# A New 2-Card System

78 posts / 0 new
#1 21 July, 2013 - 15:43
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

#### A New 2-Card System

Hi, my name is Lance Tschirhart. I'm the American competitor who placed 11th in the 2013 USA Memory Championship.

The following is a 2-card system I designed and honed over the past couple of months. Many people are intrigued by the idea of building a 2-card system, but few actually complete the task. The Shadow System was created with the sole purpose in mind of being as easy as possible to fill out. Very special Thanks go to Ben Pridmore, Johannes Mallow, and the creator of the Major System for introducing the concepts central to the system.

Let's begin by comparing the merits and potential disadvantages of these two systems.

Ben System

Cards:

First consonant

club/club - k
club/diamond - t
club/heart - n
diamond/club - r
diamond/diamond - d
diamond/heart - l
heart/club – f/th

heart/diamond - b
heart/heart - h

Vowel

A = 'a' as in 'cat'
2 = 'e' as in 'pet'
3 = 'i' as in 'kitten'
4 = 'o' as in 'tom'
5 = 'u' as in 'puss'
6 = 'A' as in 'hay'
7 = 'E' as in 'bee'
8 = 'I' as in 'high'
9 = 'O' as in 'low'
10 = 'oo' as in 'you'
J = 'ow' as in 'cow'
Q = 'or' as in 'oor'
K = 'ar' as in 'car'

Second consonant
A = t
2 = n
3 = m
4 = r
5 = l
6 = g
7 = k
8 = f/th
9 = b
10 = s
J = j/sh/ch
Q = p
K = d

This was almost certainly the first 2-card system invented. It cleanly translates 1000 images that can be represented by all of the digit combinations from 000-999, as well as 1024 images that can be listed as each of the 10-digit binary combinations from 0000000000-1111111111.

The Ben System is an extended major system that serves as an algorithm for producing phonemes. I believe single syllables are important for quick memorization because reducing subvocalization is difficult, and eliminating it is impossible. Most of the phonemes produced by the system are not actual words, and in some cases, the phonemes produced do not exist in any form in English. Even if the consonant and vowel sounds were altered to reflect those commonly used in any other language, this would still be the case - there are just too many combinations.

Some consequences of this setup are:

1) As soon as the system itself is learned, each of the 2704 card combinations can be pronounced with little ambiguity. However, there are exceptions in the five of the sixteen possible suit combinations that are italicized above. This also is a problem with the Major System, and thus, the Shadow System.

2) The phonemes that actually produce words on their own can be restrictive. For instance, when the words "Foot," or "Feet" occur, it can be difficult to imagine anything else while reading them. On the other hand, it is a breath of fresh air to have words simply handed to you. This is a matter of preference.

3) Since they do not usually make words on their own, the phonemes will usually serve as reminders of the chosen images. As a result, it can be difficult at times to avoid pronouncing the images themselves, which are longer than a single syllable.

4) Each image is distinctly its own. That means that there is little chance of making errors of momentarily lapsed cognition when reconstructing the deck. This may sound like an obvious consequence of a two card system, but mistakes in reconstruction is a potential problem with the Shadow System, though I have not yet experienced it myself after becoming more familiar with the images.

5) It is simple. There is much to be said for this - it's a very elegant system with perfectly consistent grammar. I am of the opinion that a system with more complex grammar may be preferable, so long as it is easy to fill out. This is a matter of taste.

Remember that the Ben System is tried and true: it has been used to set world records in various events and is a favorite of top competitors.

SS uses the Major System:

0-s,z
1-t,d
2-n
3-m
4-r
5-l
6-j,sh,ch
7-k,g
8-f,th
9-p,b

SS is based on the assumption that it is easier to remember semantically related word pairs than words that are created based on phonetic cues, and that this is especially true when you create the word pairs yourself. Also, that it is easier to remember words that have been chosen with less phonetic restrictions. Finally, as opined above, that it is preferable (easier) to learn a new system of grammar than to fill out a system with nonsense syllables.

A member of these forums told me that after using the Ben System for six months, he had achieved a personal best of 44 seconds for memorizing a deck. He said that he felt he could improve much more, but the only problem was how difficult it was to decode the 16 suit combinations on the spot. Granted, this would become natural given enough practice. Still, this hurdle was the first to be eliminated. By pairing each suit combination with another, SS uses different phonetics for only 8 suit combinations. Thus, a greater variety of different sounds can be packed within each number 0-9, or with cards, 10-9, with the original Major System. All numbers in SS adhere to the Major System strictly. The first 4 suit combinations are as follows:

Initial consonants:

#♠#♠ - S,Z
#♥#♥ - S,Z
#♠#♥ - T,D
#♥#♠ - T,D
#♣#♣ - K,G
#♦#♦ - K,G
#♣#♦ - P
#♦#♣ - P

These initial consonants are represented by the suit combinations. Notice that for the Suits that are the same color, namely ♠♠, ♥♥, ♣♣, ♦♦, The Clubs' sound is paired with the Diamonds', and the Spades' with the Hearts'.
These are not assigned as arbitrarily as it may appear at first. Because it takes so long to become familiar with such a large list, SS is built to facilitate as much training as possible before the list is complete. "#♠#♠," "S," is the easiest to fill out, followed by "#♣#♣," (K,G) "#♠#♥," (T,D) and "#♣#♦" - (P). In the Major System, these are represented in digit form by all numbers 000-199, 900-999, and 700-799. As the 000-999 list begins to be filled out, one can begin to train with a deck made of all of the # cards (A-10), for Spades and Hearts, and a similar deck with Clubs and Diamonds. This is a good starting point because in each of these two decks, there are only 200 images represented by the cards, while in a similar deck comprised of, for instance, Spades and Diamonds, there would be 300 images to keep track of: #♦#♦, #♠#♠, and #♠#♦.

The next four suit combinations, which are more difficult to fill out than the first four, are 200-299 (N), 500-599 (L), 600-699 (J,SH,CH) and 300-399 (M). These are to be assigned arbitrarily according to your taste. Mine are assigned based on the level of difficulty I had in filling them out, and the stage at which they would be added into my practice decks. Since (J,SH,CH) and (N) were the most difficult for me, they were assigned to the combinations that would show up only when all of the cards, A-10 of every suit, were put together.

#♣#♥ - L
#♥#♣ - L
#♠#♦ - M
#♦#♠- M
#♠#♣ - J,SH,CH
#♥#♦- J,SH,CH
#♣#♠ - N
#♦#♥ - N

Notice that there are 10 groups of consonants in the major system, and only 8 suit combinations. In total, SS Only translates 992 of the 1000 digit images, excluding 444, 448, 484, 488, 844, 848, 884, and 888.
Two of the most difficult groups to fill out are 800-899 (F,TH), and 400-499 (R). Other groups may be equally difficult, but there is good reason to use these two particular groups as exceptions. Since there is no room for their initial sounds to be represented by suit combinations, there are special rules to accommodate these images.

In order to translate the remaining 200 images into the system, there must be instances in which the suit combinations do not form the initial consonant sounds. This inequality also carries over into the "tens" place, though that may be less intuitive. Thus, face cards, when placed in either the first or both the first and second places, must take precedence over the suit combination preceding it. Since there are only two missing groups, the Jacks and Queens and used for this purpose, while the Kings retain a different set of rules. Queens Always make the sound "R," and Jacks, when in the first place, make the sounds "F,Th." However, when Jacks are in the second place, they make the sound "T,D." We are free to make these kinds of changes because images in which a face card appears in the second place only are among the 352 images that are not in the 000-999 list. "T,D," as an ending, is preferable to "F,Th," because there are a paucity of words that end in "F" or "Th." Because it can include past-tense verbs ending in "ed," the "T,D" ending is preferable to all others except for "R" and "S." "S" is only common at the end of words for plurality though, and "R" is already occupied by the Queens. Queens always retain the "R" sound because many professions, appliances, and gadgets end with the letter "R." When both cards shown are Either JxJx, JxQx, QxQx, or QxJx, the rule of precedence continues to apply, for these combinations match up with the numbers:

QxQx: 440,441,442,443,444,445,446,447,448,449

QxJx: 480,481,482,483,484,485,486,487,488,489

JxQx: 840,841,842,843,844,845,846,847,848,849

JxJx: 880,881,882,883,884,885,886,887,888,889.

The eight numbers that are stricken out are the only eight from the 000-999 list that will not translate into card combinations. The first two digits are dictated by the face cards themselves, out of their precedence, so the digit in the "ones" place is determined by the suit combination.

For instance, "J♠Q♠" may be "forest," and "Q♠J♥" may be "raft."

When a face card is in the second place only, an "S" is added in before the suit combination. If it were not, then you would be required to create multiple images with the same phonetic code, which is difficult. For example, "3♣4♥" might be "Lemur," but "3♣Q♥" would also have to use "L+M+R," which as you can see, could be difficult. By adding an "S" in front, many new combinations are opened up. "3♣Q♥" Could be "Slimer" or "Slammer." Thus, it is important that there be a vowel between the "S" and the second consonant in each of your 000-099 images. The words where the two consonants are contiguous should be saved for the situations in which a Jack or Queen appears in the second place.

There will be only ten words for each of the suit combinations in which the second card is a face card, per individual face card. Thus, for "#♠J♥," there will be ten words that begin with "St," have a second consonant determined by the first card, and end in "T,D." For #♠Q♥, there will be ten more that begin with "St," have a second consonant determined by the first card, and end in "R". For Kings, new rules apply.

Each of the 8 suit combinations are amenable to having an "S" precede them. The only two consonants of the Major System that are not are "R" and "F,TH." That is why these are the two groups that are excluded, hence, the initial sounds for instances in which Jack or Queen appears in the second position only are:

#♠J/Q♠ = "S"
#♥J/Q♥ = "S"

#♠J/Q♥ = "St"
#♥J/Q♠ = "St"

#♣J/Q♠ = "Sn"
#♦J/Q♥ = "Sn"

#♠J/Q♦ = "Sm"
#♦J/Q♠ = "Sm"

400-499 = "Sr"

#♣J/Q♥ = "Sl"
#♥J/Q♣ = "Sl"

#♠J/Q♣ = "J,Sh,Ch"
#♥J/Q♦ = "J,Sh,Ch"

#♣J/Q♣ = "Sk"
#♦J/Q♦= "Sk"

800-899 = "Sf"

#♣J/Q♦ = "Sp"
#♦J/Q♣ = "Sp"

Please let me know if you need more examples or further clarification. :)

Kings

When a King is in the First position, It takes precedence over the suit combination and is pronounced "H." When a King is in the second position, it is silent, regardless of what the first card is. That means that all combinations XxKx are single syllable words, and as always, face cards take precedence when applicable.

For example:

"K♣Q♦" may be "Harp"
"Q♣K♦" may be "Rope"
"9♠K♦" may be "Mop"
"K♠5♥" may be "Huddle"

There are 8 instances in which both cards are kings. These could, for the perfectionist, represent 444,448,484,488,844,848,884,and 888. What I do instead is make up a cool image for the doubles ("K♣K♣" is "King Kong"), and retain the "H" sound and grant (only for these four remaining combinations) total precedence to the Kings for the others ("K♠K♥" is "Hi-Hat").

This is where SS is really special: If you've made it this far, your aren't just "half way there." You are actually on the final stretch of having a complete 2704 system.

Up to this point, you could have made a list of 1352 images which can be used in a 2-block system like Johannes Mallow does, in which card pairs beginning with a red card are placed in a loci until a pair beginning with a black card comes up. Its image is placed in the loci alongside the others, and then the next loci is moved to until another card pair beginning with a black card is reached, ad infinitum. This always leaves a degree of uncertainty in how many images will be in each loci, which will vary from deck to deck, and is a bit more difficult for that reason. Still, it's a fun method that you may prefer to use. The biggest drawback is that at this point is that you only have a list for binary that covers 9 digits at a time.

As the images are created, make a single syllable abbreviation for each object that is unique. Usually, it is the first syllable. Sometimes, you have to make an exception. Only read the objects using these syllables, (never vocalize or subvocalize the entire word), and they should become natural enough in time. This is a necessary step in order to fill out the second half of the list, so do it along the way. If you make the syllables carefully for each group of 100, you can fill out this entire system of 2704 with only a handful of exceptions along the way.

To finish the second half of the system, simply come up with a list of Shadow Images - images that are related to your first in a memorable way. For me, 141, or 4♠A♥, is "Dart." "4♥A♠" is therefore "Dartboard." "J♠Q♥" is "Fred" (Fred Flintstone), so "J♥Q♠" is "Wilma."

Notice that "Wilma" does not follow the phonetic code dictated by "J♥Q♠." Using the single syllable "Wilm" will be hard to learn to do naturally, because the cards just don't spell it. Thus, each of the shadow syllables are taken by converting the original syllables in a consistent and systematic way. Each of the shadow syllables uses the same vowel as the original image, but pronounces it in a way that is different from the first syllable. For example,
"J♥Q♠" may mean "Wilma," but it is pronounced "FrEd," or "Freed." For "ir," "or," sounds and the like, "ar" is converted to "air" "er/ir" is converted to "or," and "ur," which is pronounced the same as "er/ir" but spelled with a "u" is converted to "Ur," as in a sloppy pronunciation "Sewer." In all other situations, just pronounce the short/long variation of the same consonant for the syllable.

To make this clear, here is my list of 700-749 objects alongside their shadows. You will see that most of the "exceptions" were not necessary at all. They were just put there to experiment, or to remember neat instances of coincidence. For instance, when "7♣7♣ = Casp (Casper)," the first shadow that came to my mind was "ghostbusters." Instead of using "CAsp" = Ghostbusters as per the system's rules, I used "GOsb." I'll tell you now it isn't easier that way, and isn't even a good idea for a reason I'll explain below. These were just my first 50 to convert.

700 CAs (Briefcase) 10♦10♦ Cas (Cuffs)
701 cast (cast) 10♦A♦ CAst (CastTakesBow)
702 cus (casino=roulette) 10♦2♦ CUs (Plenko)
703 gas (gasmask) 10♦3♦ GAs (ScubaHelm)
704 gIz (geyser) 10♦4♦ Giz (Volcano)
705 Sul (Castle) 10♦5♦ SUl (Oubliette)
706 gach (gaschamber) 10♦6♦ GAch (Furnace)
708 Kis (Kissyfist) 10♦8♦ KIs (MasterHand)
709 casp (casper) 10♦9♦! GOsb (Ghostbusters)
710 kIt (Kite) A♦10♦ kit (Boxkite)
711 Kid (Katydid) A♦A♦ KId (Mantis)
712 cotn (cotton) A♦2♦ COtn (CottonCandy)
713 cut (cutman) A♦3♦ CUt (Megaman)
714 gAt (gator) A♦4♦ Gat (CrocHunter)
715 cuf (cuttlefish) A♦5♦ CUf (OctopusRide)
716 kij (cottagecheese) A♦6♦ KIj (fruitcup)
717 Kak (Catacomb) A♦7♦ CAk (WeddingCake)
718 caf (catfish) A♦8♦! Cat (cat)
719 cult (catapult) A♦9♦ CUlt (Trebuchet)
720 gun (gun) 2♦10♦ GUn (Gunslinger)
721 cand (candle) 2♦A♦ CAnd (RomanCandle)
722 can (Cannon) 2♦2♦ CAn (Doomcannon)
723 Gan (Ganewmede) 2♦3♦ GAn (Scorpion)
724 Grak (Gunrack) 2♦4♦ GrAk (SwordRack)
725 Cun (Canole) 2♦5♦! Kenl (Kennel)
726 Gonj (PottedGanja) 2♦6♦ GOnj (BigPurpleNug)
727! Gong (Gong) 2♦7♦ Conk (ConchShell)
728 conv (converseFloat) 2♦8♦ COnv (RedConsMoonwalk)
729 gub (gunblade) 2♦9♦ GUb (Firebomb)
730 cam (camera) 3♦10♦ CAm (Flashbulb)
731 com (meteor) 3♦A♦ COm (comb)
732! kO (Kimono) 3♦2♦ GE (Gi)
733 Cum (Chamomille) 3♦3♦ cUm (cumin)
734 kIm (Chimera) 3♦4♦ Kim (Seymour)
735 cul (camel) 3♦5♦! KEl (Chameleon)
736 Guj (Gumdrop) 3♦6♦ GUj (Icing)
737! cank (Camcorder) 3♦7♦! komk (Kamikaze)
738 Camf (Camouflage) 3♦8♦ CAmf (PolkadotSuit)
739 gumb (Gumby) 3♦9♦ GUmb (Goomba)
740! corp (Corpse) 4♦10♦! Cors (Corset)
741 cart (Golfcart) 4♦A♦ CArt (Sandtrap)
742 corn (CandyCorn) 4♦2♦! Grin (Grinch)
743 Krum (Krum) 4♦3♦ KrUm (Lydia)
750 gold (GoldBars) 5♦10♦ Gud (GoldGutter)
744 Cor (AppleCore) 4♦4♦! Cort (AppleCorer)
745 Gril (BlackGrill) 4♦5♦ GrEl (TheBigGreenEgg)
746 CArj (Carriage) 4♦6♦! GArj (Garage)
747 Crik (Cricket=Sport) 4♦7♦ CrIk (BagofCrickets)
748 corv (Corvette) 4♦8♦! Curv (StartingFlag)
749 crip (cripple) 4♦9♦ CRIp (CripWalk)

Hopefully that's clear.

Other than the easy of being able to pronounce each shadow immediately, there is an even bigger advantage to the SS' handling of shadow syllables: The syllables do not resemble the words they represent.

This may sound like a disadvantage, but it is not! There is no need for them to resemble the words, since you know what the words are already, and the fact that they do not resemble the words means that there is no temptation - no possibility even - of you attempting to subvocalize any word that is longer than 1 syllable. In the long run, this is going to a be a huge time-saver.

I'll wrap this up by explaining the binary aspect.

000=0
001=1
010=2
011=3
100=4
101=5
110=6
111=7

The 1000 list covers the 512 9-digit binary combinations in the form 010.110.101 = 2.6.5
To make this compatible for 10-digit binary images, use the form:

(0)010110101 = 265
(ex.) Anj = Angel

(ex.) anj = Demon

That's the whole thing. Let me know your thoughts or if you have any questions.

22 July, 2013 - 18:57
Offline
Joined: 4 years 2 weeks ago

Wow, congrats on making your own system! Do you know if this makes you the first American to use a two-card system?

I tried to read over your explanation of the system, and while I doubt I will ever make a two-card system, it looks pretty nice, although perhaps difficult to learn because the sounds associated with the second half of the images may not sound like the actual word. I especially like that the second half of the images are all related in some way to their corresponding first images. I did not see you mention people or actions, is this just an object only system or did you just not show them as examples? If it is only objects, do you just place one object per loci or do you have several interacting?

23 July, 2013 - 02:24
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Thanks! I am thrilled to have some feedback to respond to! I will be the first American to use a 2-card system in competition, yes.

Responding to your comment about the second half first, the second half was actually easier to learn than any list created I've created with any other method, including the first half of this list (MajorSystem).

The word-pairs are easy enough to learn simply by reading the list over and over - many of them I learned permanently the moment I made them up. For instance: 769 = 6♣9♣ = Kech (Ketchup), so 6♦9♦ = KEch (Mustard). And that was that - never studied it; never forgot it.

What I may not have mentioned above is that you come up with your 1352 images first, and once you know them, the pronunciations of the shadow images will become automatic after just a few days when the time comes to add those in, since those pronunciations follow stated rules (there are exceptions here and there, but those exceptions can all just be learned together in a flashcard list).

About there being no actions or persons, this is just an object list, but about 40 of my objects are people, and perhaps 100 more are animal or humanoid. Using 52 objects in 52 locations is still a viable way to memorize a deck. It is the preferred method of Boris Konrad, who has broken 20 seconds with it many times. Ben's list is a mixture of objects and people too. He prefers putting 3 objects per loci, which fits one deck into only 9 loci. It isn't as easy as PAO, which does the creative work for you, but a PAO system with 2704 PAO's might be hard to make up, and I would never do it because people are hard for me to visualize distinctly. Now I am spending more and more time learning what single, distinct thing each of the 2704 objects can always do to the one following it, to make a pseudo-PA style system.

So for now, when I do single-deck, I just use 2 images per loci, which fits a deck into 13 loci. It's should get easier after knowing specifically what the first image can always do to the second - even if it just falls on top of it. 3 objects per loci is more difficult because if you just have the first object "fall onto" the second, something new still needs to happen to make the third memorable, so more novel and creative associations are necessary, which takes more time, especially as a beginner. In theory, one object per loci is ideal for speed since no novel information needs to be created to add into the imagery by associating them together. Indeed, I am hoping that this will eventually become my preferred method, but the truth is, I'm still so callow that I have practically zero experiencing memorizing 26 (Let alone 52!) objects without review. I used to train single-deck with PAO, which uses only 17 loci per deck, so even a mere 26 is something I really have to work my way up to.

23 July, 2013 - 10:44
Offline
Joined: 4 years 2 weeks ago

Thanks for answering some of my questions! I did not realize that many people with two-card systems used mainly objects, but that makes a lot more sense now that I think about it seeing as coming up with 2704 unique actions (and maybe people) would be much more difficult than coming up with 2704 objects.

One other question I have for you is how long did it take you to make all of your images and learn them fairly well(although I assume learning them really well is still somewhat a work in progress)? Also, have you noticed any major improvements in your times yet?

23 July, 2013 - 23:32
Offline
Joined: 4 years 8 months ago

sorry if i didn't read carefully enough, but what is "Mallow-style" actually :)

24 July, 2013 - 09:06
Offline
Joined: 4 years 3 months ago

Loci,
Great job on the new system. I know you've been working on it a while all the while finishing school. I was also starting to study the Ben system as I am currently PAO and see the inherent weakness in binary translation especially. Did you get help from Ben on this new style or did you study his, as I'm doing now, and look for ways to make it even better? I've waffled between doing Nelson's 1000 versus Ben's objects...I guess it comes down to how you feel you can make the images the quickest.I think the binary might be a huge strength with yours over the 1000 person because of the natural shadow.

24 July, 2013 - 10:36
Offline
Joined: 4 years 3 months ago

DH,
I forgot to ask if you initially started out trying to build a 3-2-3 PAO and saw that you could apply it to a Ben system or was this kind of a 'loose' plan to start?

25 July, 2013 - 04:31
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Mine are objects. Nelson made 1000 People so that he could use 3.2.3 PAO with digits, presumably because he found linking mere objects difficult. It is. But I'm making adjustments along the way, adding more action and distinct movement to each object, just hoping it will all snap together in the end.

That little nugget of insight was very recent, which means that I had to go back (I am still in the middle of this process!) and give each of the 1352 objects a nickname that I know them by permanently in order to accommodate the shadow syllables. This would have been really simple to do along the way, but I lacked the foresight. In the past 4 days, I have made and memorized the shadow syllables for 700 objects, as well as memorizing the objects themselves. It's every bit as easy as I had originally dreamed! The shadow images' memorization is happening at > 1000% speed of the original 1352 images, and you can create them right off the top of your head! It's nearly impossible to hold myself back from a continual expansion into 4-digits right away (I have a slightly different system for 4-digit numbers, but just like SS, I'm not going to talk about it until I'm positive that it is finished).

So I don't even have all 1352 objects memorized yet!

But it takes about half an hour to create 100 of them, and learning them is as easy as quickly reading them together and picturing them together every day. I have my first 100 loci divided into sections like a telephone's numbers, and it took considerable time to memorize my first 1000 well that way to supplement the phonetics. With 1000 loci, I bet it would have been easy. With just 100, it is harder. Recently, I've just dropped the shadows in with their pairs to aid in learning. I already know the location that the card combinations refer to, so I can just dip in to the loci, pronounce the shadow, and use that image. To practice the shadows, I just learn them related to the original image - it really doesn't matter if I know what their syllable is off the top of my head at all (Even though it would be easy to figure out, like you need to do when reconstructing the deck).

I haven't seen improvements in times, but over those three weeks of doing Mallow-style, I was memorizing at under 2:00, which is the exact same rate of improvement that I had when using PAO. The main difference is that I felt fairly skilled at PAO when I got to a consistent 1:30, but I still feel like I suck at this method even though I'm getting similar times. I'm staring at each and every image for 3-4 seconds, for God's sake! With PAO, at my peak, I only stared at each card for <1.5 seconds, so my times were a little better, but further improvement was very difficult, and in my short time of practicing, this was my final plateau.

Plus, not knowing how many images per loci until the deck dictates it is very difficult for me, so the full 2704 will get rid of that speed bump, so I am hopeful.

However, even with Mallow's 2-block method, memorizing 2 decks in under 5 minutes was really easy. On average, that used only 26 loci, and there was enough time to review the entire thing once.

25 July, 2013 - 10:05
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

DH,
I forgot to ask if you initially started out trying to build a 3-2-3 PAO and saw that you could apply it to a Ben system or was this kind of a 'loose' plan to start?

I would never make a 3-2-3 PAO. The whole reason I stopped doing PAO is because even with only 52 people, it's just too difficult to tell them apart. My people in this system are people like "bricklayers," who always have a tool that they use in one or two specific ways.

The plan was never "loose," but for a while it was imperfect, and it first it just didn't exist. I had this exact plan (shadow images) for the 2-card system from the moment I knew I would be using my own. (Edit: Actually, that last sentence makes more sense if you phrase it the other way around. /Edit) At first, immediately after the competition, I was filling up the 000-999 list as fast as possible, not caring too much about exceptions, and at that time I still believed that I would learn the Ben System for Cards and Binary, and just keep the Major system for digits. I didn't share it at first (except with Boris and Wessel) because I wanted to make sure that it really worked and there weren't any major holes that I hard overlooked, but of course there was one big one. The thing I overlooked was just how hard it would be to work on the phonetics and then abandon the drive to "say" one word just because you know you should be thinking of another. That last adjustment of making the syllables was the only part that came in to play later.

Edit: Actually, the handling of some of the face cards changed later too, like changing the sound of the Jacks when they are in the second position and so on. Once the idea of shadow images was in place, it was all just fine tuning to make everything as simple as possible. In a PM to London007, who actually filled out a Ben System, I asked him to rank the order of the initial consonants of the Ben System, in order of how difficult they were to fill out, in order to help me organize how the suit combinations would be pronounced. He told me that "S,H,C,D" were the easiest, so I knew that Kings would be the "H's," since they aren't in the major system at all. Most of the time I spent "working" on it, I was filling out that first half and puzzling over how to make the transitions to shadows smooth. The solution to that puzzle came all at once.

I did not get "help" from Ben, except for the fact that I ripped off the 2-card system from him whole-sale. I'm not sure he knows about this one yet, I'm thinking/curious if he might drop by and say a few words when he sees the thread.

I also did not study the Ben system, unless you want to count that day where I downloaded Josh's Ben System template, looked at it for an hour, and said "I'm not going to do this."

25 July, 2013 - 10:08
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Kenny wrote:

sorry if i didn't read carefully enough, but what is "Mallow-style" actually :)

I didn't explain it too well.

"Mallow-style" or "Mallow's 2-block method" as I sometimes say, is a very cool idea that he dropped by and mentioned on the "post your best card times here" thread about 6 months ago. He has a 2-card system of his own where he uses either 800 or 1000 images. I read it just once, but he is a native German speaker, and it wasn't a perfectly simple or straightforward method, so I'm still not sure exactly how he handles 1352 combinations with only 800 or 1000 images.

Anyway, his "2-block" idea (at least, I think it is his) was something he mentioned in a thread on these forums a while ago when explaining how he memorizes his cards. As in SS, he has his images in matching pairs by suit. He uses the exact same images in both situations. He is able to reconstruct the deck properly by telling them apart based on how he puts them in the loci. Let's say that the first cards in the deck are Ah2h 3h4s 5d6c 7c8d 9h10s JcQc KcKc, and KdKd.

He would put the first 8 cards into one loci because the first 3 pairs begin with a red card, and so when he gets to that fourth pair, 7c8d, he knows that is the last image to put in that loci, because it begins with a black card (7c). The next 4 cards he would put into the next loci, because 9h10s begins with a red card, and JcQc, beginning with a club, is going to be the last image in that loci. The next pair, KcKc, he would put in the next loci, and then move on again immediately, because it's a black pair. Finally, he would begin the next loci with KdKd, (the same image as KcKc), and keep going until he gets to a pair beginning with a black card.

It is fun, but it means that a deck will be memorized in any number of loci between 1 and 26, based purely on the order of the cards, and though it does tend to average out, sometimes (almost never) you have to put 8 images in one loci, and it's risky. Even worse is when you have to put just a single object in a loci many times in a row, or just a few times in a row several times in the same deck. But it's fun, and a good way to practice while setting up the second half. Yet, (and I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way), I think that being uncertain of how to handle the objects in this loci and the next could account for Mallow's PB card time being slightly slower than some of the competitors on his level. It can be really jarring at times, and for two people with equal skill, I think the full 2704 is always going to be the faster method because it's the same thing but with one less speed bump to worry about. Whenever you always memorize in groups of 3 as Ben and some others do, you probably start to get a really good idea of how certain objects behave in the first, second, and third positions, and how to wrap things up in nice, neat packages. If you wrap up a nice package of three, and then find you have one more object to place in that loci, you have to make it interact with at least the last object on the spot, and then *uh-oh* I have one more to squeeze in here...and then, uh-oh, hopefully this is the last one. Of course, using the 2-block method, you don't expect nice, neat packages, so it affects the way you learn, but I digress.

25 July, 2013 - 14:26
Offline
Joined: 4 years 3 months ago

DH,
Thanks for the answer. I'm kinda at a crossroad as to doing a 1000 or 2 card as I said and your system looks very interesting and well thought out. I was leaning the other way but I think I'll study your original post a little harder...I might have some more questions for you in the future. Thanks again!

25 July, 2013 - 18:33
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

DH,
Thanks for the answer. I'm kinda at a crossroad as to doing a 1000 or 2 card as I said and your system looks very interesting and well thought out. I was leaning the other way but I think I'll study your original post a little harder...I might have some more questions for you in the future. Thanks again!

I hope you do think of something new to ask. We might learn something if you do :)

26 July, 2013 - 07:10
Offline
Joined: 5 years 5 months ago

Hi Lance,

I've looked at your posts quickly and from my perspective, I think I would have to spend a lot more time to get to understand it. I do understand, in essence, the Ben system. I think a different way of laying out the explanation for your system may help me to understand it.

First of all, it takes you about 2 pages to explain the Ben system and 5 and half pages to explain the Shadow System, which I find a bit discouraging. Can you sum it up?
Also, can you answer briefly the following questions:
How many images do you need to memorize to use your system?
If it isn't the same number as a Ben system (2752 or so), How can you say your system is a two card (per image presumably) system?
I see that you have highlighted some of Ben's consonants for 16 options regarding the suit mix. Is your system the same as Ben except that it deals differently with those highlighted consonants?
What is an illogical consonant? How would you define a Shadow in your system?
Does your system involve posting images on a journey the regular way? With 26 images posted for a pack?

Thanks,

Simon

27 July, 2013 - 13:11
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

simon L. wrote:

Hi Lance,

I've looked at your posts quickly and from my perspective, I think I would have to spend a lot more time to get to understand it. I do understand, in essence, the Ben system. I think a different way of laying out the explanation for your system may help me to understand it.

1) First of all, it takes you about 2 pages to explain the Ben system and 5 and half pages to explain the Shadow System, which I find a bit discouraging. 2)Can you sum it up?
Also, can you answer briefly the following questions:
4) How many images do you need to memorize to use your system?
5) If it isn't the same number as a Ben system (2752 or so), How can you say your system is a two card (per image presumably) system?
I see that you have highlighted some of Ben's consonants for 16 options regarding the suit mix. 6) Is your system the same as Ben except that it deals differently with those highlighted consonants?
7) What is an illogical consonant? 8. How would you define a Shadow in your system?
9) Does your system involve posting images on a journey the regular way? With 26 images posted for a pack?

Thanks,

Simon

Thanks for the interest, Simon.

1) I'm not concerned with teaching the Ben System. I posted its rules because it is the only competing 2-card system that I have heard of. Looking at them side by side may help people who wish to make a 2-card system decide which system they would prefer to use. Also, the Ben System is simple, so there isn't as much to say about it. I'm sorry that the length of the SS explanation is discouraging. The fact that it is not as simple as the Ben System may deter people from using it or even understanding it, but I do not believe it is more difficult to fill out and become familiar with after all things are considered. However, anyone serious about building a 2-card system must understand that they are committing to something that will take a lot of time, and they would do well to learn about and ponder their options, like Brad is doing.

2) In summation: the SS is a 2-card system, whereby all combinations of 2 cards are considered distinct entities, thus allowing 2 cards to be memorized at once so that more cards could potentially be memorized in fewer loci.

3) I use the term "shadows" to describe half of the images used in the list. These 1352 images spring from each of the original 1352 in the sense that the two are related and the second is necessarily preceded by the first. Metaphorically, this resembles a shadow.

4) 2704. However, if you wish to disregard the second half of the system, the first half can be used as a clean way to create a two-block system, like the one Mallow uses.

5)It is just like the Ben System in this respect.

6). That is a major difference, but there are other, more important differences. For instance, the Ben system uses vowel sounds, while SS does not.

7) I don't know what you mean. There are probably some typos and other errors in my original post. If you are quoting me, then what I was probably trying to say is that the phonemes made by the Ben System are often nonsensical.

8. See "3)"

9) Of course. I'm not setting out to try to reinvent the wheel here. The Method of Loci is fundamental.

30 July, 2013 - 08:06
Offline
Joined: 5 years 5 months ago

Hi Lance,

Thanks a lot for sharing your system which is in my opinion, the first serious attempt at translating the Ben system in the major system. I find it very ingenious, but perhaps I still don't understand it very well. I have a few more questions.

So you appear to create Major images with blocks of images with the main block, the one that uses always 3 consonants, being the 10X 10 (or Ace to 10 X Ace to 10) 10 X 10 = 100 images X 8 possible suit combinations = 800 images. Make a second set of images (the shadows) and you have 1600 images created for this main block.
Now given that there are in fact 16 possible suit combinations, you will be using the first listed suit of combination for the normal major images and the second listed suit combination (the one that shares the same consonant as the first) for the shadow image.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, would it be possible for you to detail the image count of the remaining blocks of images, (the ones involving the faces) as I have done here, so we can see that all 2704 images are accounted for?

Thanks

Simon

30 July, 2013 - 11:27
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Yes, it sounds like you have that right.

Since the blocks are designated by which color the first card is, if we only talk about the combos that bein with a black card, we will arrive at 1352, and that's probably the quickest way to explain it.

You have that block of 800 #+# images,
Then you have images that start with a black court card and have a # second. There are 6 black court cards, (JcJsQcQsKcKs)
And each of these will make a combination with each of the 40 # cards, so 6x40=240 cards beginning with a face but ending with a # card. There are just as many when the faces are second, but if that is not intuitive, then just think of 20 black # cards each pairing with a face card of either color, of which there are 12. 12x20=240
800+240+240=1280. That means that the remaining 72 cards are combinations of Face cards. 2 black Jacks x 12 face cards=24
2 black queens x 12 face cards (12 possibilities of face cards that the second face card could be)=24.
Combinations that start with black Kings, as with Q and J, have 24 combinations.
24+24+24+1280=1352.

30 July, 2013 - 12:13
Offline
Joined: 5 years 5 months ago

Thanks Lance,

I now feel that I understand completely your new 2 card Shadow System. So I have no more questions. I will consider giving your system a try.

For those of you who may not have understood it yet and who notice that Lance does not appear to be taking into account a number of possible combinations. (Red court card followed by #, for instance) I wish to say that you simply have to deduce that when you have a red court card to start off followed by a number, you simply use the shadow image of the black court card with the same number for that particular combination.

Simon

2 August, 2013 - 13:24
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

I hope you do! It is a lot of fun, and a challenge - just make up those abbreviations for the first 1352 along the way, so you don't have to go back like I did.

6 August, 2013 - 07:38
Offline
Joined: 5 years 5 months ago

Lance,

The thing is I'm very dedicated right now to my own Less L. System, which I have recently overhauled. Given that I'm all alone using that Less L. technique, I think it is best if I just try to find out how far I can take it. Dividing energies by working on two methods is too much time consuming.

The concept of shadow images is something I began to use myself in 2011. I used it with 4000 pegs (2000 of them shadows) where all the odd numbers become a true phonetic match and the even number the shadow. I have done this for my pegs 5000-9000. I also alternated with the true phonetic match being the even number for the 6000-6999 series and the 8000-8999 series ( because they start with an even number, 6000 and 8000).

I've never revealed this anywhere before because my memorization is still partial (about 95%) and consequently the system is quite slow. When I had the idea to try this, I thought it would be easier to conjure up images that way as opposed to having to find an accurate phonetic match for each number. It hasn't turned out to be easier. It seemed just as difficult. What I found interesting was to develop an order system by which I could always know which one is the shadow and which one is the true phonetic peg. I'm not at the point though, where I would recommend to anyone to use this system for use as images for numbers.
However, I think the application you found for this shadow system (translating Ben's system into the major system) is ideal.

Simon

6 August, 2013 - 22:44
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Cool!

I am doing something really similar with Even and Odd numbers in my expansion of SS into the 4-digit system! A big part of me wants to have it ready to use for USAMC 2014, but I know my scores would be lower if I actually did pull it off. That doesn't actually matter though, more important is that I wouldn't have time to improve at random words, N&F, and poetry.

You're definitely right not to divide your time up if building a Giganto-List. It takes far too much time. Did I understand you right, that you have thousands of pegs that you use?

But I think that the description of the SS as "translating the Ben's System into the Major System" is inaccurate. What makes the Ben System unique is the way he expanded the Major System, which I didn't replicate here. So he and I really just took different paths from the same starting point.

26 August, 2013 - 09:02
Offline
Joined: 5 years 5 months ago

Hi Vince,

Yes, I use about 5200 pegs to memorize 4 packs a day these days. More precisely, I use 208 images of that peg list every day. My shadow system of Odd and Even numbers are pegs that come after that.

Regarding your system, I'd like to add here that it might be possible, with the use of different intonations, to use the same sub vocalization for both the first peg and then its shadow.
This would reduce the need to learn or memorize how the syllable is translated for the shadow. In addition, it may be more meaningful (and therefore more memorable) to modify a syllable with intonations than with an arbitrary system of syllable modification such as the one you propose.
To use one of your example, a Corvette, the car, could be pronounced Corv, with the intonation, "See, there.." and the shadow, a checkered flag, could be pronounced "Coorv!" as if it just crossed the finish line and the checkered flag is waved. By the way, isn't sub vocalizing "Curv" ( your syllable for checked flag) going against the grain, as the image of a curve might interfere?
Fred (Flintstone) could be read with a Male accent while Wilma would still be exactly Fred but this time pronounced (sub vocalized) as if with a sharp female voice, Fred, etc.
What do you think? Again, I'm just selecting here quickly two of your examples and I'm sure I would have difficulties finding adequate and meaningful sets of intonations for all the pegs and their shadows but when obvious opportunities arise, might it be worth it?
I admit that this intonation idea of mine is an untested idea and which could prove not to work at all but if I were to start all over again, I think I'd give that a try.

Simon L.

27 August, 2013 - 10:27
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

A couple minor corrections to your post, first:

The modifications of the syllables in the abbreviations is not arbitrary. It is systematic - the alternate sound of the same vowel is used. There are exceptions in the 50 I posted above, but those were my first fifty to convert, and I was still playing with different ideas to see which works best. Among the other 950, there are not many exceptions. If you believe different intimations would be more meaningful as you say, then that is probably the best route for you, but I wouldn't do that on account of it being much easier to learn, because it wouldn't be that much quicker to learn (but a little easier, yes). Either way, you'll know how to pronounce almost all of them immediately. It is good thinking, though, and could easily have its place in a 2-card system or its expansion into a 10k system.

The truth is, the entire second half of the system, the part with syllables and their modifications, is not necessary at all. I might be the only person in the world who uses a 3-digit major system and actually painstakingly made single syllable abbreviations for each image after the fact. It doesn't have to be done, and my reason for doing it is that when I begin to approach world record speeds, there is a chance that sub vocalizing single syllables will shave off an extra second. That won't be for years, so I Don't mind that it is a difficult process that will take much time. The other reason for doing it is so I won't make errors by subvocalizing the same word for its shadow and accidentally picturing the original. This wouldn't usually happen anyway, but it could, and I'm not sure any amount of training would be an iron-clad guarantee that this wouldn't happen from time to time. If I weren't hellbent on abbreviations being a good idea in the long run, I would just add an "'s" to the end of every word (corvette -> corvettes), and that would be plenty distinct. That would be the easiest solution, and like I said, I would have done it if I thought it would be equally effective in the long term. But I don't, because even if I added an S to the single syllables, it would take slightly longer to say than just changing the vowel.

To answer your question about "Curv," (Which actually should be spelled "Kerv," since r-controlled O's are swapped with r-controlled E's for their shadows), that is one of a handful of instances where the shadow forms a word on its own. Another example is Pop (popeye) -> POp (olive oil). At first, I thought it would be easier to just imagine the pope, but actually, since I still have to learn that that card combo means Olive Oil, Or the Pope, it is easier when it is semantically related, Hence, Olive oil is my image since it was easier to remember than the Pope, even though you might not think so.

In some languages, the intonation of a phoneme changes its meaning. That was my initial idea, and the only reason I didn't stick to it is because the first 2704 images are just the first in my 10k list. I wanted to be able to save the intimations as the last step, when building the last 5,000 shadows. I have since come up with a different Idea that I might like more, but I'll cross that bridge when I get there. You would not actually have to use different intimations for different situations, though. The initial images would be pronounced assertively, and the shadows would be pronounced as if they were followed by a question mark. That is one way, at least.

The 704 images outside of the original 1,000 and their shadows are already firmly in place in my mind as the 4-digit numbers (they begin with 0, naturally, since most of those words begin with an "S," and are represented by the Major system in 4-digit fashion) . There is at least one way to do this very cleanly and easily, but I'll share my own solution for this problem later, when I write up the 10K system portion of the system in a wiki page. There are many, many ways to proceed with the expansion, but I like to believe that I've found one of the easiest since I have puzzled over the particular problem for longer than anyone else, and have it formulated in a way that pleases me (I am also a bit of a perfectionist).

What I decided the day after the 2013 competition was that I wanted to build 5,000 images and use a 2-block method, pairing each initial digit, 0-4, with the digit that, when added to it, will equal 9. With this method, I wanted to be equal to or better at digits than I was in 2013, which should be doable even if I was pretty awful at it (because a 4-digit list is so efficient). Now I have gotten so good at digits compared to where I was before (>50% increase in digits memorized) using the first 1000 images that it is very hard to convince myself it is worth all the effort just to score equal or lower than I am now, which is all I could ask for if adding on 2,000 more images in the next 6 months. There is still much work to be done on poetry and Tea Party, and infinite work to be done on N&F. It is more important to work on improving my chances at victory than to work on the stuff I really want to, sadly.

8 January, 2014 - 16:14
Offline
Joined: 3 years 7 months ago

Great system, do you use it for Numbers and Binary as well?

8 January, 2014 - 18:08
Offline
Joined: 3 years 7 months ago

i'm sorry, i didn't read the whole thing, but now that i have, it looks like a great system. But i also have a few questions. Can you please clear the order, is it suit, first card, second card? i know it changes when there are face cards but are those the basics? Lastly, What is the point of turning each original pair into a 1 syllable word?

10 January, 2014 - 07:34
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Thanks superej! I do "use it" for digits. To be clear though, what I'm doing with digits is using the major system which works really well but is 100% unoriginal.

A note on binary:

I don't work on binary yet because it isn't an event in the USAMC. I didn't go to the WMC this past December so I didn't worry about it. One night I did try binary for a couple of hours though and I can't say anything conclusive about the efficacy of the system. I can say that my belief as of now, contrary to Brad's comment above that at this point, is that there does not seem to be an advantage over the Ben System for binary. They may be equally good, but if not, Ben System is going to be better. The results of those few hours of practice were that I rapidly improved to the point of being able to memorize 300 binary digits in 5 minutes which felt so slow it was just god-awful. It sounds like a lot but think of it this way: it took so long to read the images that I didn't have time to review because review is supposed to be QUICKER than memorization. So 300 digits = 30 images = 1 image every 6 seconds. Keep in mind that there are 26 images in a deck, so it basically felt like taking 5 minutes to memorize a deck.

There have been some changes in how I have practiced and trained with this system over this long learning process, and a big one was placing the shadow objects along their own paths, new paths that I hadn't built before, in the "telephone-number-style," 10-per-locus grid described above. I think above I probably described placing the shadow objects next to their original counterparts, but after having practiced with just the original images for a while, using the 1352 original images doubled up, I had to overcome and unlearn the already-automatic mental process of jumping to that locus and looking at that object. Learning to jump to the SAME locus only to identify a NEW object did nothing to help me unlearn the process. It always went "Cards (stimulus) -> locus (cue) -> cues original object -> cues shadow object.

So it was like having an extra step. I should have thought about this ahead of time and truthfully, I can't imagine that it hadn't crossed my mind before. I think I just got too lazy to want to create all those new loci and know them in that level of detail as well and repeating the whole process. But that was silly, and the second half was so much quicker to memorize in their respective loci since I could always fall back on its original card pair. So from the start, I'd think "There's something similar to Luigi that is here on the back corner of this stove" - not in words of course, just in intuition. And how could I possibly forget what image I chose to memorize there with a cue like that? It was a cinch.

Now the reason I bring that up is that I found while doing binary that rather than just decoding 3 blocks of 3 digits, like you would do if you were only using 9-digit binary, I was decoding 4 things (the 3 blocks PLUS the left-over digit), the latter digit being something I had never even dealt with before. So what I'm going to do to alleviate this problem is learn to see each of the 128 possible combinations of 7 binary digits as a code for a specific locus, and then use the final 3 blocks to indicate which object in that locus is being referred to. Of course using flashcards, I'll also learn to see the 64 combinations 6 digits as 2-digit numbers, because I already use the final 2 digit numbers in cards and digits to indicate the location of objects. Once I learn both of these things well and begin to practice, the overlap of information should begin to glue the ten-digit blocks into more of a whole. This isn't a terribly painstaking or enormous task, but it's a process that you wouldn't have to do at all with the Ben System.

1)
#/# Card Combos:
Suit combination= first consonant
first number = second consonant
second number = third consonant

Face/# Card Combos:
First index = first consonant
Suit combination = second consonant
second number = third consonant

Face/Face Card Combos:
First index = first consonant
Second index = second consonant
Suit combination = third consonant.

And for #/Face combos the rules change a bit as you know.

2)
The point was to
a) gain even footing with the Ben System in this regard.
b) have a simple and systematic way to know the name of all the shadow images by default - that is, without having to learn them.

Sub-point (b) was a major success. Sub-point (a) was strangely a total failure.

How could one exist without the other? Learning to abbreviate the original images while I practiced reviewing them allowed me to know what they are called so well that learning the single-syllable shadow names was quick and natural. However, when I actually memorize, with digits especially, I wind up thinking of the long name of the original objects, just how I learned them at first. Yet I've gotten so fast at recognizing digits that I'm well within the range necessary to set a world record in speed numbers as it stands now (my recognition speed, not my memory/overall skill!), so the single-syllable thing may have been a detail that I put way too much weight on. I can see the object much faster than I could actually say the word, so it might not matter at all. Perhaps, I should have just flipped the first syllable of the long word and gotten on with it. The sub-vocalization disadvantage would be so minor that if that worked (the only problem might be that the word sounds similar enough to the original word that it would keep reminding you of the original) I would recommend it. If I could go back, I would try that for a while first.

14 January, 2014 - 14:05
Offline
Joined: 4 years 3 months ago

Really interesting system... I'm working on a 2-card one very similar to this. I've been working on a 3-2-3 PAO for numbers, and what I did for cards is essentially make my people akin to your "objects" and my objects akin to your "shadows." The way I filled it in for jacks and queens (to make use of those extra 200 people and 200 objects) is also really similar. I haven't actually started practicing with it yet, but I was wondering how you "read" through the cards with a 2-card system. I know Ben starts at the back of the deck and slides cards from his right hand to his left. This seems to make the most sense since you can read the card pairs directly from left to right, but is this standard for 2-card systems (I think Johannes and Simon might do it differently)? I was also curious about another post you wrote recommending a system similar to Johannes's. You'd mentioned before that his way jumping loci could be a bit jarring and was probably why he hadn't reached the top top times, so are you suggesting it over yours and Ben's because it's less work? Something else? Thanks for your help!

14 January, 2014 - 17:22
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Johannes' method is much less work to set up. It's not better, but it's not that much worse, either. And when you consider just how much less there is to do, a full 2704 list starts looking like a textbook example of diminishing returns. The maintenance alone with a huge system gets tiring. When reviewing, it's not easy to mentally move from object to object at 1 object per second, but once you can, you'll be able to review every object in the system in just over 45 minutes. That's just to get a little tiny glimpse - the time taken to familiarize yourself with the images, to understand their surfaces and materials and sizes, the things they can do, as well as the adjustment of images that are too similar to each other or just difficult to visualize quickly for some unknown reason, and to review all of those facts frequently enough to keep them fresh...it really adds up. You'll kill your PAO times with Johannes' method, so why not? It is a little bit...hmm...well, you have to be kind of an odd person to choose to make a 2704 system, but that isn't so with one half the size :)

I have thought quite a bit about what you're doing. A very serious problem that may arise is keeping track of the order of people and objects at high speeds. When memorizing free-form like this as opposed to the structure of PAO, the order of objects can occasionally get confusing. Using people and objects might compound the problem. Or maybe it only seems that way to me because I have so much trouble working with imaginary people. But spend some time puzzling that out yourself before taking the plunge.

If Ben really does spread from his right hand to his left, then he is left handed and uses a special brand of cards that has indices on all four corners. Most of us stare at the face of the pack, holding it in the left hand, and pulling cards to the right with the right thumb. Simon doesn't do it differently, and I highly doubt that Johannes does either.

Please forgive these heavy-handed attempts at persuasion, but I implore you; think twice about making a millennium PAO. It sounds like you still have a ways to go. People who use a millennium PAO fare no better than those who merely use 1000 objects. You get used to linking objects over time, even though it sounds crazy at first. You don't have to be like me :) but are you sure you want to go through all that extra effort just so you can put 8 digits per locus instead of 9?

For what it's worth, the best solution I've come up with so far for using people and objects in a 2-card system (I'm offering a solution, but maybe there is no problem with confusion of the objects' and peoples' order to begin with) would be to stay true to PAO. Making 2704 people does not sound fun, so I would use a full 2704 object system and have 1352 people each used twice. I would become familiar with exactly how each locus looks (view it from the same perspective each time). For red pairs, have the person doing the action while facing right, and for black pairs, have the person doing the action while facing left. It's a bit of an odd solution, but it would be all but impossible to mistake which cards were used. Of course, there would only be 52 actions. But I think that people don't do it because linking objects together becomes so natural that it seems better to just put 6 cards per locus instead of 5. It's the same issue with the 3-2-3 PAO.

14 January, 2014 - 19:06
Offline
Joined: 4 years 3 months ago

I think I may have been a bit confusing about the card reading stuff. I don't think Ben would need special cards, because he starts at the back of the deck (in other words, with the cards facing him, he slides the back card--the card furthest from him--so that he's seeing the left hand side of the card). Sorry about my wordy explanation :) , a video's probably best for this:

The reason I was confused is that if you hold the cards like you described (which is how I do it now with 1-card PAO), it seems like you'd be memorizing slightly out of order. For instance, if the first (top) card is 2d and the second is 3c, would you read the card pair as 3c-2d (since 3c is on the left and 2d on the right)? Doing it like this you'd memorize the deck as 3c-2d, 4d-6c, ..., whereas as the actual order of the deck is 2d, 3c, 6c, 4d, so everything's flipped. Is this how you do it? (hope that's clear :) )

I do hear what you're saying about the dangers of a Millennium PAO, and you're right I haven't really started on it (just outlined how I would do it). Sometimes I do wish I'd jumped more quickly to an advanced system like Johannes's after making my 2-digit PAO, but c'est la vie. Here's some more of my thinking on this:

1. It sounds bad, but I was hoping to incorporate my current 2-digit PAO into my next system. I've put a lot of work into it (and will be over the next few months), so it'd be nice if I could extend my current system rather than start completely from scratch.
2. I do like to use people, and Nelson/Florian's category idea makes for a really easy way of getting 1000 people. I made sure to have distinct categories when setting up my 2-digit system, so thinking them up shouldn't be too bad (a lot of my categories are different TV shows, so I'd just use the other characters). I did run into troubles in the beginning with people (ie. just seeing a faceless figure rather than the distinct person). One thing that really helps me is trying to get inside the mind of the person/character, thinking about their history, how they'd react to certain things, the sound of their voice. For instance, really feeling the anger and specific sound of Dr. Cox from Scrubs yelling versus just seeing him. It seems like this would slow you down, but I've gotten better with practice and it works, at least for me, for preventing the faceless figure stuff (these days my mistakes are usually on objects).
3. One thing I thought would be nice about the 3-2-3 PAO is that I'd be using roughly 2000 of the 2704 images in my 2-card system for numbers as well--I was a little wary about dreaming up 1704 extra images I'd use exclusively for cards. That way I'd get more practice at seeing and maintaining them, even when I wasn't doing cards.
4. Using 2 "blocks" like this (one being people, the other being objects) would give an easy way to do 10-digit binary. For instance, if it's a 1-xxx-xxx-xxx, it would be the corresponding decimal person; if 0-xxx-xxx-xxx, it would be the corresponding decimal object (translating each xxx to one decimal digit).
5. I am worried, like you say, about mixing up the order of things. Even if I skipped the 3-2-3 PAO idea though, I think many of my pegs in my 2-card system would be people (that's just what I remember best). So the order of things is going to be a problem for me in a 2-card or 10-digit binary system no matter what; forgoing a PAO won't change that. And a 2704 PAO is just beyond me, even as someone crazy enough to consider a 2-card system.
6. I'm also concerned about navigating the categories. I used a major system to create my 100 people, so I could potentially do something phonetic along the lines of Josh's post about a category-based Ben system: http://blog.mnemotechnics.org/experimenting-with-a-category-based-ben-sy.... But I'm not sure that the phonetics are really necessary. We'll see how it goes... :)

Thanks for your insight! It's great to be able to chat about this stuff. I'd been playing around with mnemonics for half a year before I found this wonderful site

14 January, 2014 - 21:12
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

AlexM wrote:

1) it seems like you'd be memorizing slightly out of order. For instance, if the first (top) card is 2d and the second is 3c, would you read the card pair as 3c-2d (since 3c is on the left and 2d on the right)?

2) One thing that really helps me is trying to get inside the mind of the person/character, thinking about their history, how they'd react to certain things, the sound of their voice. For instance, really feeling the anger and specific sound of Dr. Cox from Scrubs yelling versus just seeing him. It seems like this would slow you down, but I've gotten better with practice and it works, at least for me, for preventing the faceless figure stuff (these days my mistakes are usually on objects).

3) Using 2 "blocks" like this (one being people, the other being objects) would give an easy way to do 10-digit binary. For instance, if it's a 1-xxx-xxx-xxx, it would be the corresponding decimal person; if 0-xxx-xxx-xxx, it would be the corresponding decimal object (translating each xxx to one decimal digit).

4). I used a major system to create my 100 people, so I could potentially do something phonetic along the lines of Josh's post about a category-based Ben system: http://blog.mnemotechnics.org/experimenting-with-a-category-based-ben-sy.... But I'm not sure that the phonetics are really necessary.

1) Ah, I get what you mean. I do it out of order. You can sort of train yourself to see a suit combination such as c/c as the number "7," so when I see "7c3c" it looks a lot like 773, where as 3c7c would look a lot more like 737. The visual similarity is really helpful and it's quite easy to keep a couple cards cued up and spread out ahead of time, so it doesn't slow you down.

I didn't consider how if you spent so much time on a 2-digit PAO list, you would want to keep it, but especially since all the actions would be the same it makes perfect sense. Sounds like you'll do fine though.

2) Insightful. Kudos - that's difficult to do, even slowly. All my guys look just like targets from the pistol range (not really, but yeah...)

3) Yeah, that's how I thought to do it as well; it's in my original post up there. But just a couple posts above, I emend the idea, suggesting that since I already have my images indexed in loci paths, I would do better to learn to see the 16 binary "XXXX" combinations as referencing the sixteen palaces. When I think of that path wrapping around the gas station, I've gone through it so many times that it just "feels" like 700 at this point. so when I see 0111 which will reference that path, when I see the next 6 digits like 110.011 it'll be the 63rd one on that path - 763 - I know automatically where that is and what is in it. having the "1/0".xxx.xxx.xxx" separate like that means you have to process four things instead of three, and it just doesn't seem to be as fast as it should be.

4) Phonetics are good. Reading is natural and easy. Keep em if you can, even though it's okay if it's a lot easier to fill out your list without them.

18 January, 2014 - 21:56
Offline
Joined: 4 years 8 months ago

Lance,
Thanks for sharing your system and ideas.
This thread also inspired me to set up and use a 2-Card system.

LociInTheSky wrote:

3) Yeah, that's how I thought to do it as well; it's in my original post up there. But just a couple posts above, I emend the idea, suggesting that since I already have my images indexed in loci paths, I would do better to learn to see the 16 binary "XXXX" combinations as referencing the sixteen palaces. When I think of that path wrapping around the gas station, I've gone through it so many times that it just "feels" like 700 at this point. so when I see 0111 which will reference that path, when I see the next 6 digits like 110.011 it'll be the 63rd one on that path - 763 - I know automatically where that is and what is in it. having the "1/0".xxx.xxx.xxx" separate like that means you have to process four things instead of three, and it just doesn't seem to be as fast as it should be.

It is really interesting how you are associating 10 binary digits to a landmark-object.

- Are these paths only used in the review / learning process of your binary numbers?
- Will you just link each object / landmark from those paths to a specific locus in a journey when actually memorizing binary digits?

20 January, 2014 - 14:51
Offline
Joined: 4 years 6 months ago

Dharis wrote:

Lance,
Thanks for sharing your system and ideas.
1)This thread also inspired me to set up and use a 2-Card system.

could you explain a little more:

2)- Are these paths only used in the review / learning process of your binary numbers?
3)- Will you just link each object / landmark from those paths to a specific locus in a journey when actually memorizing binary digits?

1) You are the man.

2) Yes, that is what they're used for, though not only for binary. That's how I learned the cards and numbers, so the images are already sitting there, right where they need to be. Or are you asking if I use the palaces for memorizing new info still? I do use them to memorize, every day. That "reference" story is so isolated in my memory that ghost images from it never show up.
3) If I understand you right, the answer is absolutely not! If my seventh location is my kitchen sink, you mean, would I memorize the kitchen sink itself if 0000.000.111 came up?

The journey is used as an index merely because the easiest way to memorize a large quantity of objects is by using a journey. If you memorize a deck using PAO and I asked you what the seventh card is, you'll kind of mentally divide by 3 and see that the object you are being asked for is the Person in the 3rd locus. Better yet, let's say that you memorized the deck (Deck A) and I told you that I wanted you to memorize the deck in a new order of my choosing ("Hypothetical" Deck B). I would say, "In deck B, the first card is going to be seventh card from Deck A. The second card of deck B is going to be the 24th card of Deck A." You would think "Okay, it's going to be the object that I had memorized in the 8th locus." But never in a million years would you get so confused that you would memorize the landmark itself. So it sounds like referencing the locus to identify an object might be problematic for that reason, but it actually isn't. Especially because those objects are memorized there permanently. After a while, when you warp to the locus, you get a "feeling" of where you are, but the only thing in focus is the object itself because it has been so intimately linked with the locus over time that it has in a sense 'become' that locus (even though you still just use the locus when memorizing something new!!). Does that answer your question?

613 JediMan

Learn memory techniques for free! Just click the "Sign up" button below to create an account and we'll send you an email with some tips on how to get started.