Is Petrus a dead method? Does the community still think it can be "fast"?

[StachuK1992]

I came up with a missing link solution in January where corners are permuted during EO. It was very inefficient, and a better solution than mine that accomplished the same thing was discussed in an old thread. I don't think either of these could beat CPLS, but if someone found a good way to permute the corners during EO, the LL would be down to 2GLL, and this would make the EO step useful, which was one of qqwref's problems.

There are more 'solutions' to the missing link than you think.
(I can think of four that I've documented /somewhere/) (here's one)
I've came up with a few that get as low as an extra 3 moves, but setting some 2G situation often isn't worth it if you aren't willing to put an effort forth and do the last step at once.

Petrus is great for many things, but at this point it really seems poor in comparison to CFOP/Roux for most people.
Not to self-promote too much, but I'd rather quote this than type up my points again..

I'm not really a fan of Petrus, past the 2x2x3. I'll make that rather clear here. I love that block-building is more-so popularized by Petrus, but as a method in whole, there's just something to it that's a turn-off to me. I think it's the EO stage. I won't outright say it's "bad", because it simply isn't, but I don't think I'll be practicing it much.

Petrus is kind of well-documented. There's an obvious general hub or two of Petrus solvers (Lars' website, that site advertized on SS by some thread that's frequently on the homepage). These two sources are surely enough to get one into Petrus, but I don't feel that enough different approaches to teaching the method are yet presented. Fortunately, there are enough after-EO approaches to take that *are* well documented, somewhere or another. I think a single collaborative page *coughwikicough* divided by users' preference of approach would be pretty awesome. That's all I really have to say for Petrus. It's solid, decently-documented, and--I don't really like it. Meh, I'm not sure why. I average ~21 with it, btw.

This addresses most issues I have with Petrus, qq covered the rest.

 

[teller]

I have no use for EO, but the 2x2x2 block-build is the cornerstone of a CFOP x-cross. Feliks started out with CN Petrus; this is not a coincidence.

 

[JLarsen]

I have no use for EO, but the 2x2 block-build is the cornerstone of a CFOP x-cross. Feliks started out with CN Petrus, this is not a coincidence.

I'm honestly not surprised. It seems like Petrus is a really good starting point. 2x2x3 gives you insight into blockbuilding, EO into edge manipulation, s4 into fridrich style f2l pairs, and 2x2 into x crossing. Roux and Fridrich seem to come naturally once you're proficient with Petrus.

 

[Ranzha]

In regard to EO, I've contemplated just orienting the F2L edges and solving with OLL/PLL. It's probably really frowned upon, but as a CFOP solver, it's more comfortable than Petrus-style EO.
Additionally, when I felt bored or intrigued, after 2x2x3, I'd utilize the S slice to form F2L pairs rotationlessly, use CLL, and then L5E. I dunno if anyone's done this as of yet, nor have I looked.

 

[cubernya]

I have no use for EO, but the 2x2x2 block-build is the cornerstone of a CFOP x-cross. Feliks started out with CN Petrus; this is not a coincidence.

You're thinking about Rowe, not Feliks

 

[teller]

You're thinking about Rowe, not Feliks

Crap...I just checked the old podcasts and you're right. Wtf...I suck. Don't listen to me.

 

[Athefre]

Sub-10 is the new thing. Roux is as popular as it is now because there was one person that practiced enough to meet that goal and post videos. A good tutorial is helpful, but most people expect evidence before they will switch.

At this time it doesn't matter much if Petrus is ~1 second slower than CFOP and Roux. I recall 5 or 6 years ago people weren't sure about Roux because they thought M turns held it back. Like ZZ, Petrus needs someone to have the confidence and determination of the CFOP and Roux users and frequently post sub-10 videos.

 

[pdilla]

All in all, the amount of thinking that you are doing in Petrus seems to lower the speed ceiling imo. It's a great method nonetheless, and it's invaluable if you are a CFOP user who wants to understand F2L efficiency. Yeah, my Fridrich tag is showing, but I gotta pay my respects to Petrus. It has really shaped me into a cuber that I never would have been without it.

So a "yes" from me.

 

[qqwref]

I recall 5 or 6 years ago people weren't sure about Roux because they thought M turns held it back.

Heh, I remember this too. To be fair, though, it was a lot harder to find a cube that was good with M slices then.

And I still think Roux is a poor choice for someone who is naturally bad at M slicing

 

[irontwig]

It's good, but I find it too rigid; FreeFOPftw.

 

[insane569]

In regard to EO, I've contemplated just orienting the F2L edges and solving with OLL/PLL. It's probably really frowned upon, but as a CFOP solver, it's more comfortable than Petrus-style EO.
Additionally, when I felt bored or intrigued, after 2x2x3, I'd utilize the S slice to form F2L pairs rotationlessly, use CLL, and then L5E. I dunno if anyone's done this as of yet, nor have I looked.

That is similar to how I solve OH. I get up to the 2x2x3 but then I do EO and continue to solve last 2 pairs with RU. This helps for OH since I can R U really quickly and then I only have 2L OLL so I don't have to relearn alot of OLLs. Then its just PLL which I can relearn some algs for since its not a crazy amount.

 

[JLarsen]

Well if you did full Petrus for one hand then you could just have 7 OLLs, all of which can be done 2 gen. And you wouldn't have to waste your time with 2 look OLL, and ofc you'd still get 2 gen F2L finish. Not sure why you would only fix the F2L edges.

@ atthefre I'm not sure that I'm the guy to take Petrus to sub 10.

 

[PandaCuber]

@ atthefre I'm not sure that I'm the guy to take Petrus to sub 10.

Not with that attitude!

 

[Zarxrax]

There are really 3 primary factors that go into how fast a method can be.
1) Efficiency of moves (how many moves a solve typically takes)
2) intuition / look ahead (how fast you can figure out what to do)
3) Ergonomics / turn speed (how fast you can actually do it)

Now, fridrich is pretty awesome on points 2 and 3.
But I would say that Petrus probably only beats it on point 1.

Its impossible to really test the overall efficiency of these methods in any legitimate way,
but we CAN test partial attributes of each one.

For example, the average number of moves is something that is known.
And turn speed is something that can be tested by using prepared solves.
For example, if you take a fast cuber like felix, and give him a prepared solution, and let him practice it several times, then we would see roughly how fast the turning of this particular method is. Of course, it would need to be done with several fast cubers, and over several different solutions.
I'm guessing that due to the freedom of petrus, the actual turn speed cant get very fast until near the end.

 

[Jaycee]

I think Petrus has more potential for OH than two-handed. Too much <R,U> isn't always good for two hands, but I think it's a lot better for OH.

Would it be possible to orientate edges before anything else like say ZZ.

But then it would just be a restricted form of ZZ..

EDIT : Did the forum's font change? O__o
EDIT2 : Oh never mind, I just realized I was zoomed in to the page by about 10% =_______=

 

[JLarsen]

Not with that attitude!

I'm not in highschool anymore. I have a job and I go to college. I can't just cube allll dayyy every dayyy.

 

[mariano.aquino]

I don't think there's a missing link or something like that. we need more people using petrus so that we can share opinions and see what's the better way to perform each step, and how to merge them.
I have a question for faster users. I've seen a 2-gen multi-slotting approach at ZZ's rider's page. Are we using that for petrus?
Also, has someone experimented with full MGLS-P? I mean, not only so-called EJLS but also cases with last corner on U?

 

[Godmil]

Well I'll take a stand and say No.
I don't know exactly why, but the method has had plenty of time and enough popularity for someone to prove that it can be very fast, and it's just never happened. Roux has shown that CFOP doesn't have the monopoly on fast methods, but Petrus just hasn't been able to keep up. It's still a nice method, and has it's advantages, but for the effort required speed isn't one of them (at least relatively).

 

[stoic]

Honestly though, I think Petrus and CFOP have converged because of X-cross.

CFOP is just badly named these days

Off-topic and tongue in cheek but here goes:
XFOP any takers?!?
Might please the purists who don't like "Fridrich"

 

[kinch2002]

Is Petrus a dead method?

No, I just used it as the basis for a solve at Irish Open. I got 28 moves.