Video of the Blindfolded WR

[Stefan]

You didn't stop.

So sue me.

 

[Kristoffer Absalonsen]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[AvGalen]

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]

Let's see:

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

i thought these records were made by people following standardized rules

What makes you think this is not the case?

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]

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]

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.