Is Petrus a dead method? Does the community still think it can be "fast"?

[Escher]

What really holds me back from even starting MGLS is that there is no solid 2 step approach ( If you don't know an OLL just do EO and CO seperate ) (not even an unsolid approach I know of)

Just begin by learning all the one/two corners oriented cases (not that many), and then using sunes to reduce the 3/4 mis-oriented corners cases.

I learned the I and Im cases in about 15 minutes - it's really not that hard. I should finish off O and +/- sometime :/

[JLarsen]

Because it's different.

Lol. Well, I didn't come up with the idea, and I've never been good at cube theory. I really don't know anything about ZBLL or alternative LL methods, so your guess is probably better than mine.

What do you mean by this ?

It was something QQ mentioned and it made a lot of sense to me. It's starting not to make as much sense now lol but I took it to mean that we have two separate orientation steps; one for edges, and one for corners. That's not as efficient as solving LL in 2 steps?


@ Woner You made some good points. Thanks for the advice. I'll have to work on my move counts as well then. And like I said before. I'm no pro with Petrus. 15 seconds is decent but there's going to be lots of flaws in my solves still. I'm just trying to work them out.

[Sillas]

This thread is serious?
Petrus' Method is 'the father' of all block building method. It's also very efficient for Fewest Moves.
It maybe not can be fast now, but still very helpful and and definitely isn't a dead method.

[JLarsen]

This thread is serious?
Petrus' Method is 'the father' of all block building method. It's also very efficient for Fewest Moves.
It maybe not can be fast now, but still very helpful and and definitely isn't a dead method.

I really meant dead as a speedsolving method. Hindsight is always 20/20 but I should've probably left out the first part of the thread title.

Update on move counts; I just did some slow solves that were slightly more efficient than usual, some even quite lucky, and the lowest movecount I got was 55. I'm thinking that 60 really isn't as unreasonable for a Petrus speedsolve as Woner said. It might not be the greatest, but I don't think 50 is really practical as a goal. At least not in a speedsolve.

[Rpotts]

55 is very high for your lowest move count in slow solves. I do freefop slow solves everyday at work, counting moves. Mid 40s are common, 50s is average, and this is for some pretty cfop-y freefop.

[jrb]

Petrus could definitely be as fast as CFOP or Roux(IMO). I think the reason no one has gotten as fast times as with CFOP or Roux with Petrus is that not many people use Petrus.

[KYLE ALLAIRE DROPS BOMBS!]

I think I average 50-60 move count for my solves. My lowest move count is with my last slot variation, where I average 49 moves per solve. ( Taken from ao12 ). There are so many difficult cases with that step so I don't use that variation too often in real solves.

[JLarsen]

After some discussion in my example solve thread I've decided to try X cross for a while. Page 3 is really all you need to read for an explanation. I realized that while my 2x2 solutions are good, it's too difficult to take advantage of the freedom of 2x2x3 in a speedsolve. The result is ridiculous movecounts.