Petrus is like, so dead now.

[PapaSmurf]

Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.

This is true. It has a better LL than CFOP and a better movecount by 10 moves (ish).

*completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*

The ergonomics are good for 2x2x2, EO, RB, LL, just not as good for expansion. Even then, those ergonomics aren't bad, they're just worse than the rest of the solve. Lookahead isn't poor. As 2180161 said, it's actually very good. Blind spots aren't an issue with petrus except for 3 pieces if you're bad at planning ahead.

Now, anecdotal evidence.

This is the worse type of evidence. It's the evidence used by people who don't think that vaccinations work, it's the type of evidence used when you have no other evidence because it has the illusion of being strong when it is not. If you are mainly basing your argument on anecdotal evidence, it's not a good argument. You're not going to convince anyone about the existence of God by saying 'I saw God in a dream' unless you manage to prove to someone you a) had that dream and b) you didn't just see God in a dream, but that God was talking to you in that dream. Instead, an argument is much better if it's based on solid facts/generally accepted to be true statements (such as cosmilogical arguments, but we're not getting into a philosophy debate). So please don't use anecdotes as data. I don't know who said it, but 'the plural of andecdote isn't data'.

 

[tx789]

Petrus has very minimal, if any blind spots. The only 2 I can think of would be the 2x2->3x2x2 expansion, but that shouldn't matter if you're solving properly (i.e looking ahead because you 1 looked the 2x2) and BR "slot" after doing EO, which still shouldn't matter, because you do EO with your block in back, so you know what pieces are in that blind spot since you rotate.
.

All methods have blind spots because the cube does. You only see three faces at once. RUF or RUL. To see the BU sticker you have to rotate it may be a half roation but it still is move the whole cube or doing a turn.

CFOP you solve cross first and should inspect cross+1 if you want to be fast. By attempting to solve the BL F2L pair first the worst F2L blind spot is filled. Rather than rotating to see the BL edge. Now you have to only look at the U layer and the other empty F2L spots which only one side can be seen. Assuming a right hand dominant solver.

In Petrus solving just a 2x2x2 in inspection seems worse than just a cross since when extending to a 2x2x3, with the 2x2x2 block is placed in the DBL position. The edges are possibly in the positions of DR and DF which a worse position to look for compared to E-slice or U-layer edges. Even if you don't do cross+1 in inspection. You have to look for 2 pieces of which there are 4 options rather than 3 pieces with three options far more scattered across the cube. There is also the fact the block building is slower than F2l inherently. Post 2x2x3 and after 2 F2L pairs the differance in blind spots between Petrus and CFOP is small but CFOP is better since DR edge is solved.

Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.

Also for Roux your blind to the DB edge unless you do a M move and look at the back face rotating the cube. The cube has blind spots which affect each method differently.




One question would you inspect for 2x2x3 block? Seems like it should be comparable to cross+1 but slow since the move group is worse.

 

[PetrusQuber]

You should add an "I only use it for FMC" answer. Most people only use it for FMC, so if that dies...
then Petrus is like so dead now.

Ok then.

 

[2180161]

All methods have blind spots because the cube does. You only see three faces at once. RUF or RUL. To see the BU sticker you have to rotate it may be a half roation but it still is move the whole cube or doing a turn.

CFOP you solve cross first and should inspect cross+1 if you want to be fast. By attempting to solve the BL F2L pair first the worst F2L blind spot is filled. Rather than rotating to see the BL edge. Now you have to only look at the U layer and the other empty F2L spots which only one side can be seen. Assuming a right hand dominant solver.

In Petrus solving just a 2x2x2 in inspection seems worse than just a cross since when extending to a 2x2x3, with the 2x2x2 block is placed in the DBL position. The edges are possibly in the positions of DR and DF which a worse position to look for compared to E-slice or U-layer edges. Even if you don't do cross+1 in inspection. You have to look for 2 pieces of which there are 4 options rather than 3 pieces with three options far more scattered across the cube. There is also the fact the block building is slower than F2l inherently. Post 2x2x3 and after 2 F2L pairs the differance in blind spots between Petrus and CFOP is small but CFOP is better since DR edge is solved.

Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.

Also for Roux your blind to the DB edge unless you do a M move and look at the back face rotating the cube. The cube has blind spots which affect each method differently.




One question would you inspect for 2x2x3 block? Seems like it should be comparable to cross+1 but slow since the move group is worse.

Blind spots here doesn't mean pieces you can't actually see, but rather pieces you can't see and don't know what's there. Just because I can't SEE BD when I solve roux, doesn't mean I don't keep track of what's there. Just because I don't SEE what's in BR/BL when solving with CFOP doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what's there. Just because I don't SEE DL/DR when I solve with ZZ doesn't mean I don't keep track of what's there. Just because I can't SEE what's in BR for Petrus doesn't mean I don't know what is there.

All of your assumptions imply the person solving has no awareness of the cube other than what is currently being solved, which is not realistic. Even a beginner has some awareness of where things other than what they are solving are. Minimal, but still exists.

Solving a 2x2x2 in inspection is better than the cross. The reason being, that they have the same movegroup, the 2x2x2 is less moves despite both steps solving the same number of pieces (4), and the 2x2x2 moves every piece to the R, U, or F faces, allowing for easier tracking/look-ahead. Again you make an assumption that block-building is slower than F2L. I have yet to see that proven in a case where it matters. With Roux, your last steps (CMLL/LSE) are pretty much entirely algorithmic, and you've block-built with less moves than it would take for F2L, meaning you can turn slower and look-ahead easier with the block-building, meaning you can spam TPS at the end. With Petrus, it is the same thing. Block-build the F2L with EO, spam TPS on LL.

As for the statement of COLL being worse than the standard OLL, I can only see that as the case for sune and anti-sune and even then, you end up with an EPLL, all of which are super easy to sub-1. If I do COLL/EPLL, I typically have a last layer time of around 2.3-2.5 seconds. If I use OLL/PLL, assuming edges oriented, I typically have closer to the 2.7-3 second range.

You seem to have very little actual usable knowledge on the topic and recommend you either learn, or stop talking.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.

EO takes time to solve, but then you don't have to solve it during RB (which makes RB A LOT more ergonomic) and it also gives you a ZBLL for LL, which is better than OLL/PLL. Also, COLL/EPLL>OLL/PLL, and even if it's not better, it's certainly equal to it and it's fewer algs and it gives a better jump onto ZBLL as you already know about a 12th of the algs needed.

 

[BenChristman1]

Not to sound mean, but...

I'm just going to say it because nobody else will. Almost nobody uses Petrus because it is really hard to get fast at it, there are not very many resources to help make it fast, and if you want to get as fast as possible, you need to learn almost 500 algs.

I'm not being mean or criticizing anybody who uses Petrus, it just isn't a method that you can use to get really, really fast.

 

[ProStar]

Define fast. Is a sub-10 Ao12 fast?

 

[fuzzballcat]

Not to sound mean, but...

I'm just going to say it because nobody else will. Almost nobody uses Petrus because it is really hard to get fast at it, there are not very many resources to help make it fast, and if you want to get as fast as possible, you need to learn almost 500 algs.

I'm not being mean or criticizing anybody who uses Petrus, it just isn't a method that you can use to get really, really fast.

Agreed. If more research was done into it we might find that it has lots of potential, but as of now there's just not enough resources out there.

 

[BenChristman1]

Define fast. Is a sub-10 Ao12 fast?

(In this context, because I know somebody will ask,) fast meaning world-class, so sub-7-ish.

 

[ProStar]

(In this context, because I know somebody will ask,) fast meaning world-class, so sub-7-ish.

@Tao Yu how much work have you put into Petrus to be sub-10(or close), and how fast do you think that you personally could get if you used it a bunch?

 

[Tao Yu]

@Tao Yu how much work have you put into Petrus to be sub-10(or close), and how fast do you think that you personally could get if you used it a bunch?

The dates on the videos on my youtube channel give a decent idea of my progression with the method. A lot of my progression speed is thanks to the time I spent practicing roux and CFOP though, so my Petrus progression probably won't tell you anything particularly meaningful. I think I took a few breaks too which also complicates matters. No idea how fast I could get with practice.

My belief as to the reason why Petrus hasn't taken off is because it never got it's Alex Lau - someone who became world class with the method and actually broke UWRs with it. People like this are really one in a million because it takes such a large time investment, and I would say that it will be harder to find someone like this for Petrus, because there are more doubts that it could be better than or on par with CFOP.

I actually don't think lack of resources is the biggest problem. In my opinion, if you want to become the next Alex Lau you should not care about there not being resources. Resources for Roux and CFOP didn't come from nowhere, someone has to be the first. You should consider all of the currently available resources to be outdated and be prepared to become the innovator, the creator of resources yourself. Nobody becomes world class without a bit of creativity and imagination.

This was my approach to Petrus. I came up with most of what I know about Petrus by myself, because there weren't any resources out there that I considered to be of a good enough standard. I didn't stop getting faster because of the lack of resources, but rather because I stopped practicing.

 

[jdh3000]

Who cares if it's popular? If it works for you, use it... I understand your frustration of not finding a lot of help on it, but working with it you may find some other ways that will help you speed up.

I use CFOP and I'm still finding ways to get faster that I didn't learn from anyone. Some moves may involve more turns than a more popular way of doing an alg, but I can actually excecute it faster, so I use it. We are all different, what works for me may not work for you.

If sub 20 is you goal, and that is possible with Petrus, keep going for it... don't let someone else tell you it's an inferior method.

I don't compete with anyone but myself.

 

[Deleted member 52530]

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

at least you try

 

[PetrusQuber]

at least you try

Who cares if it's popular? If it works for you, use it... I understand your frustration of not finding a lot of help on it, but working with it you may find some other ways that will help you speed up.

I use CFOP and I'm still finding ways to get faster that I didn't learn from anyone. Some moves may involve more turns than a more popular way of doing an alg, but I can actually excecute it faster, so I use it. We are all different, what works for me may not work for you.

If sub 20 is you goal, and that is possible with Petrus, keep going for it... don't let someone else tell you it's an inferior method.

I don't compete with anyone but myself.

The dates on the videos on my youtube channel give a decent idea of my progression with the method. A lot of my progression speed is thanks to the time I spent practicing roux and CFOP though, so my Petrus progression probably won't tell you anything particularly meaningful. I think I took a few breaks too which also complicates matters. No idea how fast I could get with practice.

My belief as to the reason why Petrus hasn't taken off is because it never got it's Alex Lau - someone who became world class with the method and actually broke UWRs with it. People like this are really one in a million because it takes such a large time investment, and I would say that it will be harder to find someone like this for Petrus, because there are more doubts that it could be better than or on par with CFOP.

I actually don't think lack of resources is the biggest problem. In my opinion, if you want to become the next Alex Lau you should not care about there not being resources. Resources for Roux and CFOP didn't come from nowhere, someone has to be the first. You should consider all of the currently available resources to be outdated and be prepared to become the innovator, the creator of resources yourself. Nobody becomes world class without a bit of creativity and imagination.

This was my approach to Petrus. I came up with most of what I know about Petrus by myself, because there weren't any resources out there that I considered to be of a good enough standard. I didn't stop getting faster because of the lack of resources, but rather because I stopped practicing.

@Tao Yu how much work have you put into Petrus to be sub-10(or close), and how fast do you think that you personally could get if you used it a bunch?

(In this context, because I know somebody will ask,) fast meaning world-class, so sub-7-ish.

Agreed. If more research was done into it we might find that it has lots of potential, but as of now there's just not enough resources out there.

#Bump

I think for those willing to learn ZBLL the EO step is great... however, for the rest of us who don't want to go around learning hordes of algorithms EO is more of a time-waster than a timesaver.

You’ve all been having mini conversations while I was asleep lol.
@DerpBoiMoon yes I do
@jdh3000 I know, it’s not so much as the lack
of resources, it’s the lack of cubers
that use Petrus, and I can share
times with, help each other out
with. Ah well . Btw my goal is
sub 8, already sub 20 now.
@Tao Yu yeah I agree, unlike say beginner’s
method where every step is clearly
outlined, Petrus has a lot of block
building in it, which makes it very
flexible. I only went to lar5.com
for the steps, the rest I worked out
myself. I have yet to be innovative
with Petrus though!
@fuzzballcat well, I’m willing to be that guy
who learns full ZBLL, although
I think the EO step can be
beneficial without it... I guess
I guess I’ll just have to be that
person who becomes world
class and make videos to
increase Petrus’ popularity.

 

[jdh3000]

Btw my goal is
sub 8, already sub 20 now.

Ok, I must've read that on one of the replies.

 

[brododragon]

Petrus with zz-blah

 

[Deleted member 36445]

Petrus with zz-blah

it seems ok but you almost never have a skip

 

[ProStar]

Petrus with 2x2x2 then OPAPETI2! Orient and Permute all Pieces Except Those In 2x2x2!

 

[Cubinwitdapizza]

I don’t think you guys realized but you bumped like a 4 month old thread lol

 

[PetrusQuber]

Petrus with zz-blah

I’m not really sure about this... I guess I could influence the ZBLL during F2L, but probably better to straight up do normal super fast F2L then any ZBLL set.