• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Petrus is like, so dead now.

Do you use Petrus (or even a variation of it)


  • Total voters
    70

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
434
Location
My house, cubing.
YouTube
N/A
I use Petrus, and I have noticed nobody is really using it anymore. I, along with a couple of other people, am like the solitary Petrus user on this forum which is still active. The majority of users seem to be CFOP, Roux, or ZZ :(. So there isn't much discussion on how to improve on specific areas here for me. What are your thoughts on this? Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles? Anymore people using Petrus?
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
425
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
I think that as a method, Petrus is a good method, especially for teaching beginners advanced techniques. As a speedsolving method I don't think that it has the ergonomics to keep up with the other methods. 2x2x2 is fine (see xcross) as are the last 2 steps (right block and ZBLL). The main problem with it is the ergonomics and lookahead of expanding to 2x2x3. I'd argue that intuitive RUF is worse than intuitive RUL in many cases. As far as the EO step itself, I don't see it as a weakness or advantage.

Imo, LEOR is a better Petrus alternative. The steps are FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL. The last 2 steps are the same and the first steps are pretty much equal (it's slightly on the side of petrus by 1 move). The biggest difference is that you can see EO in inspection (if you're good), as you do EO while solving the 2x2x3, not after, and the expansion to EO2x2x3 is all RUMr (with controlled Fs in certain situations) and rotationless in comparison to the LUF > RULFM y'. The movecount is pretty similar (maybe the same), but the ergonomics are just better for LEOR. I also think that it is definitely competitive with the "big 3" and certainly has some aspects that make it more attractive than CFOP, Roux or ZZ, but also some drawbacks like any method.
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
434
Location
My house, cubing.
YouTube
N/A
I think that as a method, Petrus is a good method, especially for teaching beginners advanced techniques. As a speedsolving method I don't think that it has the ergonomics to keep up with the other methods. 2x2x2 is fine (see xcross) as are the last 2 steps (right block and ZBLL). The main problem with it is the ergonomics and lookahead of expanding to 2x2x3. I'd argue that intuitive RUF is worse than intuitive RUL in many cases. As far as the EO step itself, I don't see it as a weakness or advantage.

Imo, LEOR is a better Petrus alternative. The steps are FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL. The last 2 steps are the same and the first steps are pretty much equal (it's slightly on the side of petrus by 1 move). The biggest difference is that you can see EO in inspection (if you're good), as you do EO while solving the 2x2x3, not after, and the expansion to EO2x2x3 is all RUMr (with controlled Fs in certain situations) and rotationless in comparison to the LUF > RULFM y'. The movecount is pretty similar (maybe the same), but the ergonomics are just better for LEOR. I also think that it is definitely competitive with the "big 3" and certainly has some aspects that make it more attractive than CFOP, Roux or ZZ, but also some drawbacks like any method.
Ok. I'm going to try continuing Petrus, but I'll see if I get tempted to swap. What is LEOR, in word friendly terms?
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
434
Location
My house, cubing.
YouTube
N/A
Was it ever popular? :)
Back in early 2000, where CFOP was in it’s early stages, and Roux and ZZ weren’t even invented yet.
I think Petrus is fast enough to get sub 10 at least, so I’m going to continue using it (my target is sub 20). Can’t throw away months of practise
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,050
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
Why not? Petrus is still a very good method and sub 8 is definitely possible. I would still say that it's not big 3 level, but the most similar method to petrus that could reach the same speeds as the big 3 is LEOR.
Because by using it you are holding yourself back from progressing as fast or as far as you could with other methods
 

GAN 356 X

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
816
Location
Somewhere in the cubing universe
Sorry, but I'm getting close to sub 30 with cfop and i can't learn algs. At all. Like not even full pll. I know a total of like 20 algs and I don't want to learn like roux as well lol
Shake my head at people that can only learn one method
As long as you are good at one method I don't think it matters much. Honestly, I think the algs from oll are easier to remember but there are more of them. Which was easier to learn, oll or pll?
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
425
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
It takes about 15 mins to learn a new method if you know what you're doing, and the more you learn the easier it becomes.
You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.
Solving EO is actually really helpful. It's more efficient to solve EO, do RB then solve LL with ZBLL compared to cross edge, 2 pairs, OLL, PLL. It's also faster if you do it right. The problem with Petrus is the extension to 2x2x3. If that step were good, Petrus would be still very good. And I don't see what hardware has to do with it. If you're on about 2-gen, right block is amazing in comparison to your 2 average F2L pairs, old hardware or new.
 

Izaden

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
39
Location
Kitchener, Ontario
Disclaimer: I am VERY new to speed cubing.

I feel like if you prefer block building methods that Roux would be more appealing to most as the principles are very similar but Roux has fewer average moves and requires far less algs. There are also less long pauses due to Petrus requiring early edge orientation.
I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad, but I can see why Roux would be a more enticing method.

I am learning Cfop atm.

Good luck getting your time sub 20!
 

u Cube

Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
320
Location
your imagination
YouTube
ucubeyt
I use Petrus, and I have noticed nobody is really using it anymore. I, along with a couple of other people, am like the solitary Petrus user on this forum which is still active. The majority of users seem to be CFOP, Roux, or ZZ :(. So there isn't much discussion on how to improve on specific areas here for me. What are your thoughts on this? Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles? Anymore people using Petrus?
I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
425
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.
I doubt it. EO has benefits such as reducing rotations (which are 1 ETM each), ZBLL and halving the number of F2L cases. And I do think that EO in Petrus actually makes it better because of the amazing RB and ZBLL.
 
Top