Petrus?

[fleeting_penguin]

Is the Petrus method worth learning as an intermediate step to Fridrich while I focus on blindsolving and bigger cubes? I seems like it takes a lot of practice making blocks to get sub minute times with it. Approximately what time can I expect in a week if I practice consistently? Is it even worth learning at all?

How many moves should I aim to do each step of Petrus in? I know for Fridrich F2L you should do each corner/edge pair in under 8 or look it up; what are some similar guidelines for Petrus in the blockbuilding stages?

 

[griz]

are you going for speed or fewest moves?

 

[fleeting_penguin]

are you going for speed or fewest moves?

Ultimately for an average speed under 30 seconds, and I want to know if Petrus can achieve this. Though I am wondering how long it will take to get sub 60, as that is what I really want to break.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Also, I really need some guidelines for the number of moves I should get under each time on the block building stages. I feel like those take a lot of time for me. Though I am sure it will get better with practice, it's just how much practice...

 

[griz]

petrus can get sub 30. but block building takes practice. on the 2x2x2 block you should average 6 or 7 moves. 2x2x3 should take 7-8 moves

 

[badmephisto]

Petrus is known to have very low number of moves solutions as opposed to Fridrich method, which I dont see as too much of an advantage, especially with all the finger tricks... so number of moves is not as much of a concern, as thinking time is.
If you want to learn it only as an intermediate step, I would recommend against that... it is probably a waste of time that you could spend perfecting your Fridrich method - F2L or whatever.

 

[pjk]

If I were you I'd aim for around 45 move avg with it, then work on speedsolving it. I'd actually work on Roux if I were you. Good luck.

 

[MAHTI-ANSSI]

What? Johannes hasn't posted here?

 

[AvGalen]

What? Johannes hasn't posted here?

 

[Johannes91]

Is the Petrus method worth learning as an intermediate step to Fridrich

Eh, what do you mean? They are two very different methods. Petrus is more difficult and more advanced than Fridrich. I can't see how you would use it as an "intermediate step".

Move counts should be something like this:
Step 1: 5-6
Steps 2+3: 10-12
Step 4a: 6
Step 4b: 6

And whatever your LL takes.

Ultimately for an average speed under 30 seconds, and I want to know if Petrus can achieve this.

Yes, Petrus can achieve that. He averages 20-25 seconds as far as I know.

Though I am wondering how long it will take to get sub 60, as that is what I really want to break.

Took me a couple of weeks.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

If I were you I'd aim for around 45 move avg with it, then work on speedsolving it. I'd actually work on Roux if I were you. Good luck.

Why Roux over Petrus?

And why is Petrus harder than Fridrich? It seems like I trade learning a bunch of algorithms for needing to think on the go. I much prefer thinking.

 

[Johannes91]

It seems like I trade learning a bunch of algorithms for needing to think on the go.

Nope, there's no need to think any more than there's with Fridrich (in speedsolving). You need to develop a good intuition to be able to see which pieces you should solve and how, instead of memorizing solutions to all/most of the cases.

 

[pjk]

Roux, in my mind, just seems to have the most potential right now.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Oh, now I'm torn by indecision. I will probably waste my time debating the virtues of each for a week before actually doing anything.

Which one will allow me to get faster times with less practice?

 

[ExoCorsair]

Which one will allow me to get faster times with less practice?

Typical...

Why don't you try all the methods first? What's fast for one person may not be so fast for another... Also, you'd probably progress the most on the method that you like the most.

Anyhow. To answer your question, if you've been using CFOP, I'd say stick with that, because once you change methods, you WILL slow down at the beginning.

Remember that it will take a lot of practice to get down to sub-20 regardless of whichever method you end up using.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Typical...

Why don't you try all the methods first? What's fast for one person may not be so fast for another... Also, you'd probably progress the most on the method that you like the most.

Anyhow. To answer your question, if you've been using CFOP, I'd say stick with that, because once you change methods, you WILL slow down at the beginning.

Remember that it will take a lot of practice to get down to sub-20 regardless of whichever method you end up using.

I know it's rather blunt to ask which is faster and easier, but that's honestly want I want.

I don't really like CFOP all that much. That's why I wanted to explore alternative methods. Of course getting sub 20 is probably possible with any method, and it's going to take practice to get there with any method, but I wanted to explore Petrus because the LL seemed much easier than with Fridrich. I also wanted to explore the learning curve and results per time of each method, because realistically I'm probably not ever going to think of cubing as more than a (very) fun hobby and probably not practice enough to get sub 20, so having good results early on is something that is rather important, I guess.

Looking at Roux, I also see some tables of algs to memorize, so I think I'll start learning Petrus unless anything thinks Roux or some other alternative method is measurably better. And I'm very open to anything (corners first, whatever) as long as the results are good. Thoughts on this?

Thank you for the discussion thus far.

 

[ExoCorsair]

but I wanted to explore Petrus because the LL seemed much easier than with Fridrich.

You can combine the three steps of Petrus LL from the 13 algorithms you need to two steps or even one step (which ends up being ZBLL).

Either way, it appears to me that most of the fastest solvers are that fast because of a very fast F2L. But you said that you probably are not thinking of going down to those sub-20 times.

However, I see Petrus and CFOP as similar because they both complete two layers and then finish the last layer (arguably, how each go about doing the two is relatively different, but that's not my point). I wonder why, if you are just interested in the LL, that you wouldn't solve F2L with cross + pairs and then use Petrus LL?

You could always try Heise... Not awesome for speedcubing, imo, but a rather interesting (and small move count) method. You know, just to be different.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Hmm. It seems I had overly romanticized notions of Petrus LL. Now I see the best way to just do Fridrich, just with a cut down OLL. Which is nice. But I could do the same thing with a 3 look LL.

So I guess there is no escaping memorizing those algs for the LL.

Then, I have to ask, what is the point of Petrus? It seems like a slower way than Fridrich F2L, with more thought required. It and Roux also seem heavily dependent on inspection time to cut down on F2L time. I don't get inspection time when I tell people to scramble a cube and give it to me.

Though I do not have a speedcube, so maybe efficient solutions are better because I turn very slowly. The middle slices are pretty much impossible to turn. And I cannot perform any fingertricks faster than just turning the side normally, because of resistance.

So what would be your recommended course of action, and what would you recommend if I plan on being nonconformist and staying away from CFOP? Because I really don't want to be like everyone else. I have this stupid desire to be unique.

Many thanks.

 

[tim]

Then, I have to ask, what is the point of Petrus? It seems like a slower way than Fridrich F2L, with more thought required. It and Roux also seem heavily dependent on inspection time to cut down on F2L time. I don't get inspection time when I tell people to scramble a cube and give it to me.

If you just want to impress people, learn a simple layer-by-layer method, practice a bit and execute it as fast as possible. That's much more impressive than solving a cube slow with much less moves and with a faster time.

I recommend to learn Petrus and Roux and play around with both methods at least a week. Then learn the method which feels "right" for you.

 

[ExoCorsair]

I recommend to learn Petrus and Roux and play around with both methods at least a week. Then learn the method which feels "right" for you.

Roux really isn't an option unless he gets a new cube, apparently.

I suggest Heise, again (http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/).