[Help Thread] Best 3x3x3 Speedsolving Method

[PyraminxKing]

I Currently use CFOP and I average around 30 seconds with it. I was wanting to switch to be more efficient and faster.

I would like a tutorial video/link to a website with the algs to the method you mention

 

[shadowslice e]

At the moment, it is generally acknowledged that 3 methods have been proven enable the user to reach world class times (ie top 100 in the world). They are CFOP,Roux and ZZ. Note however, that these are the only methods which have been proven to work and it is possible there are others which could reach those speeds but no one has either used them for long enough or has become that fast with them.

In general, there are no real set algs and you should find your own though many people take their algs from here and many fast cubers have pdfs or youtube playlists of their algs.

 

[CornerCutter]

I Currently use CFOP and I average around 30 seconds with it. I was wanting to switch to be more efficient and faster.

I would like a tutorial video/link to a website with the algs to the method you mention

I'm just curious why you don't think CFOP is a efficient or fast method?

If you've gotten as fast as 30 seconds it might take a lot of time to learn a new method.

Still CFOP isn't for everybody.

 

[efattah]

The whole problem with method comparison is there isn't a fair comparison in so many different ways. Many methods have never been properly explored with modern cubes. Let's use an example.

At the 1982 World Championships, CFOP was poorly developed, and the couple of CFOP competitors were defeated by Minh Thai who was a corners first solver. Corners first then was evolved into Waterman by Marc Waterman and his friends, soon Waterman had a method with 400+ algorithms and had registered a 17.70 average at a small competition in 1987. He retires from cubing around 1990. Fast forward to the 2003 World Championships. CFOP has now been refined and developed for 20 years, but the cubes are the same ones as from the 1980's. Almost everyone at the 2003 championships was using CFOP, and the average to beat was Waterman's 17.70 with his advanced corners first method. Nobody even came close and the winning average was 20.00 seconds by Dan Knights. Shortly after the 2003 World championships, modern speed cubes were developed, making all comparisons to Waterman's 1980's solves meaningless.

Even Waterman himself forgot almost all the algorithms of his method shortly after he stopped cubing. People often say his method has 120 algorithms (after they read the PDF), but they don't understand that the algorithms in the PDF are the base algorithms and you need to introduce 3 variants for each algorithm based on different cases.

No one since Waterman has learned the full set. The closest has been Somerandomkidmike here on this forum (no longer active), who started as a 19.5 second CFOP solver, switched to Waterman and dropped to 14 seconds in a few months despite knowing less than half of the algorithms. This is not surprising since Waterman uses 40-45 moves per solve instead of 50-64 for CFOP. Today it is mostly forgotten and people just assume that since all the records are with CFOP and the only other quick times are Roux and ZZ, that this means these are the only fast methods.

I have been developing the LMCF method but adding more and more of Waterman's tricks and gradually the method seems to be migrating into a Waterman hybrid.

 

[obelisk477]

The whole problem with method comparison is there isn't a fair comparison in so many different ways. Many methods have never been properly explored with modern cubes. Let's use an example.

At the 1982 World Championships, CFOP was poorly developed, and the couple of CFOP competitors were defeated by Minh Thai who was a corners first solver. Corners first then was evolved into Waterman by Marc Waterman and his friends, soon Waterman had a method with 400+ algorithms and had registered a 17.70 average at a small competition in 1987. He retires from cubing around 1990. Fast forward to the 2003 World Championships. CFOP has now been refined and developed for 20 years, but the cubes are the same ones as from the 1980's. Almost everyone at the 2003 championships was using CFOP, and the average to beat was Waterman's 17.70 with his advanced corners first method. Nobody even came close and the winning average was 20.00 seconds by Dan Knights. Shortly after the 2003 World championships, modern speed cubes were developed, making all comparisons to Waterman's 1980's solves meaningless.

Even Waterman himself forgot almost all the algorithms of his method shortly after he stopped cubing. People often say his method has 120 algorithms (after they read the PDF), but they don't understand that the algorithms in the PDF are the base algorithms and you need to introduce 3 variants for each algorithm based on different cases.

No one since Waterman has learned the full set. The closest has been Somerandomkidmike here on this forum (no longer active), who started as a 19.5 second CFOP solver, switched to Waterman and dropped to 14 seconds in a few months despite knowing less than half of the algorithms. This is not surprising since Waterman uses 40-45 moves per solve instead of 50-64 for CFOP. Today it is mostly forgotten and people just assume that since all the records are with CFOP and the only other quick times are Roux and ZZ, that this means these are the only fast methods.

I have been developing the LMCF method but adding more and more of Waterman's tricks and gradually the method seems to be migrating into a Waterman hybrid.

I would be very interested in learning more about your method development. I think I tried to help you with genning algorithms in the past, but would like to try again, if you need it. I actually have a program that specializes in generating RrUM algorithms which would be good for Waterman like edges.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

The whole problem with method comparison is there isn't a fair comparison in so many different ways. Many methods have never been properly explored with modern cubes. Let's use an example.

At the 1982 World Championships, CFOP was poorly developed, and the couple of CFOP competitors were defeated by Minh Thai who was a corners first solver. Corners first then was evolved into Waterman by Marc Waterman and his friends, soon Waterman had a method with 400+ algorithms and had registered a 17.70 average at a small competition in 1987. He retires from cubing around 1990. Fast forward to the 2003 World Championships. CFOP has now been refined and developed for 20 years, but the cubes are the same ones as from the 1980's. Almost everyone at the 2003 championships was using CFOP, and the average to beat was Waterman's 17.70 with his advanced corners first method. Nobody even came close and the winning average was 20.00 seconds by Dan Knights. Shortly after the 2003 World championships, modern speed cubes were developed, making all comparisons to Waterman's 1980's solves meaningless.

Even Waterman himself forgot almost all the algorithms of his method shortly after he stopped cubing. People often say his method has 120 algorithms (after they read the PDF), but they don't understand that the algorithms in the PDF are the base algorithms and you need to introduce 3 variants for each algorithm based on different cases.

No one since Waterman has learned the full set. The closest has been Somerandomkidmike here on this forum (no longer active), who started as a 19.5 second CFOP solver, switched to Waterman and dropped to 14 seconds in a few months despite knowing less than half of the algorithms. This is not surprising since Waterman uses 40-45 moves per solve instead of 50-64 for CFOP. Today it is mostly forgotten and people just assume that since all the records are with CFOP and the only other quick times are Roux and ZZ, that this means these are the only fast methods.

I have been developing the LMCF method but adding more and more of Waterman's tricks and gradually the method seems to be migrating into a Waterman hybrid.

I believe Josef Jelinek also used Waterman, but I'm not sure. I use Roux as well as Waterman now. I'll probably go back and learn the rest of the algorithms and optimize them one day.

 

[efattah]

Somrandomkidmike,

Have you done Waterman in a competition? What are your fastest singles/averages at home and in comp? Are you still cubing actively?

 

[efattah]

I would be very interested in learning more about your method development. I think I tried to help you with genning algorithms in the past, but would like to try again, if you need it. I actually have a program that specializes in generating RrUM algorithms which would be good for Waterman like edges.

Well LMCF started with this:
- Solve 8 corners, all centers and 1 edge piece using EG in one look
- Solve three E2L pairs (edge pieces of L/R slices, 2 solved at once, many cases possible)
- Finish with Waterman's method of 'solve last redge while simultaneously orienting the midges' (problem here is that the unsolved redge could also be a ledge so there are double as many algorithms)

More recently I have discovered the absolute genius in Waterman's most difficult step, 'solve last TWO redges while simultaneously orienting the midges.' This step has a huge number of algorithms and variants, but recognition is fast and the TPS of these algorithms is extreme. Most of all this step is insanely move efficient. You are solving the last 6 edges in 2-looks, versus 3-looks for Roux, and the average movecount is significantly less than Roux LSE. The drawback is the big algorithm count. Anyway I have been adding this step to LMCF though I still have LOTS of more cases to learn.

I have only been speedcubing for 1 year but my best Ao5 is 14.84 and I routinely get 11 second singles. Given my poor TPS and mediocre lookahead, by my calculations an optimized waterman method should be as fast as CFOP+ZBLL, or maybe even faster.

I am seeing a new variant in the future. In some cases I can easily see the entire corners solve plus one edge piece which is the goal of LMCF. In other cases it is very hard to see the corner solve in one look, but I can easily see a face with several edges. In that case I would prefer to start the solve Waterman style (solve one face minus one edge), then do CLL for the remaining corners and essentially do the whole solve Waterman style. In other cases where there is no easy way to create a 'waterman face' but I do see an easy EG solve of the corners, then I just solve all the corners + 1 edge with EG. I have always believed the future of speedcubing is to adjust your method based on the scramble you are presented with.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

Somrandomkidmike,

Have you done Waterman in a competition? What are your fastest singles/averages at home and in comp? Are you still cubing actively?

I haven't done Waterman in a competition because I kind of live in the middle of nowhere. My fastest single with Waterman is somewhere around 8 seconds, but it had two skips (I think CLL and the very last step). My fastest average is probably close to 13 seconds. I'm not actively using Waterman anymore, and I don't do cubing as much in general. Actually, I've only picked up a cube a few times in the last month due to an injured hand.

Edit: Actually, I'm certain I had at least one average under 13 seconds before I switched to Roux as my primary method.

 

[Teoidus]

I haven't done Waterman in a competition because I kind of live in the middle of nowhere. My fastest single with Waterman is somewhere around 8 seconds, but it had two skips (I think CLL and the very last step). My fastest average is probably close to 13 seconds. I'm not actively using Waterman anymore, and I don't do cubing as much in general. Actually, I've only picked up a cube a few times in the last month due to an injured hand.

Edit: Actually, I'm certain I had at least one average under 13 seconds before I switched to Roux as my primary method.

What made you switch to roux?