Are improvements on timing possible?

Memory League
1

When your time is up and you are all finished, the system calculates your score et voilà. No issues here. But say you have one card still to put up, and you’re about to put it at the right place but you don’t notice your time is about to run out and so you don’t rush and voila, you have a less than perfect score for something you perfectly knew.

To avoid this, I’d like to suggest a change in the timer when some card spots remain blank at the end of the allotted time.

Say there are 2 blank spots when your time runs out. The system then puts you in overtime and the screen background color changes to inform you. Now depending on the number of blank spot you have, the system gives you extra time. The catch is that from now on all the card spots you fill can no longer be changed, and if you go 5 seconds without filling a spot, your game is over.

I’m sure something like this could be programmed and that it would provide less frustration for the players. I just don’t know how big of a deal it would be to do it, or if others feel like me that this would be a good thing to have.

I just looked up a recent match where one player was about to complete a winning recall with one last card when the time cut her off. I feel there is no need for that kind of aggravation.

2

I guess you’re talking about this match: Memory League

Interesting suggestion - certainly possible, although it would take a while to program.

But I think it makes sense to have a hard cut-off for the recall time. Everyone has 4 minutes, which is plenty of time if the deck has been memorized well. Of course, it might not be enough time for someone with a 2-card system who is searching through lots of possibilities to see which ones ring a bell, but there has to be a cut-off somewhere, and 4 minutes seems pretty reasonable to me.

One alternative idea is to make some noticeable change when there are only say 20 seconds left to recall, so the competitors know that they need to finish up and put things in place as best they can.

3

In this sports timing is part of the strategy. Dealing with this is part of the skill set to develop. As long as conditions are the same for everybody there should be no problem. I favor the current system because it resembles the other competitions. And I would like to use memory league to train for that.

4

I agree with Simon O here - everyone knows the rules are four minutes to recall, and it’s a simple enough rule that doesn’t really need complicating…

5

Nothing should be change. If you are not fast enough to finish inputting the information, that is your lack of training. Training comes down to everything from memorization to time awareness. If you can’t recall in time, tough luck.

6

@Simon luisi
Yeah I agree with Johnny Briones

7

Yes, Mr. Orton, this is the match I was referring to.

The alternative you suggest would be helpful to me as I use an Android and can’t see the timer unless I zoom out.

Mr. Orton, you mention the need for a hard cut off time while I argue for the need to have an extra period to decide unfinished business, as is common in other sports. Ho well, if you’re not ready for that, ok, but extra periods are known to raise the excitement level of the crowd that is watching. Aren’t we trying to make this sport as interesting as possible?

Mr. Orton, I would question your concept of a well memorized deck, as one that can be rearranged easily in 4 minutes. In my opinion, a well memorized deck is one that is recalled without any mistake, period. I think no one can seriously make an argument against this opinion of mine. I think that the point of limiting recall time has to do with encouraging a greater effort on the part of the brain rather than to determine that an uncompleted deck reconstruction in 4 minutes implies that that the deck was not well memorized. So, this is to say that I agree upon the idea of a time limit but not for the same reason that you expressed.

Ben, when you stop the timer at the 21 second mark or so, you still make use of the 39 remaining seconds plus the 10 seconds countdown to revise and reinforce your images before the start of the 4 minutes. So you technically get more time than the next person that uses a whole minute on the memorization of the deck. To be fair, do you skip these extra seconds given to you? If you don’t then the current system apparently gives you an obviously unfair time benefit. I’m just saying that to shed some doubts on your claim that everyone gets the same amount of time as it is now.

And I have heard that one of the guys who beat your 28 decks record used a one image per card system. So, complicating the matter as you did with a two card system wasn’t necessary? Sorry, this is getting off topic.

Obviously, if you don’t see the benefits of complicating things then it makes no sense to do it. But let me ask you this question: Katie lost having memorized 50 cards correctly in 32 seconds and she appeared on the brink of completing a perfect deck. Now, her opponent memorized 52 cards in about twice as much time. These are the results. Now please give me your GMM opinion as to which of these two results appear to indicate the strongest memorizer to you? If Clay’s result appears stronger to you then maybe I have misjudged something here. If Clay’s result is weaker according to you then you may be able to appreciate the need to complicate matters here.

I don’t ride a complicated bike myself. It has no shock absorbers. The cost, maintenance and weight makes it unappealing to me. But if I could get the benefits without the disadvantages, you can be sure I would go for the smoother ride. I feel that such a no draw back option is what Mr. Orton could provide us with.

Finally, others have made the argument that time management is part of the game. But it will continue to be…Just a bit easier. Isn’t the focus point of this game memory or time management? And if you like to abandon at the 4 minute mark, nothing will prevent you from continuing to do just that. The system will just take 4 more seconds or so before giving you your result.

8

In other sports, extra time is used when a match is tied, and both sides have the same amount of extra time to play. What you’re suggesting seems quite different.

The main reason for limiting the recall time is to keep the matches interesting - no-one wants to wait around for 10 minutes while one competitor goes through every possibility in their memory system trying to figure out the recall. When I said ‘memorized well’, I meant memorized well enough that recall can be performed without long pauses. When I was competing, the recall time was often the limiting factor in how much I could recall.

You are absolutely right about the benefit of the extra revision time if you memorize the deck quickly. In traditional memory competitions, it’s an even bigger factor - if you memorize in 1 minute, you have a full 4 extra minutes to review everything in your head compared to someone who takes the full 5 minutes to memorize. In Memory League, a fast competitor might have an extra 45 seconds. We could avoid that by starting each competitor’s recall as soon as they finish, but I think it’s more interesting for spectators to have the recall happen at the same time.

9

Mr. Orton,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, in some way, what I’m suggesting is quite different, and this is why it’s a bit challenging to explain it clearly. I’ve recently fell victim of the hard cut off time and lost one point because of it. (I had the card clicked and was reaching for the right spot with it when the time ran out…The system is certainly not as nice as it can be, in my opinion.

In my opinion, what I’m suggesting is not really a time increase, even if a time increase is a part of what I’m suggesting. If, for instance, the system cannot cut you off while a card is clicked and up in the air, well that would be a clear improvement and it would be very similar to what you have in another sport (chess), when, if your time goes down as you have your mating piece in your hand, you can complete the checkmate without losing on time. The way it is here is different. I could continue to make the point for it, but given the way in which a couple of Grandmasters of memory have intervened to try and nip this idea in the bud, I won’t bother with it as it isn’t that important. This sport clearly isn’t as important to me as it is to them and so, their ideas can prevail, even if I’m critical of their ideas.

As a memory competition organizer, I believe in accommodating top contestants as much as possible, and I’m going walk my talk right here by not pushing further my idea, even if these particular memory eminent guys have never showed up at any of my memory competitions.

Still, I find it interesting when you claim that the main reason for limiting the recall time is to keep the matches interesting and that you are very concerned about the potential impatience of spectators. I mean, what I was suggesting would likely add only a few seconds to the match and create extra interesting moments for the spectators (in my opinion.)

Also interesting to me is that you cite the reason for not starting the recall immediately (for the first guy that finishes first) is again a spectator concern issue. I mean, it seems to me like this could be easily corrected through a simple matter of programing the Memory League system so that the live recall of the first contestant is delayed to match that of the other contestant. Every body is happy that way and the situation is fair to all! But then again, if you make things this way, I would feel that there wouldn’t be enough incentive for contestants to try to go fast, something which I feel Memory League should encourage. I think that in matches, the guy that finishes second should have a 3 points penalty for the purpose of establishing a winner between the two contestants, (or something like that.)