[Help Thread] Petrus Discussion and Help thread
- Thread starter Cyrus C.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- help with petrus petrus speed
CharlieCooper
Premium Member
R2 B2 R D R2 F2 U2 L' U L
jms_gears1
Premium Member
you amaze everyone. your charlie. xP
Yes, always have. I actually learnt Petrus before any other method! My first solved cube was from Petrus. I don't even know the beginner solution everyone talks about
you never cease to amaze.
Peturs < roux but still awsome. xP (well for 2H)
I've amazed you before?
I look funny when I solve big cubes because of all my double layer turns, so I've been experimenting with Fridrich a bit. I suck at crosses and would rather invest my time elsewhere so I just do a 2x2x3 block, sort bad edges, place last "cross" piece and then do two pairs, oll, pll. Petrich, if you will.
I've been doing a bit of this on 3x3 too. I competed in my last competition with this, which was a gamble and I didn't do as well as I could have done. I need to practise a lot more with pairs because I'll be much faster. It saves the millions of hilarious cube rotations I do though! I seem to get a lot of faster singles, a lot of sub 14s, but it's far easier to screw up, ultimately giving me a worse average that straight Petrus.
lol id stick with petrus. Rotations dont matter much. Although personally i dont rotate unless performing a CMLL alg.
lawl much better than mine, But i prefer the block on DR and M turns xP
DaijoCube
Veteran
ZBLL is something I have got to try
mr. giggums
Veteran
guinepigs rock
Veteran
I can use it im learning and practicing it.
Cyrus C.
Veteran
Really? I found that when I switched to Fridrich from Petrus, I could make very creative crosses because of block building.
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
B2 R F2 L U2 L' U' D
That 2x2x2 is ridiculous. (u') should be (u) or y. Better way to extend is F' R2 U2 R' U R' F2.
anyway, if you asked for examples because you want to learn from them (as opposed to wanting to see how much everybody sucks), you should be using your computer instead.
ErikJ
Veteran
Last edited:
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
Nah. I do some solves now and then for fun, but I'm not practising or trying to improve anymore. Realizing how trivial it is for computers pretty much ruined it for me; I get more out of hobbies that require creative thinking, not just rote learning and raw processing.
ErikJ
Veteran
I just think it's impossible to be perfect at.
Cride5
Premium Member
Do you still do much cubing related coding?
I find the method computers currently use to arrive at optimal solutions isn't very elegant. For me, the last real mystery behind the Rubik's cube is a route to optimal solutions without brute force. I find the whole concept really interesting. Perhaps it's impossible, but I've as yet seen no proof that says so. What do you think about this?
... apologies for the oftopicness.
Cyrus C.
Veteran
Do any of you guys use the algorithms Lars has on his website for EO? I don't think they're worth it really, but I could be wrong.
ErikJ
Veteran
never use algorithms for EO. just do it intuitively.
Cyrus C.
Veteran
That's what I thought.
Cyrus C.
Veteran
Has anyone thought of something like EJF2L2? Solve the 2x3x3, except you can have 2 un-oriented corners? Or you can have 1 un-oriented edge?
miniGOINGS
Legend
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,049
Umm, you would have to have an even number of bad edges. And while doing EO you would have to make sure that they are both LL edges. Waste of time much?
Cyrus C.
Veteran
I don't know how hard it would be to get the hang of, unless you're colour neutral. It would really help on some scrambles though, I've had multiple where the 2x2x2 is solved, or a move away from solved, except 1 edge is flipped, some just 2 moves away also.
miniGOINGS
Legend
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,049
Ahh, so you mean even before EO. I just can't see a benefit in that.
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
I can't think of any good reason to do EO with algs, and I can think of several reasons to not to.
- Understanding is more fun than memorizing, and makes it easier to apply the same ideas for megaminx, for example.
- If you understand what you're doing, you can transition from Step 2 very smoothly and often cancel a move or two.
- For all cases there are several optimal or almost optimal ways to flip the edges. Choosing one of them depending on connected ce-pairs and other features of that particular position is much better than memorizng one alg and using it every time.
One common situation is that you've got a ce-pair and 2 bad edges, and in many cases it's possible to flip the edges and make a square (1x2x2-block) at the same time cheaply.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=355952&postcount=2
I don't see any reason to believe there exists some mystical God's Algorithm (it would be extremely awesome, though) -- some problems just are hard and there's no way around it. It's possible, but you could hypothesize the same thing about all the other puzzles, too (or, to take it a step further, board games like chess).
Similar threads
