dnf 1.0 (OMG WR WR WR ) dnf dnf dnf dnf etc..
> 
> this would be pretty interesting i'd think.


You could say that about BLD, too.


----------



## tim (Aug 31, 2007)

hait2 said:


> i'll just leave it as: when someone says they can memorize 19 digits in 1 second or less, i naturally assume (mistake?) that they can do it in every case. Just as if someone tells me they can solve the cube in 15 seconds or less, i naturally assume that they can do it in every case.



19 digits in 1 second is the world record. So he is _able_ to do it. This doesn't mean, that he can do it every time and he didn't claim that. (if i tell people i can do the cube in about 22s, i mean my average. i'm not able to do this every time and nobody expect that)
And being allowed to arrange the numbers in a way you like is part of the rules. It's the same thing as using your own cube at competition, as Johannes mentioned.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 31, 2007)

I think some people confuse "visual" and "photographic". About how often Ramon succeeds, here's some old data in German ("Ziffer" means "digit" and "Versuch" means "attempt"):
http://www.frontreporter.de/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=221#221
The sentence under the easy stats says he tried 18 digits in 2 seconds ten times (the maximum allowed) and failed.

Pat, did he explain how his IQ of 190 was measured?


----------



## pjk (Aug 31, 2007)

Stefan, I will watch it tonight again with my friend and see if he does, and let you know. I doubt they say though, as my friend probably would have said so if they did. I have often wondered how a standard IQ is measured and how accurate they really are. Anyone know?


----------



## hait2 (Aug 31, 2007)

Johannes91 said:


> It seems like you are not even trying to understand. They are not choosing what numbers they will get, just the way they are displayed. Similarly, cubers don't choose the scrambles, but they can choose what cube to use.
> 
> 
> You could say that about BLD, too.



My example does not choose what numbers they will get, just the way they are displayed. I don't see what I am supposed to try to understand.

Yes, you can say bld solves are rare, but are they? Looking through matyas' records, he has a solid 17/17 solve history, all of which have earned him first place in their respective competitions. Compared to memorizing 16 (not 19!) digits on 6th try. Much less consistent.



cin said:


> 19 digits in 1 second is the world record. So he is able to do it. This doesn't mean, that he can do it every time and he didn't claim that. (if i tell people i can do the cube in about 22s, i mean my average. i'm not able to do this every time and nobody expect that)
> And being allowed to arrange the numbers in a way you like is part of the rules. It's the same thing as using your own cube at competition, as Johannes mentioned.



But, how often can he do it? For all we know, he only memorized 14 of the 19 numbers and got lucky on the other 5 via guess. It's not that improbable, especially if he has a rough idea of what the numbers are/are not.

If your average is 22 seconds, you can do sub-22 solves very often. Once again, compare it to 16 (not 19! big difference) digits in 6 tries.

As it stands (failing to memorize 18 (not even 19) digits in 2 seconds (*double* the time) after ten tries), it seems like it was once in a blue-moon occurence that set him the world record (much like getting a PLL skip in OH or a 3 move solution for 2x2x2 *cough*)


and IQs are supposed to be measured with standardized tests. i don't know any except wais, but there are probably more. look it up on wikipedia or something. the one thing i *do* know, is that having a legit 190 iq would put you in a super genius (colloquial) position -_-; something like 99.99999th percentile (aka there's only a few hundred people like that in the world). which, to be valid, is not measured by normal standardized tests as far as i know. i forget how they determine it, but they don't go past 99.94th in normal tests.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 2, 2007)

pjk said:


> I have often wondered how a standard IQ is measured and how accurate they really are. Anyone know?



The wikipedia page contains a lot of good information. But I recommend you also just do a supervised test of Mensa (the largest high iq society) to get a good idea how these tests work. In USA it looks like it only costs $40. It's a lot cheaper than having a psychologist test you, and a valuable experience if you're interested in this kind of stuff. There's a big national test day coming up in the US on Oct 20. More information for your national Mensa group here:
http://www.mensa.org/contact.php?action=fromnat

Different tests can give different results, though, even the professional ones, because they have different scales. That's why Mensa doesn't use an IQ value as cut-off for membership but the 98th percentile, corresponding to different IQ values in different tests. In the test they use in German Mensa this corresponds to an IQ value of 130, and the maximum you can get with that test is 145 as they say this test can't differentiate properly above that (but I think somewhere I've read that the value might be off by +/- 5% in any case, especially above 130).

For some information about harder tests and more restricted societies, have a look here:
http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html


----------



## pjk (Sep 2, 2007)

Stefan, sorry about the delay, I haven't been able to get with my friend again yet to do somemore translating. I will post when I get around to it again.


----------



## clincher (Sep 5, 2007)

*Translation*

"His name is Ramon Campayo(...) for the third time he has been champion of fast memorization, he can memorize a 19 digit number in one second pretty simple for a 190 IQ person who speaks 6 languages and is dedicated to discover the secrets of the mind(...)"
Campayo: "I work on speedreading and the photographic quality and the psicological part it's important too because(...) a half-second test takes a 1 year preparation(...)
"His mind is one of the best of the world(...)In Germany he has achieved for the third time consecutive the first place at speedreading"
etc etc they repeat the same thing over and over again 190 IQ etc.
Campayo: "I've also seen a german who is really good and he has the record on the rubik's cube for example he takes 5 cubes he analizes them he blindfolds himself and he solves them"
"Another test is to memorize 46 digits in binary in 2 seconds"
Campayo: "The photographic memory is really important because you can barely read 46 numbers in 2 seconds, you have to work them photographically in groups and be able to visualize them and the reading speed has to be really fast(...)
He also teaches. lol

Clincher


----------



## Stefan (Sep 5, 2007)

clincher said:


> Campayo: "I've also seen a german who is really good and he has the record on the rubik's cube for example he takes 5 cubes he analizes them he blindfolds himself and he solves them"


Hey, that must be me! I'm flattered. I hope he didn't imply the slightest connection between me and photographic memory?

Thanks for the translation. I was almost sure the IQ wouldn't be explained. Here he actually wrote he's a "Member of the International Society MENSA, with 194 I.Q. points". I think that 1) this makes it sound like he got the value from Mensa which is most likely not true since Mensa doesn't do tests that go this high (and they haven't answered my inquiry about this yet) and 2) if you mention an IQ of 194 then why would you bother to mention Mensa, except to hear yourself talk more? Oh and here he says "I have shattered an *infinite* amount of world records", which is clearly wrong.


----------



## pjk (Sep 6, 2007)

It appears he is talking about you Stefan , very cool.


----------



## hait2 (Sep 18, 2007)

a bit random, but i stumbled on this for an unrelated reason

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/specials/2006/09/06/gupta.savants.affl

at about 2;00 in, photographic memory by anyone's definition imo


----------



## pjk (Sep 18, 2007)

hait2 said:


> a bit random, but i stumbled on this for an unrelated reason
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/specials/2006/09/06/gupta.savants.affl
> 
> at about 2;00 in, photographic memory by anyone's definition imo



Yep, just another example to fit into the pot.


----------



## ColdbuffeT (Sep 19, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

This man has photographic memory. Documentary of him can be seen in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA


----------



## Stefan (Sep 19, 2007)

ColdbuffeT said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA



At 5:53 he's asked: Who was the game-winning pitcher of game 3 in the 1926 world series?

He answers: The Cardinals won and with Grover Cleveland Alexander.

If I understand it correctly, Alexander didn't even play in that game, instead Jesse Haines was the pitcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1926_World_Series#Game_3
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/yr1926ws.shtml

I know almost nothing about baseball, though. Can someone with better knowledge confirm or correct me?


----------



## hait2 (Sep 23, 2007)

nevermind misread question :O

he might've confused it with the last game where great alex stepped in for haines towards the end? 

still that's a pretty interesting find..


----------



## Stefan (Sep 24, 2007)

And it was the first thing I checked. One of the problems with these documentaries is that they even present failures as successes.

I've watched another one where a guy demonstrated mentally calculating the decimal expansion of 125/97 (or something like that) and so he told a long string of digits but he already had a big mistake after about four digits. Still, they showed this and didn't bother mentioning the failure! Also, at some point he stopped, and the reporter asked "And now it ends?" and he replied "Yes", which was just wrong, it was actually infinite. Oh and they called him a "calculation genius" which I believe is a completely wrong term, as this is more about memory than about calculation, and more about method and training than about natural talent (the latter coming closer to my understanding of the word "genius").

If they even present failures as successes, then I'm sure they also have no problem with leaving out more obvious failures, for example when a person directly says "No, sorry, your answer is wrong". But my doubts are more general that just that.

Summary: I can't trust these documentaries. I do trust serious competitions, though.


----------



## pjk (Sep 24, 2007)

Yeah, I agree with you Stefan.


----------

