• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

Is Waterman a dead method?

Phlippieskezer

Phlippieskezer

Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
666
Location
Behind You
WCA ID
2011HAUP01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hello...

Firstly, to get this out of the way: This is not meant to be insulting, or such to Waterman solvers out there, nor the inventor, nor do I say it's a bad method. I haven't explored it enough to base a solid opinion on whether I think it's good or not.

However, I've only ever met one Waterman solver, and he doesn't even use it as his main. Compare that to the 3 (including myself) Rouxers, 4 ZZ solvers, and over-abundance of Fridrich and Petrus solvers (especially CFOP) I've met (not including online). I also notice that most people tend to suggest CFOP, Roux, Petrus, and ZZ to people wondering what method they should choose, not only on these forums, but also just about when at cube meets (and there's a newbie) and such.
I'm just wondering, is this just my perception, or am I right, in that Waterman is a "dead" (as in very unpopular) method? If so, WHY?

Discuss, civilly please.
 
I know waterman and the main drawback is the large amount of algorithms.
Therefore I do everything intuitively.

And don't suggest it to beginners. I should.

However, Roux has its rouxts in waterman.
I am glad you brought this up as I was thinking about the same thing...

Edit: 3 rouxers? What do you mean?
I actually am curious by the way.
 
Last edited:
People are intimidated by the large number of algorithms to give 45 move solves. They would rather use Roux. I'm a Waterman solver. Although 90-100 algorithms does seem like a lot, you don't actually have to learn all the algorithms. It's possible to do many of the last redges algorithms intuitively, if you learn a few tricks. You're right that Waterman is a VERY unpopular method. There is very little documentation for it as well. I believe the only good tutorial is on rubikscube.info

To me it seems that all the most popular methods also have the most abundant, accessible, and easy-to-find information.
 
We might want to start a 'waterman club', you know, a place to discuss the method. I myself am rather interested in it although the number of algs I know is nil.
I use commutators and Roux LSE techniques.
 
I've been thinking of trying to start a guide on how to speedcube with corners first methods, but I didn't think anybody would be interested. I guess it's good if the documentation can be out there anyway. I'm thinking of making a beginner, intermediate and advanced tutorial.
 
I'd be interested and can help you out too with it. Why don't we make a website about it?
Webs.com is free after all although mediocre :D

P.S. I need to learn waterman PROPERLY :P
I know how to do it but I usually cut corners (no pun intended); use shortcuts.
 
Oh...
I wasn't even aware it had so many algorithms (probably should have checked the wiki...).

I'm interested in learning it, but using intuition. I'm lazy enough still not to know full CMLL, so I'm not going to dedicate myself to those 100+ algs. :p
So, we all agree the main reason people don't use Waterman is because it's an intimidating method to get into, especially because of the number of algorithms, and the low amount of documentations? Makes sense to me...

Also,
5BLD said:
Edit: 3 rouxers? What do you mean?
I actually am curious by the way.
Click to expand...

Rouxer = a person who solves with Roux.
I've only ever met 3 Roux-solvers in reality (including myself), 4 ZZ-solvers (only one of which is sub-30/20), but plenty, plenty Petrus and Fridrich solvers. Only ever met one Waterman solver, though.
 
Last edited:
You can solve edges intuitively. That's how I do it. Try to solve like four edges at a time with something like M E or S slice cycles and conjugates.

It's not all that different to 'pure' waterman, if not the same.

Edit: you don't know full CMLL?
never thought I'd say this to anyone let alone myself, but you should; CMLL is holding you back at this stage.
 
Maybe. I actually don't know all the algorithms either. I don't even know all the corners algorithms. I haven't been learning, even though it is my main method. I have no experience with making web pages though. I also am not sure if I can convey all my ideas in a way that makes sense. It might be nice to have some help from a person that at least understands the method.
 
We both understand the method. We just happen to do it intuitively...
Hm. Why don't we read up, and get to know it a little better?
And making a website is ridiculously easy, you'll see.
 
5BLD said:
Edit: you don't know full CMLL?
never thought I'd say this to anyone let alone myself, but you should; CMLL is holding you back at this stage.
Click to expand...

A little bit off topic, but:
Nope. Don't know full CMLL yet. I'm only missing one case, though, anti-sune. I haven't learned it yet because I have a competition coming this Saturday (learning algs right before comp = bad idea).

Also, I'd be very willing to help with the web site. I'm familiar with web site design as well as webs. I don't know much about the method, though, but I'll try to help where I can (and maybe learn a thing or two while I'm at it). I know I shan't be the most valuable asset, but I guess I can help. I'm also a grammar nazi (though I'm a hypocrite, as you can tell by all the fragments above, but this is in a colloquial forum). ;)
 
Last edited:
Phlippieskezer said:
Rouxer = a person who solves with Roux.
I've only ever met 3 Roux-solvers in reality (including myself), 4 ZZ-solvers (only one of which is sub-30/20), but plenty, plenty Petrus and Fridrich solvers. Only ever met one Waterman solver, though.
Click to expand...

Ah. In real life. Makes sense.
As for me, I have met one Rouxer (lolz my student), like 6 CFOPers, and one Petrus user (my student as well).
And I'm the fastest person I know in real life. Exactly, if I'm the fastest, I don't know many cubers at all.
Unfortunately I have not been to competitions so I don't know many cubers in real life.


Edit: yeah, same, HTML is easy but webs is even easier, to the point where you don't really need a brain to make a website :)

As for anti sune, just mirror sune!

I use anti-sune mirrors for sune cases. I'm lazy.
Yet I know so many algs for other cases. Weird.
 
Last edited:
Just so you know, I do know many of the algorithms. I don't do everything with algorithms from the site. I've read the site many times. I just happen to come up with a few things, and I've been using them without really thinking. It's much the same as F2L for CFOP. Just for the sake of this thread, I took an average 3 of 5 right now using the scrambles on cubetimer.com. The average was 14.80 seconds.
Times:
1) (12.49 seconds)
2) 14.78 seconds
3) 14.41 seconds
4) (15.28 seconds)
5) 15.21 seconds

I am a little out of practice though.
 
Hm... Weird there are so few cubers in London... In fact I haven't heard of ANY here on speedsolving.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be glad.

Edit:
ooh, so you're pretty fast.
But F2L? Please explain your method if that's alright with you; I'm curious.
 
somerandomkidmike said:
Just so you know, I do know many of the algorithms. I don't do everything with algorithms from the site. I've read the site many times. I just happen to come up with a few things, and I've been using them without really thinking. It's much the same as F2L for CFOP. Just for the sake of this thread, I took an average 3 of 5 right now using the scrambles on cubetimer.com. The average was 14.80 seconds.
Times:
1) (12.49 seconds)
2) 14.78 seconds
3) 14.41 seconds
4) (15.28 seconds)
5) 15.21 seconds

I am a little out of practice though.
Click to expand...

That's pretty neat (slightly faster than my average).
What do you figure is your normal average, with practice?

Also: Where do you personally use algorithms (i.e. what stages)?

Edit:
5BLD said:
As for anti sune, just mirror sune!

I use anti-sune mirrors for sune cases. I'm lazy.
Yet I know so many algs for other cases. Weird.
Click to expand...

Maybe later, but even just mirroring sune will mess up recognition and increase pausing in the middle of a competition. I'll wait until afterwards. 2LCMLL for only one case isn't really that bad.
 
Last edited:
I meant that it's sort of the same as intuitive f2l vs algorithmic f2l. Many people do learn a couple cases for the F2L so they can understand how it works, but the rest is just intuitive. They figure out cases on their own, and use them without thinking. The way I solve the redges is sort of the same. Of course, I do use a few more algorithms than if I was learning f2l, but it's the same idea.

I do:

Step 1) Solve first layer (I remember seeing a guide on the first layer not too long ago, and I basically do the same thing as in that guide)
Step 2) Solve corners
Step 3) Solve 2-3 redges
Step 4) Orient midges while solving the last redges
Step 5) Permute midges.

Edit: I use algorithms for solving the corners, some for solving redges, and some for orienting midges and solving the last redge. I normally average about 14 seconds. I did have one average under 13 seconds, but it had 3 lucky solves in it, and one solve that wasn't technically lucky, but had a 7 turn first layer. This was still using the scrambles on cubetimer.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LukasCubes
Generating the world's dumbest Waterman Algorithms
Replies
0
Views
346
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
Sub-6 with WATERMAN is Possible
Replies
13
Views
2,102
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
Sub-7 With Waterman (Dont accuse me of faking this one)
2
Replies
23
Views
3,703
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
Is this UWR? Sub-8 with Waterman
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
8,800
GodCubing
GodCubing
D
3x3 Waterman Method Speedsolving Tutorial by Blobinati Cuber
Replies
2
Views
1,650
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
Back
Top