Petrus is like, so dead now.

[PetrusQuber]

I use Petrus, and I have noticed nobody is really using it anymore. I, along with a couple of other people, am like the solitary Petrus user on this forum which is still active. The majority of users seem to be CFOP, Roux, or ZZ . So there isn't much discussion on how to improve on specific areas here for me. What are your thoughts on this? Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles? Anymore people using Petrus?

 

[PapaSmurf]

I think that as a method, Petrus is a good method, especially for teaching beginners advanced techniques. As a speedsolving method I don't think that it has the ergonomics to keep up with the other methods. 2x2x2 is fine (see xcross) as are the last 2 steps (right block and ZBLL). The main problem with it is the ergonomics and lookahead of expanding to 2x2x3. I'd argue that intuitive RUF is worse than intuitive RUL in many cases. As far as the EO step itself, I don't see it as a weakness or advantage.

Imo, LEOR is a better Petrus alternative. The steps are FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL. The last 2 steps are the same and the first steps are pretty much equal (it's slightly on the side of petrus by 1 move). The biggest difference is that you can see EO in inspection (if you're good), as you do EO while solving the 2x2x3, not after, and the expansion to EO2x2x3 is all RUMr (with controlled Fs in certain situations) and rotationless in comparison to the LUF > RULFM y'. The movecount is pretty similar (maybe the same), but the ergonomics are just better for LEOR. I also think that it is definitely competitive with the "big 3" and certainly has some aspects that make it more attractive than CFOP, Roux or ZZ, but also some drawbacks like any method.

 

[PetrusQuber]

I think that as a method, Petrus is a good method, especially for teaching beginners advanced techniques. As a speedsolving method I don't think that it has the ergonomics to keep up with the other methods. 2x2x2 is fine (see xcross) as are the last 2 steps (right block and ZBLL). The main problem with it is the ergonomics and lookahead of expanding to 2x2x3. I'd argue that intuitive RUF is worse than intuitive RUL in many cases. As far as the EO step itself, I don't see it as a weakness or advantage.

Imo, LEOR is a better Petrus alternative. The steps are FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL. The last 2 steps are the same and the first steps are pretty much equal (it's slightly on the side of petrus by 1 move). The biggest difference is that you can see EO in inspection (if you're good), as you do EO while solving the 2x2x3, not after, and the expansion to EO2x2x3 is all RUMr (with controlled Fs in certain situations) and rotationless in comparison to the LUF > RULFM y'. The movecount is pretty similar (maybe the same), but the ergonomics are just better for LEOR. I also think that it is definitely competitive with the "big 3" and certainly has some aspects that make it more attractive than CFOP, Roux or ZZ, but also some drawbacks like any method.

Ok. I'm going to try continuing Petrus, but I'll see if I get tempted to swap. What is LEOR, in word friendly terms?

 

[PapaSmurf]

Left block just like in Roux, EODFDB (just like EOLine with ZZ but with FB solved), right block just like Petrus, ZBLL (or other EO solved LL things).

 

[GAN 356 X]

Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles

Was it ever popular?

 

[PetrusQuber]

Was it ever popular?

Back in early 2000, where CFOP was in it’s early stages, and Roux and ZZ weren’t even invented yet.
I think Petrus is fast enough to get sub 10 at least, so I’m going to continue using it (my target is sub 20). Can’t throw away months of practise

 

[tx789]

It not as good as other methods. Inspecting a 2x2x3 block will help but solving a cross edge and then doing EO and then F2L is worse than CFOP.

 

[SM cubing]

please do not use petrus if you want to be fast

 

[PetrusQuber]

It not as good as other methods. Inspecting a 2x2x3 block will help but solving a cross edge and then doing EO and then F2L is worse than CFOP.

You don't insert a cross edge.

please do not use petrus if you want to be fast

How fast? Also, how fast are you and what method do you use?

 

[PapaSmurf]

please do not use petrus if you want to be fast

Why not? Petrus is still a very good method and sub 8 is definitely possible. I would still say that it's not big 3 level, but the most similar method to petrus that could reach the same speeds as the big 3 is LEOR.

 

[Underwatercuber]

Why not? Petrus is still a very good method and sub 8 is definitely possible. I would still say that it's not big 3 level, but the most similar method to petrus that could reach the same speeds as the big 3 is LEOR.

Because by using it you are holding yourself back from progressing as fast or as far as you could with other methods

 

[Deleted member 36445]

Because by using it you are holding yourself back from progressing as fast or as far as you could with other methods

Shake my head at people that can only learn one method

 

[Iwannaganx]

Shake my head at people that can only learn one method

Sorry, but I'm getting close to sub 30 with cfop and i can't learn algs. At all. Like not even full pll. I know a total of like 20 algs and I don't want to learn like roux as well lol

 

[GAN 356 X]

Sorry, but I'm getting close to sub 30 with cfop and i can't learn algs. At all. Like not even full pll. I know a total of like 20 algs and I don't want to learn like roux as well lol

Shake my head at people that can only learn one method

As long as you are good at one method I don't think it matters much. Honestly, I think the algs from oll are easier to remember but there are more of them. Which was easier to learn, oll or pll?

 

[tx789]

You don't insert a cross edge.

How fast? Also, how fast are you and what method do you use?

You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.

 

[PetrusQuber]

You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.

I’ll see how it goes nevertheless.

 

[PapaSmurf]

It takes about 15 mins to learn a new method if you know what you're doing, and the more you learn the easier it becomes.

You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.

Solving EO is actually really helpful. It's more efficient to solve EO, do RB then solve LL with ZBLL compared to cross edge, 2 pairs, OLL, PLL. It's also faster if you do it right. The problem with Petrus is the extension to 2x2x3. If that step were good, Petrus would be still very good. And I don't see what hardware has to do with it. If you're on about 2-gen, right block is amazing in comparison to your 2 average F2L pairs, old hardware or new.

 

[Izaden]

Disclaimer: I am VERY new to speed cubing.

I feel like if you prefer block building methods that Roux would be more appealing to most as the principles are very similar but Roux has fewer average moves and requires far less algs. There are also less long pauses due to Petrus requiring early edge orientation.
I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad, but I can see why Roux would be a more enticing method.

I am learning Cfop atm.

Good luck getting your time sub 20!

 

[u Cube]

I use Petrus, and I have noticed nobody is really using it anymore. I, along with a couple of other people, am like the solitary Petrus user on this forum which is still active. The majority of users seem to be CFOP, Roux, or ZZ . So there isn't much discussion on how to improve on specific areas here for me. What are your thoughts on this? Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles? Anymore people using Petrus?

I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.

 

[PapaSmurf]

I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.

I doubt it. EO has benefits such as reducing rotations (which are 1 ETM each), ZBLL and halving the number of F2L cases. And I do think that EO in Petrus actually makes it better because of the amazing RB and ZBLL.