# [Help Thread]Waterman Discussion

#### *LukeMayn*

##### Member
So I've been looking at this method and I have some questions:

1. what's the avg. move count for a solve?

2. What is humanly possible optimal 1x3x3 block on average (I'm guessing ~16 moves)

This method seems interesting, what are your opinions on it?

#### Johannes91

##### Member
2. What is humanly possible optimal 1x3x3 block on average (I'm guessing ~16 moves)
Depends... If you always use these substeps:

1) 1x2x2 block
2) extend to 1x3x3 without breaking the 1x2x2

and are color neutral in the first one and do both of them optimally, it's only 2.7 + 8 = 10.7 moves FTM. Whether that's humanly possible is a good question. With a different strategy (for example, 1x2x3 -> 1x3x3) the move count would of course be different. Anyway, sub-16 seems very doable.

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
Hey Johannes, did you see the thread? PandaMan was looking for your help with some blockbuilding theory.

#### JLarsen

Someone merely asked a statistical question and I referred them to someone who would not throw out ignorant answers with any evidence supporting them.

The question was Roux/Petrus, which one one takes less moves on average. Totally off topic....but whatever. Sorry Luke.

#### xXdaveXsuperstarXx

##### Member
The question was Roux/Petrus, which one one takes less moves on average.
I referred them to someone who would not throw out ignorant answers
Well, Petrus was a good guess, you must admit.

#### rachmaninovian

##### Member
wait for somerandomkidmike to respond to this thread :O i think he averages 16 with waterman.

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
I've always wanted to look into Waterman, but the high alg count always scares me away.

#### jacob15728

##### Member
2. What is humanly possible optimal 1x3x3 block on average (I'm guessing ~16 moves)
Depends... If you always use these substeps:

1) 1x2x2 block
2) extend to 1x3x3 without breaking the 1x2x2

and are color neutral in the first one and do both of them optimally, it's only 2.7 + 8 = 10.7 moves FTM. Whether that's humanly possible is a good question. With a different strategy (for example, 1x2x3 -> 1x3x3) the move count would of course be different. Anyway, sub-16 seems very doable.

Well, Waterman himself suggests solving the corners of the first layer first, then inserting the edges using slice moves. There's even algorithms for optimal cases. To be honest though, this seems kind of stupid. I would actually use a "Dan Brown" approach, namely make a cross then insert the corners with the sexy move. Do you guys think blockbuilding would be faster?

#### Johannes91

##### Member
Well, Waterman himself suggests solving the corners of the first layer first, then inserting the edges using slice moves.
Thanks for the info, I'll analyze that later.

I would actually use a "Dan Brown" approach, namely make a cross then insert the corners with the sexy move. Do you guys think blockbuilding would be faster?
That takes well over 20 moves. Even very primitive block building is much faster.

#### GuyWithFunnyHat

##### Member
On rubikscube.info, Waterman himself is quoted as saying

"On the amount of turns: I had many discussions with Guus about this. A slice is officially counted as 2 turns. But using only UMR means very fast slices, faster than many of sequences of regular turns in the U-processes that Guus used. If you count a slice as one turn, I solved the cube in 40 to 45 turns. But sometimes in so-called "badlucksituations" it could be more than 50.

I have tried computing the first face. The corners can be done in maximum 8 turns. The edges+centre should be possible in 12 turns. I have no proof for this, but the total amount for the first face never exeeded 20 turns. In the booklet of Anneke Treep a table is included for solving the second pair of corners of the first face."

Not too shabby.

#### Johannes91

##### Member
Waterman said:
I have tried computing the first face. The corners can be done in maximum 8 turns.
The maximum is just 7 if you don't match the corners with F/B/R/L centers. Average for a fixed face is 5.15.

I'm not sure what'd be a good way to do the edges...

#### somerandomkidmike

##### Member
I've always wanted to look into Waterman, but the high alg count always scares me away.
Actually my average has increased. I average 18-22 right now (depending on the day). I'm way out of practice!

I think 16 is definitely possible for an average first layer. Corners are solvable in 9 average. The rest of the cube is possible to do in less than 30 turns. I usually take 20.

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
has increased. I average 18-22 right now (depending on the day). I'm way out of practice!

I think 16 is definitely possible for an average first layer. Corners are solvable in 9 average. The rest of the cube is possible to do in less than 30 turns. I usually take 20.
I'm looking into the 2.5 look last six edges on Waterman's site.

From what I see, the algs for the R layer aren't very consistant, it doesn't look like you look at blank pieces, make a shape, and do the such-and-such algorithm. That's just what I see though.

#### somerandomkidmike

##### Member
I've always wanted to look into Waterman, but the high alg count always scares me away.
You don't need to know all of the algorithms as long as you understand how they work. There is an intuitive way to do a large number of the cases. One of these days I'll share all of my tricks. I just did an average of 5 solves, and I averaged 44.2 moves. If I knew the rest of the corners algorithms, that would have been closer to 43.

With Waterman (just like with Fridrich), you can learn algorithms a little at a time.

#### somerandomkidmike

##### Member
has increased. I average 18-22 right now (depending on the day). I'm way out of practice!

I think 16 is definitely possible for an average first layer. Corners are solvable in 9 average. The rest of the cube is possible to do in less than 30 turns. I usually take 20.
I'm looking into the 2.5 look last six edges on Waterman's site.

From what I see, the algs for the R layer aren't very consistant, it doesn't look like you look at blank pieces, make a shape, and do the such-and-such algorithm. That's just what I see though.
You with the (R) turns, you have to turn the R layer either towards where you want the piece to go, or away.

#### miniGOINGS

##### Member
You don't need to know all of the algorithms as long as you understand how they work. There is an intuitive way to do a large number of the cases. One of these days I'll share all of my tricks. I just did an average of 5 solves, and I averaged 44.2 moves. If I knew the rest of the corners algorithms, that would have been closer to 43.

With Waterman (just like with Fridrich), you can learn algorithms a little at a time.
...don't even mention Fridrich to me...

#### jacob15728

##### Member
I'm having trouble understnding the diagrams on the website, and it doesn't really explain what I'm looking for on them. Any tips?

#### somerandomkidmike

##### Member
So how do you think of it intuitivly?
I mean you can solve 2 or 3 redges intuitively if you understand what you're doing. You can also do the first layer intuitively. Solving the last redge and orienting the midges isn't intuitive, but there are only a few algorithms that are necessary. The others can be memorized a little bit at a time.

I'm having trouble understnding the diagrams on the website, and it doesn't really explain what I'm looking for on them. Any tips?
I'd say you should look at the Java Applets with the diagrams beside you. Undo the algorithms to see what they do (do the inverse on your cube), and then compare what the cube looks like to the diagrams. I recommend having white and yellow on the left and right.

#### chardison1980

##### Member
the waterman's method

i didnt see anything on this so i figured id start one.
since there only seem to be 2 people who use waterman myself an 5BLD

who uses the waterman's method and how can we improve on it?
how do i increase my cube reconigition for this method
finger tricks.