Petrus

Is Petrus bad?

  • Total voters
    71
well anyway since this is a PETRUS thread ill point out why i think its good,
Petrus+ZBLL could average ~45 moves at top level(most efficient of big 4 by ~3 stm)
Petrus Ergo isn't as bad as people think
2x2x2 has simular ergo to Cross(Either R U F D B or L U F D B)
2x2x3 is usually R U or R U F/L U or L U F
Eo is usually R U F or M U(both of which are ergonomic)
and EOf2l is R U
Eo is Algorithmic(basically super quick recog/execution)
ZBLL every solve is obviously nice
Very Lucky Blocks/EO/F2l are common aswell
 
ObscureCuber said:
well anyway since this is a PETRUS thread ill point out why i think its good,
Petrus+ZBLL could average ~45 moves at top level(most efficient of big 4 by ~3 stm)
Petrus Ergo isn't as bad as people think
2x2x2 has simular ergo to Cross(Either R U F D B or L U F D B)
2x2x3 is usually R U or R U F/L U or L U F
Eo is usually R U F or M U(both of which are ergonomic)
and EOf2l is R U
Eo is Algorithmic(basically super quick recog/execution)
ZBLL every solve is obviously nice
Very Lucky Blocks/EO/F2l are common aswell
Click to expand...

also as a petrus thread, i'd like to explain why i'm the only one who voted for maybe.



Most blind spots out of the big 4, if counting zz as eocross.
Eo, despite being short, in the middle of the solve ruins your tps, thought it could be looked into.
still pretty undeveloped, even though it's the oldest of the big 4.

there's more, but im thick
 
TheSlykrCubr said:
also as a petrus thread, i'd like to explain why i'm the only one who voted for maybe.



Most blind spots out of the big 4, if counting zz as eocross.
Eo, despite being short, in the middle of the solve ruins your tps, thought it could be looked into.
still pretty undeveloped, even though it's the oldest of the big 4.

there's more, but im thick
Click to expand...
(im not saying roux is bad) Roux has DB blindspot(which is worse) because of 2x2x3 bieng solved, petrus doesnt really have bad blind spots
 
here's my version of cons
-EO in mid solve
-the method is fairly developed actually, but IS SUPER hard compared to the other big 4 to get fast at(mainly how crazy the blockbuilding can be)
-Ergo is worst of big 4(but not by much)IMO ergo is Cfop,Roux,ZZ(cross),Petrus(this could be wrong)
-wierd lookahead(EO to F2l transition)
 
Nir1213 said:
i never said it was better, just saying that you can get really fast with it because you dont have to do rotations and you can solve the cube with L, R, and U moves, which is really easy.
Click to expand...

Rotations aren't that bad and you should use more than about 3 in cfop. RUL isn't that good of a move set.
TheSlykrCubr said:
lol why doesn't anyone talk about eo-cross instead of eo-line when saying zz is bad cause damn, eocross is like better cfop
Click to expand...
Eocross is worse cfop. You have to inspect less for eocross than cross. Even if you can plan eocross+1 then you probably can inspect cross+2. And having more f2l pairs solved after cross is much better since there are less places to look for f2l pieces and non EO F2L is fine. Cubes aren't bad any more. RUL turning isn't that good.





Petrus isn't that good. Consider inspection how much do you plan? If just 222 then you must pause for 223 then pause for EO. You have a lot of blind spots. If you inspect 223 which you would do if you were actually serious about be fast with Petrus then you have EO immediately. The egronomics of block building a 223 isn't good. While the solution may have a low move count your tps will be low. 223 will take 11+ moves (solutions optimised for speed won't be optimal). EO will disturb flow. Compared to CFOP the first two fWl2l pairs and cross flow a more nicely. After this point cfop has a bit of an advantage because it has a cross solved.

Honestly Petrus was viable 15 years ago when cubes turned badly and your tps was limited heavily meaning low move counts were the goal. Things have changed more turns are possible at a quick speed. Yes this makes block building a bit better but Petrus has got more rotations than CFOP anyway.
 
Last edited:
tx789 said:
Rotations aren't that bad and you should use more than about 3 in cfop. RUL isn't that good of a move set.

Eocross is worse cfop. You have to inspect less for eocross than cross. Even if you can plan eocross+1 then you probably can inspect cross+2. And having more f2l pairs solved after cross is much better since there are less places to look for f2l pieces and non EO F2L is fine. Cubes aren't bad any more. RUL turning isn't that good.





Petrus isn't that good. Consider inspection how much do you plan? If just 222 then you must pause for 223 then pause for EO. You have a lot of blind spots. If you inspect 223 which you would do if you were actually serious about be fast with Petrus then you have EO immediately. The egronomics of block building a 223 isn't good. While the solution may have a low move count your tps will be low. 223 will take 11+ moves (solutions optimised for speed won't be optimal). EO will disturb flow. Compared to CFOP the first two fWl2l pairs and cross flow a more nicely. After this point cfop has a bit of an advantage because it has a cross solved.

Honestly Petrus was viable 15 years ago when cubes turned badly and your tps was limited heavily meaning low move counts were the goal. Things have changed more turns are possible at a quick speed. Yes this makes block building a bit better but Petrus has got more rotations than CFOP anyway.
Click to expand...
where do people get this idea of petrus having"blind spots"
if you inpect 223(which many people already do)
than theres only 2 sides left(top front/top right) so that argument doesn't make sense.
also look at roux, roux M U has much less TPS potential than RUF but because of efficiency that doesnt really matter.
look at what i talked about with ergo petrus really doesnt have that bad ergo very simular to that of cfop, if not better after 223
also tps is based off efficiency+tps
45/6 is 7.5 seconds, this is EXTREMELY doable and Tps can be pushed much further but even at 6 tps solves(with ZBLL) can be sub 8 easily,
55/7.2 is 7.6 seconds, meaning that the slightly worse ergo/lookahead is cancelled out also EO doesn't"disturb flow" as much as you think it does.
the average EO movecount is 6, and can(and should) be algorithmic,
also you can create/preserve pairs and put in cross edge during EO.
the average time of EO for me is ~0.67(without recognition)
and if you plan 223 you could easily look to EO while solving 223.

223 ergo isnt as bad as you think aswell
222 is R U F D B/L U F D B(same as cross)
and 223 is usually R U F/L U F/R U/L U (basically same as jayden style cfop or you could just rotate)
((also sounds like these are boomer jayden arguments))
images.jpg
 
Last edited:
ObscureCuber said:
where do people get this idea of petrus having"blind spots"
if you inpect 223(which many people already do)
than theres only 2 sides left(top front/top right) so that argument doesn't make sense.
also look at roux, roux M U has much less TPS potential than RUF but because of efficiency that doesnt really matter.
look at what i talked about with ergo petrus really doesnt have that bad ergo very simular to that of cfop, if not better after 223
also tps is based off efficiency+tps
45/6 is 7.5 seconds, this is EXTREMELY doable and Tps can be pushed much further but even at 6 tps solves(with ZBLL) can be sub 8 easily,
55/7.2 is 7.6 seconds, meaning that the slightly worse ergo/lookahead is cancelled out also EO doesn't"disturb flow" as much as you think it does.
the average EO movecount is 6, and can(and should) be algorithmic,
also you can create/preserve pairs and put in cross edge during EO.
the average time of EO for me is ~0.67(without recognition)
and if you plan 223 you could easily look to EO while solving 223.

223 ergo isnt as bad as you think aswell
222 is R U F D B/L U F D B(same as cross)
and 223 is usually R U F/L U F/R U/L U (basically same as jayden style cfop or you could just rotate)
((also sounds like these are boomer jayden arguments))
View attachment 13508
Click to expand...
Assuming you inspect 223 petrus still has the DR edge and that is a worse blind spot compared to CFOP at cross+2. Also MU is fast with the right finger tricks. In terms of 223 tps it would be good to look at roux tps during f2b to get an idea of what petrus could get.

The ergonomics of 223 is worse than cross+2. While 222 might be as good as cross you spend more time with a low amount of ergonomics. God's number for cross is 8 with 5-6 being the average for can. For Petrus 223 God's number is 11. Not sure about 223 stats for average can no one has calulated it but from doing FMC I know the average is a lot higher than cross. You spend a lot more time doing block building.

EO does break the flow a bit. Assuming you inspect 223 which if your good should feel algorithmic. After solving a 223 you don't solve pieces immediately you do EO. Meaning looking ahead during 223 is harder. Maybe you inspect EO and 223 but at that point you are inspecting a lot and other better methods (cfop and roux) gain an advantage since your a lot deeper into the solve and blind spots are filled.


Also why end in ad hominem you are showing your not confident enough in your agrument you attack the people arguing you.

Edit: name people who is petrus who also inspect 223 (not doing this makes Petrus a lot worse) the number of people who is it are very small and they mainly but not entirely want to be unique. If you find the method more fun then practice it but that doesn't make it better.
 
tx789 said:
Assuming you inspect 223 petrus still has the DR edge and that is a worse blind spot compared to CFOP at cross+2. Also MU is fast with the right finger tricks. In terms of 223 tps it would be good to look at roux tps during f2b to get an idea of what petrus could get.

The ergonomics of 223 is worse than cross+2. While 222 might be as good as cross you spend more time with a low amount of ergonomics. God's number for cross is 8 with 5-6 being the average for can. For Petrus 223 God's number is 11. Not sure about 223 stats for average can no one has calulated it but from doing FMC I know the average is a lot higher than cross. You spend a lot more time doing block building.

EO does break the flow a bit. Assuming you inspect 223 which if your good should feel algorithmic. After solving a 223 you don't solve pieces immediately you do EO. Meaning looking ahead during 223 is harder. Maybe you inspect EO and 223 but at that point you are inspecting a lot and other better methods (cfop and roux) gain an advantage since your a lot deeper into the solve and blind spots are filled.


Also why end in ad hominem you are showing your not confident enough in your agrument you attack the people arguing you.

Edit: name people who is petrus who also inspect 223 (not doing this makes Petrus a lot worse) the number of people who is it are very small and they mainly but not entirely want to be unique. If you find the method more fun then practice it but that doesn't make it better.
Click to expand...
gods number for cross is 8? i think thats way to high
anyway why are you comparing cross to 2x2x3
you should be comparing it to 2x2x2(i average 7 with 2x2 and 7 with cross)
also while cross+2 has better ergonomics you got to think about efficiency impacting tps again,
if i (someone who at a time was sub 12 with both methods)
did Arrow+2 f2l pairs i would be on average probably 1.5 seconds slower so no you do not spend more time on 223 because of how efficient it is
also that was a joke but you called it an ad hominem
((of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.)
that joke had nothing to do with my actual argument and as you could tell i had plenty of actual points so no i was not being"insecure"
 
ObscureCuber said:
gods number for cross is 8? i think thats way to high
anyway why are you comparing cross to 2x2x3
you should be comparing it to 2x2x2(i average 7 with 2x2 and 8 with cross)
also while cross+2 has better ergonomics you got to think about efficiency impacting tps again,
if i (someone who at a time was sub 12 with both methods)
did Arrow+2 f2l pairs i would be on average probably 1.5 seconds slower so no you do not spend more time on 223 because of how efficient it is
Click to expand...
God's number for cross is actually 8, there are hardly any cases that require 8 moves, but that is correct.
 
ObscureCuber said:
gods number for cross is 8? i think thats way to high
anyway why are you comparing cross to 2x2x3
you should be comparing it to 2x2x2(i average 7 with 2x2 and 7 with cross)
also while cross+2 has better ergonomics you got to think about efficiency impacting tps again,
if i (someone who at a time was sub 12 with both methods)
did Arrow+2 f2l pairs i would be on average probably 1.5 seconds slower so no you do not spend more time on 223 because of how efficient it is
also that was a joke but you called it an ad hominem
((of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.)
that joke had nothing to do with my actual argument and as you could tell i had plenty of actual points so no i was not being"insecure"
Click to expand...
God's number for cross is 8 but for cn solves there are only 40 cases where there are 6 eight move crosses. I am not sure what the numbers are like for 223. I believe God's number is 11 for 223. However speed optimised solutions aren't always move optimal. 222 God's number is 8 too I believe however expanding a 222 into a 223 will that more than 3 moves so building a 223 this way will have a higher average. Building a 223 block more directly would result in even slower tps.

This step would have the lowest tps.

Also Petrus seems to have a lot more rotations avoiding then in block building would be less efficient.
 
tx789 said:
God's number for cross is 8 but for cn solves there are only 40 cases where there are 6 eight move crosses. I am not sure what the numbers are like for 223. I believe God's number is 11 for 223. However speed optimised solutions aren't always move optimal. 222 God's number is 8 too I believe however expanding a 222 into a 223 will that more than 3 moves so building a 223 this way will have a higher average. Building a 223 block more directly would result in even slower tps.

This step would have the lowest tps.

Also Petrus seems to have a lot more rotations avoiding then in block building would be less efficient.
Click to expand...
how would avoiding rotations make it less efficient(just do an F/B move it isnt as bad for ergo as you think((look at fruf turning in cfop))?
also no, if you plan 223 than petrus has 1-2 rotations
making it two sometimes to make block have better ergo(this is still less rotations than cfop)
and again look at efficiency,
in roux(i could be wrong here) but the most efficient first block is usually best ergonomics is not the onlything that factors into tps.(again EFFICIENCY impacts TPS)
so it should be applicable to petrus here(which it is and already have explained)

Turns per second is
Efficiency/time
so efficiency is an equal factor to making a solve have good tps.
to have an example do this:
45/7.5 vs
55/7.5
55/7.5 requires greater turning speed(for obvious reasons) so ergo is only half of the factor, which you seemingly can't understand
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PetrusQuber
Petrus Colour Neutrality - Help Needed
Replies
3
Views
465
PetrusQuber
PetrusQuber
M
Gemini Flash AI continues to come up with new tutorial ideas
Replies
1
Views
463
0rcoraCuber21
0rcoraCuber21
acrystal
I need help with my method (i forgot to mention, im calling it "Orcora Petrus")
2
Replies
26
Views
2,364
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
acrystal
  • Poll Poll
Is petrus the best method for FMC?
Replies
11
Views
1,108
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
PhanPhuocan
Petrus Example solve thread
Replies
2
Views
472
acrystal
acrystal
Back
Top