• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
2,274
Location
Here
What if one of the F2L edges is where the cross edge normally goes? How do I take that out without disturbing EO/The pair already there? Doing M' U2 M ruins EO
@Etothepi is correct, but at least how I do Petrus F2L, you shouldn’t get into that situation.

What I do is place the cross piece before placing the first pair (you can still make the first pair, just not place it). Because of this, it doesn't matter where you put the cross piece in. If one of the F2L edges is where you would put the cross, just do an F move (or R or L, depending on your orientation), and you've got a place to put the cross. Once you've placed the cross piece, you can take the F2L edge out and continue like normal.
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
3,460
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
Visit Channel
This is actually very interesting, @WarriorCatCuber came across it while critiquing my example solve, and I was like - what? I don’t think the 2x2x2 and expansion would be more ergonomic, since that’s how Petrus is done, but then the rest of the solve changes completely. This is basically shooting into a ZZ solve halfway through, and switching to RUL gen. I’ve never been good at critiquing methods, so I’ll just say this is definitely a viable method, and could be explored further to become world class.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,542
A huge thanks to the person who did the Wiki page ! However, there is a slight mistake. since EO is said to be done petrus style and then FU for two pairs. EO is meant to be done ZZ-style (Key sticker being the FUD centers) and Both pairs with RUL. Check out woowybaby's example solve. Thanks anyway!
 

Hazel

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,681
Location
in your walls :3
@WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
<F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,542
@WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
<F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?
What ? I know FU isn't fast, see the edited wiki page. If you didn't misunderstand that, petrus EO also has FU during EO.
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
3,460
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
Visit Channel
@WarriorCatCuber there's one main issue I have with Petrus-W:
<F, U> isn't fast—it would be much better to rotate and use <R, U> and then rotate back. But at that point, you're just doing Petrus with two mandatory rotations and (no offense intended), a worse LL. CLL -> L5E is simply slower than ZBLL as it's two steps rather than one, and the 2-3 moves saved by not bothering with that last cross edge during the F2L step doesn't make up for that.
I don't mean to say that you should just drop the idea or anything, but rather you should get past these limitations. How can you spin this in a direction that would be an actual improvement upon Petrus, or at least an as-fast variation?
If you got this from the wiki page, somebody accidentally misunderstood the method, it does ZZ style EO with block in back, then use RUL gen to solve two pairs, followed by COLL and L5EP.

Also I made some other minor changes, like correcting permuting four edges to permuting five edges, etc.
 

Hazel

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,681
Location
in your walls :3
What ? I know FU isn't fast, see the edited wiki page. If you didn't misunderstand that, petrus EO also has FU during EO.
If you got this from the wiki page, somebody accidentally misunderstood the method, it does ZZ style EO with block in back, then use RUL gen to solve two pairs, followed by COLL and L5EP.

Also I made some other minor changes, like correcting permuting four edges to permuting five edges, etc.

Ah, I looked at the page again and it looks better :D
Still, though, after EO, I feel that 2-gen F2L -> ZBLL is just better than 3-gen F2L minus the edge -> CLL -> L5EP.
That said, I'd love to be proven wrong, and if you still believe in the method then I hope you will :)
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
3,460
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
Visit Channel
Unless an edge or corner is stuck in slot on the other layer, most of the pairing still remains 2 gen - you may do a couple L moves to put an edge in position, then do RU pairing, then swap round to LU pairing. And also, ZBLL is not for everyone ;). (Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)


Quick question for the person who edited in the Pros and Cons - didn’t it have 12 more algorithms than EPLL, according to previous posts?
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,542
Unless an edge or corner is stuck in slot on the other layer, most of the pairing still remains 2 gen - you may do a couple L moves to put an edge in position, then do RU pairing, then swap round to LU pairing. And also, ZBLL is not for everyone ;). (Though recognition for L5EP is still worse than EPLL)


Quick question for the person who edited in the Pros and Cons - didn’t it have 12 more algorithms than EPLL, according to previous posts?
I made a mistake in the previous post. Also, L5EP is barely worse than EPLL, you still only have to look at the top layer.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
1,542
Also, how exactly did you come up with the method? I might put a history section in.
When PapaSmurf told you in your quest for sub-8 petrus that you should do your 223 in the back, I thought he meant to do something like this, by putting in the cross edge with F2. But when I critiqued you, you were a little confused, so I realised it wasn't the case. So, I decided to propose this here, without putting in the cross edge with F2.
 
Top