# Corners-First Methods



## dChan (Apr 16, 2007)

Okay, I want to learn a corners first method so I have a secondary speedcubing method under my belt but I don't know which to pick and start out with. I was thinking Waterman because it is the Fridrich of corners-first systems but I would like your opoinion. Preferably a "move-light" system(not like a 141 move system) but wherever you say I should start, I'll do it. Here's a sight with some descriptions:

http://rubikscube.info/

Also, what's the fastest time with a corners first system? Is it possible to reach sub-20 and sub-15 with one?


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 16, 2007)

http://www.speedcubing.com/cornersfirst.html


----------



## Erik (Apr 16, 2007)

Also for the last bit you can do the last steps of roux: http://grrroux.free.fr/method/Step_4.html


----------



## Fred (Apr 17, 2007)

I would suggest learning Roux. There is a video on strangepuzzle.com of Roux doing a sub 12 second solve using his method, so it's plenty fast. It also uses fewer algorithms than Fridrich.


----------



## Erik (Apr 17, 2007)

It's not corners first


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 17, 2007)

I had only heard of Waterman untill this week, but now we have a corners-first topic and this news-item on speedcubing.com:
April 15, 2007 Old video of the French National Championship in 1981. (link by Antoine Simon-Chautemps)


----------



## dChan (Apr 17, 2007)

I'm learning the beginner and Ortega's view of the advanced corners-first method, so are these good to start out with? Ortega's version of the corners-first requires 58 turns which is only 2 turns longer than Fridrich(it would be faster if optimized) and all the algs are short sequences unlike in Fridrich where you have algs that can be 12-14 moves long. 

I'm doing a little bit of modifications to it though- for example, the first step I do is permute the bottom layer corners instead of only orienting them, that way the permutation of corners only reuiqres 2 algs. Sois this good?


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 17, 2007)

I only know Ortega because I use that for 2x2x2 (random first color, 7 OLL algs for opposite color, 5 PLL algs to finish)

If Fridrich requires less moves AND has longer algs, that means it has fewer algs to perform. I would rather perform 4 long algs then 8 short algs, because 4 long algs would only require 4 pattern recognitions in between.

You will need to do some heavy modifying to compensate for this. Please keep us informed. It is always good to have one more "Non-Fridrich" solver in the world, even if it is your backup-method.


----------



## Erik (Apr 17, 2007)

For the interested:
I got CLL and ELL algo's on my site...
http://erikku.er.funpic.org/rubik
check under tutorials and then fridrich I think... though it is not fridrich of course but Raxouz-Schultz..

Oh and btw, check out if they count slice moves as 1 or 2. In my opinion they are a bit slower, but not like they count as 2.


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2007)

A slice move is counted as 1 move I believe. I also count R2, M2, L2, etc. moves as one move. Fridrich requires 119 algs where as Ortega requires less than 20(the other algs on it are basically intuitive, you only need learn permutation of corners and orientation, and the algs for midges). Am I correct in saying that positioning the edges(or ledges/redges) is intuitive? That is how it seems to me.


----------



## Erik (Apr 18, 2007)

ok, a slice move officialy counts as 2 moves. 
Ooh and please don't say fridrich has 119 algorithms. It has 57+21 = 78...
F2L are NOT algs.. (like I said in another topic)


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Erik_@Apr 18 2007, 09:53 AM
> * ok, a slice move officialy counts as 2 moves.
> Ooh and please don't say fridrich has 119 algorithms. It has 57+21 = 78...
> F2L are NOT algs.. (like I said in another topic) *


Well that is something that everyone differs on. You could also argue that PLL and OLL are not algs because after a while they are natural. If you take the time to understand them like F2L, you could argue they are not algs because they make sense-but, then again, all algs make sense. So you could say all algs are intuitive since they can be understood like F2L algs. So in my opinion, an alg is an alg if it requires more than one simple move. You don't necessarily remember PLL algs, after a while they are "remembered" as a movement.

And 78 algs are still more algs than needed for corners-first. So wouldn't that be pretty efficient for a system that only needs 58 moves?


----------



## Arakron (Apr 18, 2007)

Heise is pretty much alg-less and uses -way- fewer moves. Petrus uses 2 "algs" (R U R' and R U' R) for edge-fixing, then whatever LL you choose, and is also fewer moves. Roux is even lighter on algs and, from what I understand, somewher between Heise and Petrus in move count. 
The strength of the Fridrich method is in its algs, that you only have to look at the cube 7 times and the rest can be turning at max speed (ignoring slowing for look-ahead). Methods that are more intuitive, it seems to me, must make up for more time thinking with a lower move count.


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2007)

Yes, that is what I believe too. I was wondering how such a method could be fast if the bulk of it was intuitive. But maybe it is fast because the parts that don't really require an algorithm(though they do give the algorithms for it) are pretty much easy to understand. If you can't figure out some of those parts by yourself then either you are a beginner or you just aren't using your head. So maybe that's why it seems- to me at least- that the bulk of it is intuitive, though it is just common sense to do the moves.

What is the fastest times with Ortega, Waterman, etc.?


----------



## Erik (Apr 18, 2007)

wow, just talking for me but I can't see the logic in most PLL algo's. A corner 3 cykle is understandable (and only because I had to figure out the logic for the megaminx (tx stefan for that)), but things like an R would be highly un-understandable..
Also OLL's almost all OLL's are not understandable in my opinion. You know exactly whats happening and why it is happening? 
Also maybe the terms: natural and inuitive/understandable are 2 whole different things. 
Just my opinion...


Oh and to be on topic too, Waterman is a very good method. I've hear that some people averaged 15 sec with it?


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2007)

No arguement there, that it is hard to understand PLL algs, but try to do what you do with F2L algs. Look at where each piece is going. Do the alg a few times looking at different pieces. I remember watching a show where they showed how the H perm worked and that it wasn't just magic, but it made sense. This is just a difference in point-of-view, I am not right- this is just my opinion that all algs can seem like magic. Before I didn't understand how a middle layer edge placement alg worked, now I do, but I still need to remember the moves. Soit is not intuitive, but I understand how it works.

What about Ortega is it fast too? Who is ast with these methods?


----------



## Arakron (Apr 18, 2007)

> _Originally posted by dChan_@Apr 18 2007, 06:34 PM
> * What is the fastest times with Ortega, Waterman, etc.? *


 Dan Gosbee has a 12.17s UWR using " Using my yet published method (if you want to compare its sort of like Mark Waterman's method)"
http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs_cube_333.html


----------



## Erik (Apr 18, 2007)

> _Originally posted by dChan_@Apr 18 2007, 09:08 PM
> * No arguement there, that it is hard to understand PLL algs, but try to do what you do with F2L algs. Look at where each piece is going. Do the alg a few times looking at different pieces. I remember watching a show where they showed how the H perm worked and that it wasn't just magic, but it made sense. This is just a difference in point-of-view, I am not right- this is just my opinion that all algs can seem like magic. Before I didn't understand how a middle layer edge placement alg worked, now I do, but I still need to remember the moves. Soit is not intuitive, but I understand how it works.
> 
> What about Ortega is it fast too? Who is ast with these methods? *


 how about the R?


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2007)

lol. sorry I don't kniow the names of any of the algs excep[t for the basic ones so could you show me what it is? Is it the one that looks like a T except UF is unsolved and UR is solved?


----------



## Erik (Apr 18, 2007)

it's one of the PLL's but the thing is that personaly I find a bit hard to believe you 'understand' the algorithm, which I think is more than only knowing where the pieces go to..


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 19, 2007)

Understanding the algs is useful for commutators, blindfolded, beginners-methods, etc. But for PLL you just recognize and execute. No reason to understand the algs. UNLESS..... you mess-up/drop the cube (especially one-handed) and need to continue half-way in the alg.


----------



## Erik (Apr 19, 2007)

Hmm, well I still think that is not understanding the alg. I know what the cube looks like after like 4 turns of an algorithm but I don't understand it, I do understand commutators. I can tell at each move what and why I'm doing that...


----------



## AvGalen (Apr 19, 2007)

Erik, please don't misunderstand me. I think there is no need to understand PLL algs. It is useful to KNOW (not understand) the flow of some pieces in case of pops, drops and other problems.


----------



## dChan (Apr 19, 2007)

It is not just knowing where pieces go, but how what you have destroyed is brought back together- I didn't mean that that was all you needed to understand.

Some of the algs on the Ortega page are wrong and completely mess up the cube. Does anyone have all the algs written down properly?


----------



## sm (Oct 15, 2013)

Hello all!

A variant for the Permute and Orient corners - 3 simple algorithms are used.
Step 1 – Permute corners 
Step 2 – Orient corners
http://vk.com/doc185254069_229875947

I used algorithms from my old manual.
http://vk.com/doc185254069_158533131
It is my first method with which I learned to solve the cube 3x3x3.


----------



## GuRoux (Oct 15, 2013)

sm said:


> Hello all!
> 
> A variant for the Permute and Orient corners - 3 simple algorithms are used.
> Step 1 – Permute corners
> ...



can't you just use 2 algs (sune and headlight corner permutation)?


----------

