PetrusQuber
Legend
Petrus method: 2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 -> EO -> F2L -> (ZBLL)
During a typical solve, the 2x2x2 is built in the LBD corner, the 2x2x3 extension is built in the RBD corner, and an y' rotation is performed before F2L.
During a typical solve, the 2x2x2 is built in the LBD corner, the 2x2x3 extension is built in the RBD corner, and an y' rotation is performed before F2L.
I'm debating between using full CN and using dual CN. Both give the same number of options for the 2x2x2 step (8). Full CN gives one more option during the 2x2x3 step (3 compared to 2), and one more option during the F2L step (2 compared to 1). More options will reduce movecount, but will also require extra time to evaluate. Using a non-standard option may also require additional rotation/s (or solving in a non-standard orientation). For example, building a 2x2x3 extension in the LBU corner will require a z' rotation for the next step.
Other factors:
- Dual CN may result in easier ZBLL recognition, though I'm not sure if the difference is significant
- With full CN, if I can plan the 2x2x3 in inspection, I can make any extra rotations during inspection
- In the previous example, I would rotate the cube using x y before the solve, moving the LBU corner to the required RBD corner
- However, more options for 2x2x3 will increase the difficulty of inspection
- I'm currently using full CN but I don't use ZBLL, and I can't inspect a 2x2x3
Any thoughts on dual vs full CN? I'm gonna make a decision this week, before comitting to one.