# fast(est) cf users



## bcube (Nov 6, 2010)

There are several fast well-known cubers such as Feliks, Yumu, Erik, Rowe etc. etc. using technique based on cfop method. Same situation for Roux, Petrus... users.

Now, who belongs to the poor-known club of fast cf users? somerandomkidmike? rachmaninovian? Anyone else who average sub 20 seconds or even sub lets say 17?


----------



## irontwig (Nov 6, 2010)

That depends on your definition of CF, in my mind both Waterman and Roux are part of the CF family. Much as the same way as CFOP, Petrus, ZB, ZZ, CFCE and Goljan-tripod are part of the F2L-LL family.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 6, 2010)

IM sub 16


----------



## irontwig (Nov 6, 2010)

bluecloe45 said:


> IM sub 16



Care to tell us what CF method you use?


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 6, 2010)

i use color neutral


----------



## abctoshiro (Nov 6, 2010)

Almost sub-20. Roux. Ao5: 19.xx. Is that fast enough?


----------



## bcube (Nov 6, 2010)

irontwig said:


> That depends on your definition of CF, in mind both Waterman and Roux are part of the CF family. Much as the same way as CFOP, Petrus, ZB, ZZ, CFCE and Goljan-tripod are part of the F2L-LL family.


 
Well, although both Waterman and Roux are partly incorporated into cf group, i would say Roux is much more upgraded, complex method and forms his own separated category of the cf methods. Waterman isnt "pure" cf method as well but i would still consider it as a cf method unlike Roux.


----------



## Chapuunka (Nov 6, 2010)

bluecloe45 said:


> i use color neutral


 
Do you even know what CF means?

Corners First.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 7, 2010)

well i'm really inconsistent but i guess if i put myself to practice i can average 18 at least. right now i hover around sub20ish. pb average should be low 17...

i kinda do freestyle CF...I might start blockbuilding the first layer (minus 1 edge) or just start solving the corners, with some edges at the same time using semi-blockbuilding or intuitive KCLL (LOL?) like replacing some moves with double layer moves because i sort of know i'd solve those edges i wanted to together with the corners. wow long sentence is fun

oh somerandomkidmike seems to be semi-retired like me and i know he subbed 16 or avged 16 with his advancement of waterman


----------



## QCcuber4 (Nov 8, 2010)

I average 16ish with pure CFOP original method, no CLL no xcross (tho I'm getting there). 

Same for OH. I avg sub 26, which would make me near top 15 in Canada i think... But I can't go compete till spring


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 8, 2010)

^^
Did you even read the ****ing OP?


----------



## a small kitten (Nov 8, 2010)

> I average 16ish with pure CFOP original method, no CLL no xcross (tho I'm getting there).
> 
> Same for OH. I avg sub 26, which would make me near top 15 in Canada i think... But I can't go compete till spring



Cool. There are hundreds of people just like you


----------



## Owen (Nov 8, 2010)

I average 23. CF is my main method.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 8, 2010)

David Allen and Gene Means were arguably some of the fastest, then, current CF users in 2003. I'm not sure if they are still competing, or even cubing. Based on David's comments at the competition I doubt he will give up cubing, but he may continue to cube in secret.

Chris


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 10, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> well i'm really inconsistent but i guess if i put myself to practice i can average 18 at least. right now i hover around sub20ish. pb average should be low 17...
> 
> i kinda do freestyle CF...I might start blockbuilding the first layer (minus 1 edge) or just start solving the corners, with some edges at the same time using semi-blockbuilding or intuitive KCLL (LOL?) like replacing some moves with double layer moves because i sort of know i'd solve those edges i wanted to together with the corners. wow long sentence is fun
> 
> oh somerandomkidmike seems to be semi-retired like me and i know he subbed 16 or avged 16 with his advancement of waterman


 
I actually averaged sub-15 for a while. My pb average is about 14.2 (I can't remember exactly, but it was extremely lucky). I think I'll be stuck there until I get something that isn't a store bought cube, and I learn the rest of the algorithms. I sort of used waterman sometimes, but I always solved 3 redges at a time (intuitively) rather than solving 2-3. I used blockbuilding for the first layer (sometimes minus one edge). I still don't know all the corners algorithms, and I don't even know half the waterman edges algorithms. I do know a bunch of tricks as far as skipping the middle layer. I just figured those out though. When I'm under pressure, I am much worse though. With people watching me at camp, I was quite inconsistent with my times. They ranged from 17-23 seconds.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 10, 2010)

I wouldn't consider Roux to be a CF method, since all but 6 edges are done by the time the corners are finished.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 10, 2010)

qq, there is such thing as CF Roux though...you do corners, then insert block pieces and finish with LSE. Using this method, I'm pretty sure I can get sub-18 easily.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 10, 2010)

bluecloe45 said:


> i use color neutral





QCcuber4 said:


> I average 16ish with pure CFOP original method, no CLL no xcross (tho I'm getting there).
> 
> Same for OH. I avg sub 26, which would make me near top 15 in Canada i think... But I can't go compete till spring


 


CF: corners first
CN: colour neutral


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 10, 2010)

avg5: 14.86 (σ = 0.13)
avg12: 15.54 (σ = 1.12)

waterman.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 10, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> qq, there is such thing as CF Roux though...you do corners, then insert block pieces and finish with LSE. Using this method, I'm pretty sure I can get sub-18 easily.


Sure, sure. This is basically what I do when I do CF. I was just saying that if you're asking "what's the fastest time anyone has with CF" it's not fair to count Roux times, since that method is better than CF methods.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 10, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> avg5: 14.86 (σ = 0.13)
> avg12: 15.54 (σ = 1.12)
> 
> waterman.



How do you solve R and M?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 10, 2010)

It varies, usually I'll get two R edges in an alg and then get the third while trying to influence the last five in some positive way. Sometimes I can KCLL an edge into place during CLL so I'll solve another two in one alg and move onto L5E.

Then I just do the 'waterman' L5E finish.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 11, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Sure, sure. This is basically what I do when I do CF. I was just saying that if you're asking "what's the fastest time anyone has with CF" it's not fair to count Roux times, since that method is better than CF methods.


 
Well for me Corners first is better. I actually average less turns, and I have a better execution of the algorithms, and look ahead. I probably average 46 moves with Roux. I average less than 44 moves with Corners first.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Nov 16, 2010)

somerandomkidmike said:


> ... but I always solved 3 redges at a time (intuitively) rather than solving 2-3 ...



Who do you solve 3 redges intuitivly? 

(My intuition does not go beyond 2 redges at a time, and does not alway tell me an optimal solution. 3 redges I only get when I setup an easy ELL case sometimes (rare))


----------



## aronpm (Nov 16, 2010)

I average sub40 with CF. Slow


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 16, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Who do you solve 3 redges intuitivly?
> 
> (My intuition does not go beyond 2 redges at a time, and does not alway tell me an optimal solution. 3 redges I only get when I setup an easy ELL case sometimes (rare))


 
It really involves an understanding of how you're placing the redges. Basically you can figure them out if you understand how the 2 redge algorithms work. I never really learned all of the 2 case algorithms either. I just looked to see how they worked, and figured out the other cases.

Oh, and by the way, I did find the book where I wrote my averages down. I have a 14.03 avg 10 of 12.


----------



## buelercuber (Nov 16, 2010)

i'm sub 18 but i only use CFOP i might look into xcross, but as of now, it confuses me a bit. im not good at block building.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 18, 2010)

buelercuber said:


> i'm sub 18 but i only use CFOP i might look into xcross, but as of now, it confuses me a bit. im not good at block building.


 
Good for you. You're just like 90% of of sub-20 cubers. This thread is about CF (corners first).

Now on topic: Who has the best official times with a cf method? Is it rachmaninovian right now?


----------



## maggot (Nov 18, 2010)

i think people are confused with the term CF and the difference between CF and CFOP. 
CFOP = cross f2l oll pll. fridrich
CF= corners first method. 
CFOP is not CF. if you say anything about your times with CFOP, you are posting on the wrong thread. 

On topic, im not anywhere near sub 20 with CF, but i do think CF is a promising method. im sure many dead end thoughts have been put into CF methods, but were starting to talk about CFOP zeroing. im sure there is something you can accomplish with CF methods to make them more speedcube friendly. CF zeroing anyone? i personally was trying to think of ways to do like an ortega for the corners and solving the E slice edges to form the 2 block and finishing with L6E, but i gave up (sounds stupid, but i was trying to see if there was ways to develop nice tricks) i think using the basic CF method purely is kinda poor for speedcubing in comparison to what we have now with CFOP, roux and zz for example.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 18, 2010)

me  but i guess u can beat that easily. 17.50 avg, 14.61 single


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Nov 18, 2010)

somerandomkidmike said:


> I never really learned all of the 2 case algorithms either. I just looked to see how they worked, and figured out the other cases.



When you start placing 3 redges - I believe you have a complete plan for tow redges do you already exactly know how to solve the third redge or do just know at wich point you have to improvise?

Hope thats clear, have you ever seen a tutorial somewhere.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 18, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> When you start placing 3 redges - I believe you have a complete plan for tow redges do you already exactly know how to solve the third redge or do just know at wich point you have to improvise?
> 
> Hope thats clear, have you ever seen a tutorial somewhere.


 
When I have the last ledge already placed (as in the waterman method), I place 3 redges at a time in one look. I simply don't have the time to make a tutorial, and as far as I know, there aren't any out there for exactly what I do. I can give an example of how this would work.

Use this to generate a case where you'd solve 3 redges at a time:

D2 L' R B2 L F2 U' B F U2 F2 L' B' F' R U2 D2

You should have the corners solved on the right side, and the First layer finished on the left side. You can still get 3 redges solved at a time using URM group of moves. 

Here's the sequence I'd use to solve 3 redges for this case: 

R2 U2 R U M U' R U2 R2 U2

Now I don't know all the possible cases, but I seem to know enough of them to get by. 

So what happens when I haven't placed the last ledge and I want to solve 3 redges at a time? Well I basically try to combine the 2 redge cases on Marc Waterman's stage 3 java page, as well as the sequences in his original booklet (found here: http://rubikscube.info/waterman/booklet.php) to solve 1 redge and the last ledge. 

I read what I typed, and I can see that it would be hard to understand, so I guess I'll find another example

First apply this to your cube. I have the white side to my left, and the red side in front of me:

L' B U2 R2 U2 L R2 D' B' R2 F R B D F2

You should have the first layer minus one ledge on the left, and an R' would solve all the corners on the right.

I'm going to split this one up a bit so you can try to follow what I actually did.

The first thing I noticed is that I have 2 edges in the middle ring that are positioned like a familiar 2 redge pattern. The yellow and green at FD, and the red and yellow at BD. 

I can use 3 turns to solve the red and yellow edge, and get the second edge into position to be solved. If you look at the second case on the waterman method cage, these 3 turns are the same as the first 3 in this case.

So now I apply the sequence:

(U M2 U')

Now I see that there is a blue and yellow edge in the green and yellow edge spot. I've also noticed the white and blue edge at UL. If I were to perform (R U M U'), I'd have the green edge solved, but I'd be in a bad position to solve one more redge and the last ledge. Instead, I perform this:

(r U' M' U)

Now I'm able to position the last ledge and a third redge using this:

(R2 U M2 U')

Of course if you get good enough at recognition, you will be able to plan that whole solution for the last ledge, and 3 redges using only one look. For most cases, I'm able to do it in 1 to 2 looks.

That whole sequence together is this:

(U M2 U')(r U' M' U)(R2 U M2 U')


After looking at my post, I have realized that there is a bit of a description to solve 3 redges at a time on the Waterman method website.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Nov 25, 2010)

somerandomkidmike said:


> ...Here's the sequence I'd use to solve 3 redges for this case:
> 
> R2 U2 R U M U' R U2 R2 U2
> 
> ...



Thanks for your help it really got me started with 3 Edges at a time. The quoted alg is an especially funny pattern just to use R2U2R2U2R2U2 or its fragments at the end of the sequnence.

I never bothered about planning ahaed for 4 edges at once , but I'll try that too - it's a good trainig anyway.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 25, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Thanks for your help it really got me started with 3 Edges at a time. The quoted alg is an especially funny pattern just to use R2U2R2U2R2U2 or its fragments at the end of the sequnence.



Ah, that makes sense, first I was a bit confused as the M move seemed to insert FR in the wrong place.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 25, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Thanks for your help it really got me started with 3 Edges at a time. The quoted alg is an especially funny pattern just to use R2U2R2U2R2U2 or its fragments at the end of the sequnence.
> 
> I never bothered about planning ahaed for 4 edges at once , but I'll try that too - it's a good trainig anyway.



It does take a while to get used to it, but It ends up being better than solving one edge, then searching for the next edge, etc. 

That's just one of the techniques you can use to solve the redges.



irontwig said:


> Ah, that makes sense, first I was a bit confused as the M move seemed to insert FR in the wrong place.


 
I'm glad it makes sense now.


----------

