A Tricky Petrus Question

[JLarsen]

This is regarding 2x2x3. Recently I'm starting to break into the low 17's average and I'm once again examining the quality of my solutions. I've always felt as though my solutions sucked but I'm beginning to think they're not all too bad. Basically I think I'm breaking an all important rule which is freedom. I only expand in one direction for 2x2x3 while I could expand to 2 as I'm Y/W color nuetral. I'm debating the advantage to expanding both directions, so I'd like a take from some others on how they do 2x2x3, and their opinions regarding expansion neutrality.(Of course I'm not going to listen to someone who's like 30's with Petrus) Thanks in advance.

 

[byu]

I average 24-28 with petrus, and I always expand in the easiest direction

I'm not as good as you though

 

[DavidWoner]

I know Erik Johnson always expands to either white or yellow.

I think its faster to pick a direction and start looking ahead for pieces, rather than trying to decide on the fly which expansion is best. I think trading a few extra moves for drastically improved lookahead is more than worth it. Edit: Just read what Johannes posted and realized that it might not be entirely clear what I was saying. You shouldn't necessarily expand to one or two colors every time, but you should have decided what direction you are going to expand by the time you finish your 2x2x2.

 

[Johannes91]

I'd like a take from some others on how they do 2x2x3, and their opinions regarding expansion neutrality.

Neutrality ftw.

People seem to have different definitions for that, though. Some use the word to mean "always look at every option and choose the best one". I use it to mean "don't care about the colors (or direction)". If the first option I look at is nice, I might well pick it without investigating the others in a speedsolve.

So neutrality, as I see it, has the advantage that if you see an easy case, you can take advantage of it. It also makes finding pieces faster (for me), not slower. Instead of looking for, say, 1 corner out of 7, there are 3 that I can use.

(Of course I'm not going to listen to someone who's like 30's with Petrus)

I average about 10-20 seconds.

 

[byu]

I'll explain in more detail what I do.

I make a 2x2 block, and then I look for whatever pieces I could expand to. As soon as I see a set of 3 pieces that work (sometimes I only see 1 or 2), I start solving that one, looking ahead to see what to do next. If I see multiple sets of 3 pieces, then I'll go with the one that looks easiest.

 

[JLarsen]

I know Erik Johnson always expands to either white or yellow.

I think its faster to pick a direction and start looking ahead for pieces, rather than trying to decide on the fly which expansion is best. I think trading a few extra moves for drastically improved lookahead is more than worth it. Edit: Just read what Johannes posted and realized that it might not be entirely clear what I was saying. You shouldn't necessarily expand to one or two colors every time, but you should have decided what direction you are going to expand by the time you finish your 2x2x2.

Yeah that's what I do. It's kind of a strong arm technique which isn't very efficient, but it doesn't have an delay to it really at all.

I'd like a take from some others on how they do 2x2x3, and their opinions regarding expansion neutrality.

Neutrality ftw.

People seem to have different definitions for that, though. Some use the word to mean "always look at every option and choose the best one". I use it to mean "don't care about the colors (or direction)". If the first option I look at is nice, I might well pick it without investigating the others in a speedsolve.

So neutrality, as I see it, has the advantage that if you see an easy case, you can take advantage of it. It also makes finding pieces faster (for me), not slower. Instead of looking for, say, 1 corner out of 7, there are 3 that I can use.

(Of course I'm not going to listen to someone who's like 30's with Petrus)

I average about 10-20 seconds.

Oh, You were about the person I was hoping would respond.

Anyway so I'm still kind of unsure of what I'm going to do now. It seems up to personal preference at this point but as far as I can tell the more efficient you can be, and the more "neutral" you can be in your solves, the faster potential you have. No I'm making this judgement almost completely on 2 solvers being Johannes and Erik J but it seems pretty obvious that I should take a fraction of a second or so to see what solution is best in each of my steps before spamming whatever one is most familiar, and I will decrease my time more with the efficiency in moves more so than my delay will increase my times. Does this seem correct to you?

 

[tikva]

I am completely color neutral and average 23-27. I try to do 2x2x2 at DBL, so I can see all the unsolved faces afterwards.

In step 2, if I see a usable pair I use it, otherwise I try to focus on pieces in the UFR area because it's more versatile. It usually takes 6-9 moves.

In step 4, if I see a usable pair (I usually miss ones on D face) I use it, otherwise I just expand to the F face (which becomes R) after step 3.

I believe that with practice, this style would rock, but would be glad to hear other people's approaches.

 

[byu]

For some reason my Color Neutral Petrus is the same as my Fixed Color Petrus, but my Fixed Color Fridrich is faster than my Color Neutral Fridrich. I guess it's just blockbuilding and it makes being color neutral easier.

 

[JLarsen]

I am completely color neutral and average 23-27. I try to do 2x2x2 at DBL, so I can see all the unsolved faces afterwards.

In step 2, if I see a usable pair I use it, otherwise I try to focus on pieces in the UFR area because it's more versatile. It usually takes 6-9 moves.

In step 4, if I see a usable pair (I usually miss ones on D face) I use it, otherwise I just expand to the F face (which becomes R) after step 3.

I believe that with practice, this style would rock, but would be glad to hear other people's approaches.

I'm virtually the same with my solve style. 2x2x2 on DBL (with Y/W as D) and I only expand to the FRU for 2x2x3. But why not pair up pieces in the FRU area, and insert them over in the RBL if its easier? So basically I'm telling you that you can get good times with that method, but you have to turn as fast as you can. I find that my recent solves are not fast because of their efficiency, but more so the absurd TPS that I get up to during step 4 and 2x2x3. This is why I'm considering rethinking the way I solve.

 

[tikva]

I am completely color neutral and average 23-27. I try to do 2x2x2 at DBL, so I can see all the unsolved faces afterwards.

In step 2, if I see a usable pair I use it, otherwise I try to focus on pieces in the UFR area because it's more versatile. It usually takes 6-9 moves.

In step 4, if I see a usable pair (I usually miss ones on D face) I use it, otherwise I just expand to the F face (which becomes R) after step 3.

I believe that with practice, this style would rock, but would be glad to hear other people's approaches.

I'm virtually the same with my solve style. 2x2x2 on DBL (with Y/W as D) and I only expand to the FRU for 2x2x3. But why not pair up pieces in the FRU area, and insert them over in the RBL if its easier? So basically I'm telling you that you can get good times with that method, but you have to turn as fast as you can. I find that my recent solves are not fast because of their efficiency, but more so the absurd TPS that I get up to during step 4 and 2x2x3. This is why I'm considering rethinking the way I solve.

I didn't explain very well. I actually do expand to any of the 3 sides, but I look on the area opposite of 2x2x2 for pieces, because pieces over there lie on at least two free faces, (as opposed to say, pieces on DRB which can only be moved by an R move) so they can be generally solved in less moves.

Sometimes I see a corner at FRU and look for edges, and then I change my mind when I see a easily-formable pair. But if I find all 3 pieces, I will not change my mind even if they're in a hard configuration.

I agree with Johannes that finding the pieces is quicker with color neutrality.

I know Erik Johnson always expands to either white or yellow.

ErikJ expands to any face except white or yellow

 

[JLarsen]

Mmmmmm, nope. Erik is yellow white color nuetral like me, meaning he expands to 2x2x3 pieces containing white or yellow.

Edit: ll is always white or yellow

 

[tikva]

You and Erik actually expand to green, orange, blue or red and NOT yellow and white.

 

[JLarsen]

You and Erik actually expand to green, orange, blue or red and NOT yellow and white.

Dude, that is the face direction that your expanding to, but you are expanding the White and yellow faces. Get it?

 

[tikva]

You and Erik actually expand to green, orange, blue or red and NOT yellow and white.

Dude, that is the face direction that your expanding to, but you are expanding the White and yellow faces. Get it?

I can only conclude that the term "expand to white/yellow" is ambiguous. Isn't it more natural to say "expand to white" if you are actually expanding to pieces all with white?

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

B U' R' U2 B2 U? Then R2 F2 R F2 R to expand to white? (11)

P.S.- I got an OLL skip -> R perm on this

@tikva: when they say expand to white/yellow, it only means that they will expand to that so they can use it as their D face while solving the rest of the cube.

 

[Kyle™]

I've always used the same color every time unless there is a significant pair somewhere that I notice quickly. This makes the method a bit boring though, to be honest, which is why I keep losing interest in cubing.

 

[JLarsen]

I'm not going to the same COLOR everytime here just so we're clear, I'm expanding to the right everytime though.