[Help Thread] Waterman Discussion

[Phlippieskezer]

I made a fairly similar thread about Waterman a while back.

Basically, it's not popular, at least not in comparison to the other "big four" (CFOP, Petrus, Roux, ZZ, more-or-less in that order). Also, from what I gather 5BLD uses more of a Roux-Waterman hybrid, so it's not really Waterman as much as it is Roux, IMO.

Personally, I'm a Roux solver first, but I like to fiddle around with Waterman on occasion.

PS: It's not "the Waterman's method," Waterman is the inventor's surname. So, it's the Waterman Method or Waterman's method. Not a big deal, just thought I'd point it out.

Also, linky.

 

[chardison1980]

do you think its a good idea that im using waterman's method as my main solving style, that i try to move into roux?
and just a random question to see what people say, is it possible to bld solve freestyle using watermans or roux?

 

[Godmil]

is it possible to bld solve freestyle using watermans or roux?

Bld solving is a nightmare with any speedsolving technique. But if you're interested in BLD don't worry about what your main speedsolving technique is cause some BLD methods are really easy to learn (Old Pochmann only needs 3 algs).

 

[chardison1980]

yes i already bld solve, using OP and am learning M2/R2 then on to turbo.

 

[rybaby]

The Waterman Method

Developed by Marc Waterman with Daan Krammer in 1980-81. He averaged 16 seconds with this algorithm !!! Quite amazing since there was not even an official WR at that time, and he would have easily beaten Minh Thai in the WC. This requires lots of sequences, but steps 3-5 are mainly <U,R,M> moves, so those steps are really fast.

Some vocabulary:

Redge: an edge piece with its home in the "R" layer.
Ledge: an edge piece with its home in the "L" layer.
Midge: an edge piece with its home in the "M" slice.

Steps:

1. Solve 1 layer of the cube. This is done by pairing up two corners, then two more, than solve edges while bringing in the center.

2. Simultaneously orient and permute the opposite corners. This is done in 1-look COLL.

3. Turn cube so that the completed layer is on "L" and the opposite corners are on "R." Now solve two redges with one sequence.

4. Solve the last two redges while simultaneously orienting the midges. This is done in one sequence.

5. Position all midges.


Here's a video of Waterman solving the cube in ~17 seconds back in 1981.

Okay, my question is why doesn't anybody use this method? As far as I know, Waterman and Krammer were the only people to ever put this method into practice. I think Roux is based off of this algorithm. It is like a Corners First algorithm, but more efficient. I use typical CF (Varasano's method) only because I'm pretty new to cubing and I wanted to start with something a bit simpler.


P.S. I know there are other threads about Waterman's algorithm, but they are old and don't say much.

 

[CarlBrannen]

With the cubes they had back then, that was an awesome time. Also the inspection looks tougher.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

Edit: I use this method.

Edit 2: Josef Jelinek also used this method I think.

 

[uniacto]

i use cfop because i'ts faster.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

i use cfop because i'ts faster.

"Methods" aren't fast. People are fast. Either way, the OP was asking whether people use this method. Some people have achieved good times with this method.

 

[uniacto]

"Methods" aren't fast. People are fast. Either way, the OP was asking whether people use this method. Some people have achieved good times with this method.

haha yea good point. Some methods are easier to get faster with than others, I suppose CFOP is one of them, as opposed to waterman. I don't have any experience with it though, so I should probably look into it.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

haha yea good point. Some methods are easier to get faster with than others, I suppose CFOP is one of them, as opposed to waterman. I don't have any experience with it though, so I should probably look into it.

I'll give you the down low. Basically it's a lot of algorithms, but you can easily get to sub-20 with 20 of the algorithms. I've been using this method for a couple years now, but i still don't know all of the algorithms (I think it's around 100 total). Improvements for me were gradual, but consistent. It worked like this.

>Slight improvement in overall average
---Inconistent times
>Times become more consistent
>Slight Improvement in overall average

The first layer is the hardest to get fast at, and it should be done with many strategies, and not just the one on rubikscube.info

 

[aceofspades98]

I'll give you the down low. Basically it's a lot of algorithms, but you can easily get to sub-20 with 20 of the algorithms. I've been using this method for a couple years now, but i still don't know all of the algorithms (I think it's around 100 total). Improvements for me were gradual, but consistent. It worked like this.

>Slight improvement in overall average
---Inconistent times
>Times become more consistent
>Slight Improvement in overall average

The first layer is the hardest to get fast at, and it should be done with many strategies, and not just the one on rubikscube.info

What are your averages?

 

[Ross The Boss]

it would be faster to leave a ledge out and use it as a key hole so you could finish off the solve with l6e like roux. you wouldn't need any algs.

Edit: how many algs are there for step 4?

 

[Stefan]

He averaged 16 seconds with this algorithm !!!

[citation needed]

Quite amazing since there was not even an official WR at that time

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?

he would have easily beaten Minh Thai in the WC

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

 

[chardison1980]

I use this method along with roux, and petrus,

 

[somerandomkidmike]

What are your averages?

Just took an average 3 of 5 right now

Average: 14.88 seconds
Times:
5: (00:13.74)
4: 00:14.53
3: (00:17.38)
2: 00:16.05
1: 00:14.05
That was a good average for being so out of practice. I've been using the method in my signature lately.

Edit: I just did a few more solves around 17 seconds. Man am I ever slow?

it would be faster to leave a ledge out and use it as a key hole so you could finish off the solve with l6e like roux. you wouldn't need any algs.

Edit: how many algs are there for step 4?

Sometimes it's faster. Sometimes it isn't. The algorithms are all on rubikscube.info

 

[rybaby]

Just took an average 3 of 5 right now

Average: 14.88 seconds
Times:
5: (00:13.74)
4: 00:14.53
3: (00:17.38)
2: 00:16.05
1: 00:14.05
That was a good average for being so out of practice. I've been using the method in my signature lately.

Edit: I just did a few more solves around 17 seconds. Man am I ever slow?



Sometimes it's faster. Sometimes it isn't. The algorithms are all on rubikscube.info

Do you know all algorithms or just a few? And which ones are most important to know?

[citation needed]

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

 

[somerandomkidmike]

Do you know all algorithms or just a few? And which ones are most important to know?

I don't know all the algorithms. I probably know more than half of the algorithms for redges and midges (stage 3). I don't know all the CLL algorithms because I'm too lazy to learn them. By the way, I used to average sub-14 seconds, and for a while I actually averaged sub-13. I'm just not actively speedcubing right now, and I'm not using Waterman as much. However, if I went to a competition, I would use it exclusively.

Either way, the algorithms you SHOULD know are:
-2 look CLL algorithms (10 algorithms I think)
-Solving the last Redge and orienting all the Midges (13-ish algorithms)
-Solving 2 redges (12 algorithms)
- U M U2 M U and its inverse (2 algorithms)
- permuting midges (4 algorithms- 3 turns each)
_______
This might seem daunting if you're a "beginner", but the "beginner" Redges and Midges algorithms are actually really easy. For the most part, I actually figured them out for myself.

Anyway, here's my overall opinion of Waterman as a method. I think that waterman has about the same potential as ZZ, but I kind of doubt that it's on the same level as Roux. Of course this is only personal opinion. It's pretty difficult to falsify a claim that 'x' method is better than 'y' when it comes to the more common speedcubing methods (CFOP, Petrus, Roux, ZZ and Waterman). There are just too many factors that you have to consider.

Personally, I use Waterman because I like the moveset, and I suck at OLL/PLL for CFOP. I don't care who else uses it, and I really don't care if I'm 'unique'. I practice all of the common methods, because I think they're all fun to use and speedcubing is generally meant to be fun. I tend to respond more to threads about Corners-First methods simply because I know more about them.

 

[rybaby]

Either way, the algorithms you SHOULD know are:
-2 look CLL algorithms (10 algorithms I think)
-Solving the last Redge and orienting all the Midges (13-ish algorithms)
-Solving 2 redges (12 algorithms)
- U M U2 M U and its inverse (2 algorithms)
- permuting midges (4 algorithms- 3 turns each)
_______

So what is the potential for that algorithm set? Sub-20?

Also, do you leave a ledge unsolved or do you solve the full layer?

Sorry I'm asking so many questions; I am really interested in this method.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

So what is the potential for that algorithm set? Sub-20?

Also, do you leave a ledge unsolved or do you solve the full layer?

Sorry I'm asking so many questions; I am really interested in this method.

It's very possible to get to sub-15 with this algorithm set. The average number of moves would still around 50-60 STM with this set of algorithms.

I usually solve the full layer, but sometimes I don't. It depends on the situation.