[Help Thread] Waterman Discussion

You mentioned that you don't always solve the first layer Waterman-style (Corners then edges). I seem to have trouble solving the first layer in under 20 moves. Any tips?
 
somerandomkidmike, it would seriously be awesome if you could record some avg12 videos with good lighting and camera angle. I hope this is possible for you someday. Different methods would be cool too, like Waterman, LC2E, corners first, etc. I think you may very well be the fastest in the world at a few methods of that type, and it would be really cool to have some good solves on record to learn from. I've played around with some of those methods but could never get any good times (due to some combination of not wanting to learn algs, lack of practice, and the methods feeling very different than the ones I mostly use).
 
qqwref said:
somerandomkidmike, it would seriously be awesome if you could record some avg12 videos with good lighting and camera angle. I hope this is possible for you someday. Different methods would be cool too, like Waterman, LC2E, corners first, etc. I think you may very well be the fastest in the world at a few methods of that type, and it would be really cool to have some good solves on record to learn from. I've played around with some of those methods but could never get any good times (due to some combination of not wanting to learn algs, lack of practice, and the methods feeling very different than the ones I mostly use).
Click to expand...

I've been trying to record some solves for the last 2 hours now. Hopefully I will be able to get some tomorrow. Even if I don't, I'll figure it out on Tuesday, because I have a day off.

Unfortunately, the quality won't be great since I'm stuck using my webcam.
 
Stefan said:
[citation needed]



Why does whether or not an official WR existed matter for that?
And what's "that time"? 1980-81 or when the WC happened or some other time?



So... you know how fast Minh was at home with his own cube? And how fast Marc would've been under WC pressure and with the provided cubes? Please tell us!

I read about Marc getting second place with 31 seconds in a championship a little over a month before the WC: http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/gus.html
Click to expand...

Every time I see a Stefan post like that I have to think about this:

tumblr_m52m8bmiX61qldi5bo1_500.jpg
 
rybaby said:
Ok so I was wrong about Waterman averaging 16 seconds BEFORE the official WR, but he did so afterward: http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/gus.htm
Click to expand...

Bad link, you removed the "l" at the end. Here's the correct one again:
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/gus.html

And yes, that's the best source I found as well. But besides that being *after* the WC/WR, I have more issues:

- 16.4 seconds isn't 16 seconds.
- He starts talking about averages saying "We always took average times for 10 cubes". So it's likely that the 16.4 was Marc's *record* average of 10, not his real average. And that's not the same.
- He says "Minh Thai won in 22.8 seconds", but it was 22.95 seconds. If he misremembers the WC-winning WR... he might misremember other times as well.
- The introduction here says 18 seconds average, and while I'm not entirely sure when that was written (don't you love it when authors don't tell you when they wrote something?), judging by the chapters and the CFF Index, I suspect it was in 1987. And then it seems unlikely that he had earlier averaged 16 and didn't mention it there.

AvGalen said:
Every time I see a Stefan post like that I have to think about this:

View attachment 2920
Click to expand...

I like it. Would make it my avatar if I weren't happy with my current one already. Is that one on facebook or so, so I can at least "like" it there? Oh look, there it is.
 
Last edited:
Stefan said:
Bad link, you removed the "l" at the end. Here's the correct one again:
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/gus.html

And yes, that's the best source I found as well. But besides that being *after* the WC/WR, I have more issues:

- 16.4 seconds isn't 16 seconds.
- He starts talking about averages saying "We always took average times for 10 cubes". So it's likely that the 16.4 was Marc's *record* average of 10, not his real average. And that's not the same.
- He says "Minh Thai won in 22.8 seconds", but it was 22.95 seconds. If he misremembers the WC-winning WR... he might misremember other times as well.
- The introduction here says 18 seconds average, and while I'm not entirely sure when that was written (don't you love it when authors don't tell you when they wrote something?), judging by the chapters and the CFF Index, I suspect it was in 1987. And then it seems unlikely that he had earlier averaged 16 and didn't mention it there.
Click to expand...

:fp

If only you could post something more relevant and constructive....Enough with specifics -- I was asking for opinions and help with the algorithm. I know most cubists these days are insistent of using Fridrich; I'm looking for those who are open-minded and ready to help. If you are not willing to provide constructive criticism relevant to Waterman's algorithm, then don't post.
 
rybaby said:
If only you could post something more relevant and constructive....Enough with specifics -- I was asking for opinions and help with the algorithm. I know most cubists these days are insistent of using Fridrich; I'm looking for those who are open-minded and ready to help. If you are not willing to provide constructive criticism relevant to Waterman's algorithm, then don't post.
Click to expand...

methods with slice moves will never be good, slice moves are slow
 
I read about it on some sort of blog a few years ago, apparantly it has a TON of algs. I'd just do either CFOP or roux. Those seem to be the two fastest. Roux would probably be best so that you can carry the CLL's over to the 2x2.
 
cannon4747 said:
I read about it on some sort of blog a few years ago, apparantly it has a TON of algs. I'd just do either CFOP or roux. Those seem to be the two fastest. Roux would probably be best so that you can carry the CLL's over to the 2x2.
Click to expand...

There are 117 algorithms total. CFOP has 78-119 (depending on whether F2L is intuitive or not). That doesn't really count as a 'ton' of algorithms.
 
cannon4747 said:
I read about it on some sort of blog a few years ago, apparantly it has a TON of algs. I'd just do either CFOP or roux. Those seem to be the two fastest. Roux would probably be best so that you can carry the CLL's over to the 2x2.
Click to expand...

zz is the coolest.

Czery said:
Last time I checked M was a slice move and I'm pretty sure M is very fast.
Certain algs with S or E can also be performed very quickly if the correct fingertricks are used.
Click to expand...
but those s and e algs require regriping usually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waterman Discussion Thread

This thread is for the discussion of the Waterman method.
Waterman is an advanced corners-first method developed in the 1980s. It takes around 45 turns for an average solve, and it requires 117 algorithms.

Right now Waterman is quite an uncommon method, despite the fact that it is very possible to get some good solves.

Here is a basic overview of the method:

Step 1- Solve a single layer

The first layer is considered to be the most challenging part to do quickly. It can be done in 20 turns or less.


Step 2- Finish the remaining 4 corners (R-layer)

The remaining corners can be done in 9 turns on average. This requires 42 algorithms (CLL)

Step 3- Solve the remaining 8 edges

A)- Solve 2 R-layer edges, and put a third somewhere in the R-layer

B)- Solve the remaining R-layer edges while orienting the Middle Edges.

C)- Position the middle edges

I know that this site doesn't have many Waterman or Corners First solvers, so I don't think it requires a home thread. I know there have been threads about this method in the past, but recently I've noticed that people are interested in learning more, and I didn't want to bump a 4 year old thread.

So if you have any questions regarding Waterman, if you wanted to post your averages, or you have any other topics for discussion involving this method, you can post here.

_________________________________


Anyway, I've been cubing for more than 7 years, and I've been using corners first methods for at least half that time.

Right now I average about 15 seconds, but my average has been as low as sub-13. I'll post some more videos later, but for now here is a single solve.


Sorry that I don't have more to post right now, but if a select few people on this forum keep bothering me about it, I'll be more inclined to post eventually. A proper tutorial along with tips might come in the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheNextFeliks said:
One thing that I can never figure out about waterman is how to place the r-layer edges.
Click to expand...

It usually involves simple commutators and variations of those simple commutators.
Here's an example:
U' R U M U' R' U can be used place the final r-layer edge, and orient some middle layer edges.
OR
U2 R U' M2 U R' U2 can place 2 edges from the middle layer into the R-layer

Edit: I don't even like watermelon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LukasCubes
Generating the world's dumbest Waterman Algorithms
Replies
0
Views
353
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
Sub-6 with WATERMAN is Possible
Replies
13
Views
2,143
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
Sub-7 With Waterman (Dont accuse me of faking this one)
2
Replies
23
Views
3,713
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
LukasCubes
Is this UWR? Sub-8 with Waterman
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
8,820
GodCubing
GodCubing
D
3x3 Waterman Method Speedsolving Tutorial by Blobinati Cuber
Replies
2
Views
1,659
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
Back
Top