Speedcubing statistics: preliminary report

[cmhardw]

BLD statistics like:
overall accuracy rate for 3x3x3 BLD, 4x4x4 BLD, 5x5x5 BLD, multi BLD old, Multi-BLD

Also some kind of comparison of accuracy rate to single solve times. I am guessing that these are inversely proportional up to a point (i.e. those with high accuracies will tend to be slower than those with low accuracies). Of course you have to factor in beginners having slower times and lower accuracies, but I wonder if some sort of trend will come to light if you factor in all the data.

Chris

 

[PatrickJameson]

All 13.37 results: http://pastebin.com/f3ca972a2
People with the most xx:xx.00 times: http://pastebin.com/f3dededce
Most common xx:xx.00 times: http://pastebin.com/f30e6f1e0
Most common times(see post below for the top few): http://pastebin.com/f43fd7a8

The 'Most common times' one is interesting. I'll do some more tomorrow.

 

[qqwref]

Most common times: http://pastebin.com/f43fd7a8

For those who don't wanna download like 2MB of text, here are the top:
16.96: 114
16.71: 111
15.84: 109
18.31: 107
17.96: 105
15.03: 105
16.90: 104
17.46: 104
16.18: 104
18.09: 104
19.34: 103
19.53: 103
18.40: 103
15.09: 102
1.78: 102
17.84: 102
16.59: 101
16.11: 101
17.72: 101
18.90: 101
15.83: 100
15.56: 100
17.28: 100
19.03: 100
17.53: 100

 

[PatrickJameson]

Ok this is REALLY weird. These are the most common .xx's(First is sorted by most common second sorted by .xx's)

http://pastebin.com/fa1a2584
http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30

 

[Dene]

All 13.37 results: http://pastebin.com/f3ca972a2
People with the most xx:xx.00 times: http://pastebin.com/f3dededce
Most common xx:xx.00 times: http://pastebin.com/f30e6f1e0
Most common times(see post below for the top few): http://pastebin.com/f43fd7a8

The 'Most common times' one is interesting. I'll do some more tomorrow.

Oh man, Philip has 2 13.37 times. He must be super l33t.
It's funny how magic (I assume?) makes an appearance in the most common times list. It rather stands out

Oh and Lucas: You have (had) way too much time on your hands :/

 

[cmhardw]

Ok this is REALLY weird. These are the most common .xx's(First is sorted by most common second sorted by .xx's)

http://pastebin.com/fa1a2584
http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30

I think that proves that the Stackmat is a flawed timer :-( Or am I interpretting this incorrectly?

Chris

 

[DavidWoner]

I would like to see who has the highest winning percentage for each event, where they have competed in it at least 5 times. Maybe longest winning streak for each event as well.

 

[masterofthebass]

I would like to see who has the highest winning percentage for each event, where they have competed in it at least 5 times. Maybe longest winning streak for each event as well.

I think I may get it for 5x5. Just maybe.


nvm... erik has 23 streak for minx and 21 streak for 5x5. I didn't know he had some many comps since WC07

 

[pjk]

Ok this is REALLY weird. These are the most common .xx's(First is sorted by most common second sorted by .xx's)

http://pastebin.com/fa1a2584
http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30

I think that proves that the Stackmat is a flawed timer :-( Or am I interpretting this incorrectly?

Chris

I agree, the stackmat timer is flawed according to those results.

 

[vrumanuk]

?

Ok this is REALLY weird. These are the most common .xx's(First is sorted by most common second sorted by .xx's)

http://pastebin.com/fa1a2584
http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30

I think that proves that the Stackmat is a flawed timer :-( Or am I interpretting this incorrectly?

Chris

I agree, the stackmat timer is flawed according to those results.

I don't follow. Maybe I haven't looked at the results long enough, what am I missing? Forgive my scant analyzation of the figures, its late.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Ok this is REALLY weird. These are the most common .xx's(First is sorted by most common second sorted by .xx's)

http://pastebin.com/fa1a2584
http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30

I think that proves that the Stackmat is a flawed timer :-( Or am I interpretting this incorrectly?

Chris

I agree, the stackmat timer is flawed according to those results.

I don't follow. Maybe I haven't looked at the results long enough, what am I missing? Forgive my scant analyzation of the figures, its late.

A significant percentage of the times are FAR less likely than the others. And there are two common levels - one around 3000 and the other around 500. I suspect most of us have always suspected this - I know I have. It's a very interesting finding.

I'm guessing this probably means that the internal mechanism for measuring time doesn't do so in seconds, but in some partial second increment, and the rounding to seconds leads to this kind of result. Just my guess as to the explanation.

 

[blah]

I'm guessing this probably means that the internal mechanism for measuring time doesn't do so in seconds, but in some partial second increment, and the rounding to seconds leads to this kind of result.

Exactly what I thought.

 

[qqwref]

Well, there are 60 "common times", so... 60 frames per second?

 

[xXdaveXsuperstarXx]

Have you ever noticed that the lowest time a stack mat will let you get is 0.16 Or is that just the first version stack mat.

 

[clement]

A significant percentage of the times are FAR less likely than the others. And there are two common levels - one around 3000 and the other around 500. I suspect most of us have always suspected this - I know I have. It's a very interesting finding.

I'm guessing this probably means that the internal mechanism for measuring time doesn't do so in seconds, but in some partial second increment, and the rounding to seconds leads to this kind of result. Just my guess as to the explanation.

There is a periodicity of 25. It would be interesting to run a spectral analysis. (or is it professional deformation ?)

Stefan, are you having fun changing at least 3 times your post ?

 

[Stefan]

Have you ever noticed that the lowest time a stack mat will let you get is 0.16 mili-sec.

Your stackmat can measure 0.00016 seconds.

Stefan, are you having fun changing at least 3 times your post ?

No. Sorry. I just didn't feel happy with the first versions.

 

[shelley]

Have you ever noticed that the lowest time a stack mat will let you get is 0.16 mili-sec. Or is that just the first version stack mat.

I don't know what timing device you're using, but it certainly isn't a stackmat.

 

[vrumanuk]

Ok this is REALLY weird. These are the most common .xx's(First is sorted by most common second sorted by .xx's)

http://pastebin.com/fa1a2584
http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30

I think that proves that the Stackmat is a flawed timer :-( Or am I interpretting this incorrectly?

Chris

I agree, the stackmat timer is flawed according to those results.

I don't follow. Maybe I haven't looked at the results long enough, what am I missing? Forgive my scant analyzation of the figures, its late.

A significant percentage of the times are FAR less likely than the others. And there are two common levels - one around 3000 and the other around 500. I suspect most of us have always suspected this - I know I have. It's a very interesting finding.

I'm guessing this probably means that the internal mechanism for measuring time doesn't do so in seconds, but in some partial second increment, and the rounding to seconds leads to this kind of result. Just my guess as to the explanation.

Alright, that makes sense. I just noticed the huge drop-off from 2853 to 900.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I'm guessing this probably means that the internal mechanism for measuring time doesn't do so in seconds, but in some partial second increment, and the rounding to seconds leads to this kind of result. Just my guess as to the explanation.

I just realized this was incredibly stupid. I meant hundredths of a second, not seconds. But it's funny, everyone seems to have understood what I meant. Thank you.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Ok so I just figured out something quite awesome(or horrible, depending on your view).

If we take the 'Most common .xx's' data(http://pastebin.com/f6bae0f30) we can see that all of the times are either >2582 or <901. This is interesting alone. But if we take a look on the number of times these numbers appear in a row, we find that it forms a perfect pattern. This is what we get;

112121211111212122
112121211111212122
112121211111212122
112121211111212122