• 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

efattah

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
519
I tend to agree with u Cube; after years of trying to make new methods my general conclusion is that future methods will not involved orient->permute steps, but rather direct solve. Consider OLL->PLL vs. ZBLL or 1LL, or 2-look CMLL (orient/permute) vs. direct CMLL. That is a simplification, but hundreds of experiments (that I have done) generally point to the fact that direct solve has greater potential in the long term. But you can still get extremely fast with orient->permute methods.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
235
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.
You better not say that about ZZ...

There are many benefits to EO. Honestly petrusquber, just stick with Petrus. Also I tried Petrus and I am sub 40 so ya.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,873
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
thetx789
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.

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.
Petrus is better on old hardware like 2003 hardware. EO first is better, but is EO that useful for solves. RUL is a bad move set RUD is much better.
 

2180161

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
748
Location
Illinois
WCA
2014HEDR01
YouTube
LiquidFizz
Wow. Lots of misinformation in here about Petrus, at least from what I know. For reference, I quit cubing for about a year around this time last year, and at the time was around 9.5 for my global average, and I used Petrus. Petrus isn't fast. But neither are CFOP, Roux, ZZ, etc. The reason being is a method can't inherently be fast because its just a way to go about solving the cube. People can solve the cube fast using methods, some being more popular than others which gives a false sense of "No one uses this so it must be bad" or "Everyone uses it so it must be good." Every method has their flaws but many have benefits to make up for those flaws. For example, CFOP is very set in the manner of which you do the steps. Your cross solutions most likely all look similar, F2L solutions, etc. This simplicity allows for fast TPS and easy look-ahead, at the cost of being restricted to essentially RULF and a few rotations. Roux has its benefit in its linearity. You will always do LB/RB/CMLL/EOLR/4c. But because the first step is always RB, you can choose the most efficient RB you find, which allows for better lookahead into SB, and so on. The downside of this is a large portion of it is intuitive which many seem to struggle with, but has the benefit of lower movecount meaning you don't need to worry about TPS as much. Petrus on the other hand, hasn't been explored much, if at all. We all know it ends with the EO:LL state, where ZBLL can be used to solve it. But so can Fish and Chips, OCLL/PLL, COLL/EPLL and so on. But that's one of Petrus' downsides. It is linear and largely intuitive (excluding EO, which imo should be algorithmic similar to CFOP's F2L where you learn it intuitively but drill it to essentially algs) which creates a large area where there isn't much that can be adjusted. Take Roux for example. In its infancy, Roux's last step, which is LSE, was very uniform of EO/LR Edges/4c, but as time went on it was essentially altered to be EOLR which is the first two steps combined in to one step. This isn't doable in Petrus unless you are crazy at blockbuilding and can direct build a 3x2x2 (No expansion whatsoever) Similarly, many people do/did EO with Petrus "wrong." In this case, wrong doesn't actually mean wrong, but rather sub-optimal. People will build the block on the left because that's how many tutorials taught it and do EO RUFBS, when actually it is better to do it with the block built in BD, so that your EO is now RULFM which is a much better movegroup and also allows better look-ahead from EO into F2L as you rotate back to do F2L 2-gen as you no longer have a blind spot, which is common in other methods unless you specifically avoid it.

As for the misinformation, "...solving a cross edge and then doing EO and then F2L..." -- tx789

This is blatantly incorrect, as you do not solve DF/DR depending on your block location and then do EO. You do EO and then your F2L, and very rarely do I ever do it by placing DR and then 2 pairs as it is less efficient and removes the blind spot benefit I mentioned earlier.

"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 " -tx789

Again, there's a bit incorrect here. The last two pairs of CFOP is not analogous to RB of Petrus. It isn't a comparison that makes sense.

"Solving EO isn't that good" I believe most people would beg to differ. I mean, there is a reason so many people use partial edge control to avoid dot OLL's right? All of the OCLL's excluding H and Pi (I believe) are all able to be oriented in about 7 or 8 moves. Compare that to standard OLL's average movecount. Again, if you have a lower movecount, you don't need to turn as fast which is where Petrus' strengths lie.

"Cubes are much better these days"

While not incorrect, it is irrelevant. I can pull out my old dayan Lunhui and get the same times on it as I do my GTS3/Tengyun/Whatever else.

"Roux has fewer average moves and requires far less algs. There are also less long pauses due to Petrus requiring early edge orientation." -- Izaden

You mentioned you were very new, but that doesn't mean that you can pass false information off as fact. Nothing against you here, you're new, but Petrus and Roux have very comparable movecounts, and I believe using HARCS they both average around 40 moves, though Roux may be a move or two less, but that's a computer. Someone who has essentially mastered Roux and another who has done the same for Petrus should have virtually equivalent movecounts.

"EO has almost zero benefits..." -- u Cube

EO has nowhere near zero benefits. Lower movecount, easier look-ahead, better movegroup, the list goes on.

"Petrus is better on old hardware like 2003 hardware. EO first is better, but is EO that useful for solves. RUL is a bad move set RUD is much better." --tx789

Hardware is irrelevant as everyone is on the same hardware now, and everyone was on the same hardware in 2003. I'll ignore your EO statement to avoid repeating myself more. As for your statements on movegroups, RUL isn't bad, and I agree that RUD is better, but neither are used in Petrus except for in LL and on occasion F2L -- special cases and keyhole respectively.


TL;DR: Seems a lot of people don't know methods as well as they think they do, and attempt to pass off said misinformation as fact. I call them out on it
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,050
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
You mentioned you were very new, but that doesn't mean that you can pass false information off as fact. Nothing against you here, you're new, but Petrus and Roux have very comparable movecounts, and I believe using HARCS they both average around 40 moves, though Roux may be a move or two less, but that's a computer. Someone who has essentially mastered Roux and another who has done the same for Petrus should have virtually equivalent movecounts.
Analyzed 100 scrambles and this is what I got.

SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 31
MOST MOVES: 48

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
3x2x2 9.16 7 10 3236
eo 4.96 3 8 193
f2l 9.91 7 12 47
zbll 15.75 8 21 5
TOTAL 39.78 25 51 3481
SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 28
MOST MOVES: 45

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
fb 6.72 4 8 530
sb 10.11 7 13 296
cmll 10.28 0 16 15
lse 11.04 5 15 44
TOTAL 38.15 16 52 885
SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 32
MOST MOVES: 46

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
eoline 6.23 4 8 140
lb 8.87 6 11 86
rb 10.04 6 12 62
zbll 15.85 9 23 0
TOTAL 40.99 25 54 288
Also HARCS doesn't do CFOP but movecount is < 60 with some of the basic stuff, could probably be ~50 with pseudo f2l, LSLL trick and some last layer improvements.

Critiques
finding optimal for ever single step in a solve isn't always doable so you can probably add a few moves to each of these to get "normal speed solves"
Roux doesn't use NMC, NMB, CMLLEO, pinkie pie, EOLR, etc. Also doesn't allow for 2 blocks to be built simultaneously etc.
Petrus and ZZ don't use WV (idk any other extensions of Petrus but let me know if you know any)
ZZ doesn't do 3/4 cross which is what most people use
Petrus an ZZ use 2011 ZBLLs which are RUL for the most part, they seem to be a bit more efficient than most modern algs (but less fingertrickable)
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
235
petrus is better than zz so if he has to use one better petrus
Ok buddy that’s a lie. ZZ is definitely better than Petrus (no offense Petrus users I support you) because you pre-orient edges instead of orienting them after 2 steps. ZZ is meant to be used if you strive to learn ZB. Also Petrus was meant to be used as a beginner speedsolving method where as ZZ wasn’t intentionally.

Analyzed 100 scrambles and this is what I got.

SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 31
MOST MOVES: 48

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
3x2x2 9.16 7 10 3236
eo 4.96 3 8 193
f2l 9.91 7 12 47
zbll 15.75 8 21 5
TOTAL 39.78 25 51 3481
SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 28
MOST MOVES: 45

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
fb 6.72 4 8 530
sb 10.11 7 13 296
cmll 10.28 0 16 15
lse 11.04 5 15 44
TOTAL 38.15 16 52 885
SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 32
MOST MOVES: 46

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
eoline 6.23 4 8 140
lb 8.87 6 11 86
rb 10.04 6 12 62
zbll 15.85 9 23 0
TOTAL 40.99 25 54 288
Also HARCS doesn't do CFOP but movecount is < 60 with some of the basic stuff, could probably be ~50 with pseudo f2l, LSLL trick and some last layer improvements.

Critiques
finding optimal for ever single step in a solve isn't always doable so you can probably add a few moves to each of these to get "normal speed solves"
Roux doesn't use NMC, NMB, CMLLEO, pinkie pie, EOLR, etc. Also doesn't allow for 2 blocks to be built simultaneously etc.
Petrus and ZZ don't use WV (idk any other extensions of Petrus but let me know if you know any)
ZZ doesn't do 3/4 cross which is what most people use
Petrus an ZZ use 2011 ZBLLs which are RUL for the most part, they seem to be a bit more efficient than most modern algs (but less fingertrickable)
There are only 493 ZBLLs
 

jo1215

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
37
WCA
2017OSTD02
Ok buddy that’s a lie. ZZ is definitely better than Petrus (no offense Petrus users I support you) because you pre-orient edges instead of orienting them after 2 steps. ZZ is meant to be used if you strive to learn ZB. Also Petrus was meant to be used as a beginner speedsolving method where as ZZ wasn’t intentionally.
ZB is a different method than ZZ
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
452
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
N/A
Ok buddy that’s a lie. ZZ is definitely better than Petrus (no offense Petrus users I support you) because you pre-orient edges instead of orienting them after 2 steps. ZZ is meant to be used if you strive to learn ZB. Also Petrus was meant to be used as a beginner speedsolving method where as ZZ wasn’t intentionally.
It really is messed up on what method is better and why. It would be soooo much easier to just say there’re all equal.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,873
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
thetx789
"Petrus is better on old hardware like 2003 hardware. EO first is better, but is EO that useful for solves. RUL is a bad move set RUD is much better." --tx789

Hardware is irrelevant as everyone is on the same hardware now, and everyone was on the same hardware in 2003. I'll ignore your EO statement to avoid repeating myself more. As for your statements on movegroups, RUL isn't bad, and I agree that RUD is better, but neither are used in Petrus except for in LL and on occasion F2L -- special cases and keyhole respectively.


TL;DR: Seems a lot of people don't know methods as well as they think they do, and attempt to pass off said misinformation as fact. I call them out on it

The point about hardware is that new finger tricks are possible on new cubes that were too hard to be used on old hardware if they could be at all. EO being solved is a plus but the differance between EO and non EO isn't as big the difference being bigger on old cubes.

You getting the same times on a old Lunhui is probably says more about you and your turning than the differance between 2011 cubes and 2019 cubes.


In terms of Petrus is kind of feels like it is basically not used at all for a reason. Also despite it is low number of users Roux has had some very fast people at it. Whether it is Kian or Sean Patrick Villanueva or Alex Lau back in the day. Popular doesn't equal good but the fastest Petrus user or ZZ is much slower compared to their Roux counterparts of course the number of people using it affect this.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
1,050
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
(for all Petrus defenders in this thread)

poast fizeek
Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.

*completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*
 

2180161

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
748
Location
Illinois
WCA
2014HEDR01
YouTube
LiquidFizz
Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.

*completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*
So here's one thing right. "Poor turning ergnomics"
In what world, does Petrus have bad ergonomics? Your 2x2? Yeah same movegroup as cross and typically less moves if CN. 3x2x2? RUF(DLM can be used on a case by case basis) That's the same movegroup as CFOP's F2L. EO? RULF(M) That's not a bad movegroup either. EO? Oh right, its RU, because we all know that 2-gen is the worst movegroup possible. The LL? Yeah I mean that depends on your algs, but theoretically could be done entirely RUD/RUL/RUF/whatever else movegroup you want to use.

Poor look-ahead is an argument I see against Petrus all the time, but no one ever expands on it, which really makes no sense to me. Its a similar argument to blind spots. Blind spots are the result of difficult look-ahead or something inherent with the method (Roux and BD during the whole solve pretty much) but people tend to look-ahead around it. Petrus has VERY good look-ahead if you know how to solve with Petrus. During your 2x2x2 you should be looking ahead to your 3x2x2, since the 2x2x2 is so few moves, you should be able to 1-look it. This is great look-ahead for the 3x2x2. Then you have EO. Your block was built in the back, so EO is right in your face. Assuming you finish your block off with an R move of some kind (the most likely way) you know that any piece not on the R axis is not going to move, so you can look at your EO there already. You do your EO, and while you do your EO, you can take note of where all the pieces are and do it from there. So the claim of bad look-ahead is very, very wrong, and has no substance behind it.

Petrus has very minimal, if any blind spots. The only 2 I can think of would be the 2x2->3x2x2 expansion, but that shouldn't matter if you're solving properly (i.e looking ahead because you 1 looked the 2x2) and BR "slot" after doing EO, which still shouldn't matter, because you do EO with your block in back, so you know what pieces are in that blind spot since you rotate.

Not everyone switched from Petrus to CFOP for a reason. I switched from CFOP to Petrus and in fact, achieved faster times with Petrus, and in a faster practice time-frame.

It may have been around for as long as CFOP and while that does give it time to develop, I've already made the statement that there's nothing to really develop Petrus on except for maybe some LSLL method, but even then ZBLL is a 2LLSLL so that's pretty much optimal. No one being fast with it really depends on your definition of fast. I was about 9.5 with it and still improving when I quit cubing, and while that's not like top 100 or 500 or anything, that's still far from slow.
 
Top