Petrus Method

[Lord Voldemort]

ZZ ftw!
Though I actually use Fridrich, ZZ is just awesome.
The cube is reduced to <RUL> after EOline, which is amazing.
And blockbuilding is more efficient than F2L pairs, and lookahead isn't much harder than Fridrich look ahead. And like Petrus, you can have 2LLL in an easy 28 algorithms. Admittedly, getting good at EOline takes longer than cross proficiency or making a 2x2x2 block, but still.

Soccerking - I didn't recognize you without the green llama (?) thing in your avatar

 

[waffle=ijm]

I like Roux
But everyone knows that.
I don't care about what method people use as long as they like it and like using it

 

[ostracod]

This thread seems to have turned into a X METHOD IS THE BEST free-for-all.

...But anywayy,, I agree with Lord Voldemort. And I think that ZZ is in some ways easier to use than the Petrus method, because Petrus contains a lot of little steps which one must master (222 block, expand, bad edges, F2L, LL) whereas ZZ has fewer but larger steps (EOLine, 123 blocks, LL). With fewer steps, it is easier to master each one.

 

[JLarsen]

In other words zz is easier.

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

Hey! What about Roux!

Petrus is better than Roux! (BTW I don't know anything about Roux)

Roux is better than Petrus! (BTW I know a fair amount about Petrus)

REASONS TO BACK UP MY OPINION:
-Petrus has a really slow last layer system. (From Emerson: Don't be so judgemental, you can modify Petrus's LL much more.)
-Roux only requires knowledge of 9 full-length algorithms, and 3 really short 4 move ones. And if you want to be really lazy, I think you can get by with only 2 full length algorithms. (From Emerson: It does not matter how many algorithms you need minimally, you fool.)
-Roux has 4 simple, fast steps. Petrus has 7 longer steps. (From Emerson: Step 4 is broken into multiple parts. That is what keeps it at 4. And how is making a 2x2x2 block longer than making a 1x2x3 block?)
-[irrelevant]

Don't be so pompous. This is the last post I am making on this thread.

 

[ostracod]

@SneakyPandaMan: Well, it seems to me that ZZ is easier. And it is easy in multiple ways!
- Not chopped up into many steps (as I said before; Fridrich has this benefit as well)
- Doesn't require lots of algorithms (Petrus style LL)
- Ergonomic, because of LUR group (Fridrich does not have this, Petrus puts the cube into RU group later in solve)

The down sides:
- EOLine and blockbuilding are more difficult to learn than cross and F2L pairs
- Eh... I can't think of much more. Move count is a little higher than Petrus?

 

[Lord Voldemort]

In other words zz is easier.

So? Is that a bad thing? (After EOLine, of course)
ZZ also has much look ahead after the first step, and it's all RUL turns.
Note that after the 2x2x3 block/orient edges and EOline/1x2x3 block, Petrus and ZZ are the same. Optimally, ZZF2L is 25.5 turns on average, though optimality is difficult. Any stats of Fridrich/Petrus?

EDIT: @ Ostracod - Petrus only moves the F2L into RU, LL is still 3 gen.
One more thing: is the 6.1 average EOline for color neutral?

 

[Escher]

@SneakyPandaMan: Well, it seems to me that ZZ is easier. And it is easy in multiple ways!
- Not chopped up into many steps (as I said before; Fridrich has this benefit as well)
- Doesn't require lots of algorithms (Petrus style LL)
- Ergonomic, because of LUR group (Fridrich does not have this, Petrus puts the cube into RU group later in solve)

The down sides:
- EOLine and blockbuilding are more difficult to learn than cross and F2L pairs
- Eh... I can't think of much more. Move count is a little higher than Petrus?

increasing the steps to a method =/= making the entire method more difficult/slower. Just look at Guimond vs Ortega for 2x2. And for many people, CLL can be slower than Ortega or Guimond, even though it only has 2 steps (make a layer, 1look LL) due to the difficulties of making an optimal (or near optimal) layer and recognition times.

Saying that 'one LL system requires less algs than another' I think is quite short sighted. You never get anything for free.

I think the difficulty of going from nothing (noob) -> cross is not much harder than going from a good cross/2x2 block -> eoline, it just feels that way because we havent really struggled at a cube for a while. It's why ZZ is not a beginners method, at least in its most used incarnation.

Anyway, I would like this thread to end, it is simply regurgitating old arguments. Find a method you like, and play with it. If you like it, great, if you dont, move on. There are enough around.

 

[JLarsen]

Nah, not really. Just pointing it out. I was suggesting it took out the thought process to it, and made it more boring. Just my opinion.

Edit: this was to voldemort.

 

[shoot1510]

lol! Everyone complaining about which method is best. Why Roux? 4 step, last step M, U.
Erik use Fridrich and he beat the WR so.

 

[byu]

Oh no, not the "The world record is with Fridrich" thing again. If we keep thinking that, speedcubing will never get better. Eventually, people will have mastered Fridrich and there will be no getting better.

 

[waffle=ijm]

Oh no, not the "The world record is with Fridrich" thing again. If we keep thinking that, speedcubing will never get better. Eventually, people will have mastered Fridrich and there will be no getting better.

watch the first 20 seconds everything else is boring

 

[Cride5]

@SneakyPandaMan: Well, it seems to me that ZZ is easier. And it is easy in multiple ways!
- Not chopped up into many steps (as I said before; Fridrich has this benefit as well)
- Doesn't require lots of algorithms (Petrus style LL)
- Ergonomic, because of LUR group (Fridrich does not have this, Petrus puts the cube into RU group later in solve)

The down sides:
- EOLine and blockbuilding are more difficult to learn than cross and F2L pairs
- Eh... I can't think of much more. Move count is a little higher than Petrus?

I've posted this elsewhere, but thought I'd repeat my list of ZZ benefits for the non-believers

• R U L face turns improve F2L ergonomics
• No cube rotations improves ergonomics
• Oriented edges improves F2L lookahead
• Initial EOLine phase makes better use of inspection time (compared with Fridrich cross)
• Automatic orientation of U-Face edges means:
  • Fewer OLL algs required for OLL/PLL (comparing with Fridrich)
  • More options for LL including COLL/EPLL, WV etc
  • Not impossible to achieve 1LLL (although difficult)

When doing FM solves, in the back of your mind you're always thinking about move efficiency - ie: how much closer does each move take you to your goal. I believe the moves made during EOLine do a lot more to help the rest of the solve than the equivalent number of moves used during the Fridrich cross. EO helps you during F2L, with move ergonomics and lookahead. It also helps you on LL by pre-orientation of the LL edges, leading to easier/more efficient LL options.

It seems that ZZ should be better than Fridrich in theory, but we've yet to see that proved in practice. All the more reason to learn it, and learn it good

 

[Escher]

- Initial EOLine phase makes better use of inspection time (compared with Fridrich cross)

Elaborate please, I don't think we have the same definition of 'better'...

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Nah, not really. Just pointing it out. I was suggesting it took out the thought process to it, and made it more boring. Just my opinion.

Edit: this was to voldemort.

With all due respect, have you ever tried ZZ?
EOline takes more thought process than building a 2x2x2 block. Extending the 2x2x2 block with a 2x2x1 block is what you do in ZZ as well, except you're adding to a line.

Elaborate please, I don't think we have the same definition of 'better'...

Well, in Fridrich, all you do is place 4 edges. In ZZ, you Place two edges. However, you also orient all edges, which allows you to solve the F2L (and the LL, if you want), in only the subset <RUL>. It orients the LL edges once you get there, which mean a faster OLL if you choose to use it, since Sune, Anti-Sune, and Double-Sune cases come up more often than not. It brings up the option to use things like ZZ-b, a 1LLL in 170ish algorithms which could potentially be very fast. 170 is a big number, but compare it to the 800 you need for ZBLL with Fridrich, and you see which is easier. Final note: EOLine takes 6.1 turns on average, while Cross take 5.8, so it's not like you're taking 20 turns on the first step or something.

ZZ F2L is optimal 26 turns, and the turns are free of cube rotations or F/B turns. For Fridrich, I think it's around 28 for F2L. Also note that in ZZ you have the LL edges already oriented, so an added benefit outside of F2L.

The reason ZZ has no well-known fast users (like Erik Johnson for Petrus and everyone else for Fridrich) is that so few people know about it. The first (useful) document I've seen on it in English was published on 8/13/08, which isn't too long ago compared to the decades Fridrich has.

 

[Cride5]

Nah, not really. Just pointing it out. I was suggesting it took out the thought process to it, and made it more boring. Just my opinion.

Edit: this was to voldemort.

With all due respect, have you ever tried ZZ?
EOline takes more thought process than building a 2x2x2 block. Extending the 2x2x2 block with a 2x2x1 block is what you do in ZZ as well, except you're adding to a line.

Elaborate please, I don't think we have the same definition of 'better'...

Well, in Fridrich, all you do is place 4 edges. In ZZ, you Place two edges. However, you also orient all edges, which allows you to solve the F2L (and the LL, if you want), in only the subset <RUL>. It also orients the LL edges once you get there, which mean a faster OLL if you choose to use it, since Sune, Anti-Sune, and Double-Sune cases come up more often than not. It also brings up the option to use things like ZZ-b, a 1LLL in 160ish algorithms which could potentially be very fast. 170 is a big number, but compare it to the 800 you need for ZBLL with Fridrich, and you see which is easier. Final note: EOLine actually needs less turns on average than a cross, so it's not like you're taking 20 turns on the first step or something.

Well elaborated voldemort, couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Thanks
What LL steps do you use for ZZ?

 

[Cride5]

Just OLL/PLL, so two looks. Too busy to learn other options ATM, plus I really need to get some practice on F2L. I'm still V sloooow

 

[Johannes91]

Well, in Fridrich, all you do is place 4 edges.

It's not like you're not allowed to plan more than that. Many of the fast cubers look for the first ce-pair, too.

<RUL>

<R,U,L>

... the 800 you need for ZBLL with Fridrich

How did you calculate this? Anyway it's not ZBLL, I don't know if there's a name for it; usually it's called just 1-look LL.

Final note: EOLine actually needs less turns on average than a cross

How did you measure this?

ZZ F2L is optimal 26 turns ... For Fridrich, I think it's around 28 for F2L.

Would be a good idea to cite where these numbers are coming from. Solving the whole F2L step in one go optimally? Probably not, so how is it divided to sub-steps and how they are solved, etc.. I don't know how ZZ solvers do it.

The 4 ce-pairs in Fridrich can be solved in about 23 moves, see Stefan's Hume.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

You seem to understand EOline better than I do though.
I've mostly been working on my blockbuilding, and since I usually do ZZ for OH only (I have to get sub-20 on Fridrich before I switch ), so I have plenty of time to look ahead and make better blocks.