• 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

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
425
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.
This is true. It has a better LL than CFOP and a better movecount by 10 moves (ish).

*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*
The ergonomics are good for 2x2x2, EO, RB, LL, just not as good for expansion. Even then, those ergonomics aren't bad, they're just worse than the rest of the solve. Lookahead isn't poor. As 2180161 said, it's actually very good. Blind spots aren't an issue with petrus except for 3 pieces if you're bad at planning ahead.

Now, anecdotal evidence.

This is the worse type of evidence. It's the evidence used by people who don't think that vaccinations work, it's the type of evidence used when you have no other evidence because it has the illusion of being strong when it is not. If you are mainly basing your argument on anecdotal evidence, it's not a good argument. You're not going to convince anyone about the existence of God by saying 'I saw God in a dream' unless you manage to prove to someone you a) had that dream and b) you didn't just see God in a dream, but that God was talking to you in that dream. Instead, an argument is much better if it's based on solid facts/generally accepted to be true statements (such as cosmilogical arguments, but we're not getting into a philosophy debate). So please don't use anecdotes as data. I don't know who said it, but 'the plural of andecdote isn't data'.
 

tx789

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
1,872
Location
New Zealand
WCA
2010HUNT02
YouTube
thetx789
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.
.
All methods have blind spots because the cube does. You only see three faces at once. RUF or RUL. To see the BU sticker you have to rotate it may be a half roation but it still is move the whole cube or doing a turn.

CFOP you solve cross first and should inspect cross+1 if you want to be fast. By attempting to solve the BL F2L pair first the worst F2L blind spot is filled. Rather than rotating to see the BL edge. Now you have to only look at the U layer and the other empty F2L spots which only one side can be seen. Assuming a right hand dominant solver.

In Petrus solving just a 2x2x2 in inspection seems worse than just a cross since when extending to a 2x2x3, with the 2x2x2 block is placed in the DBL position. The edges are possibly in the positions of DR and DF which a worse position to look for compared to E-slice or U-layer edges. Even if you don't do cross+1 in inspection. You have to look for 2 pieces of which there are 4 options rather than 3 pieces with three options far more scattered across the cube. There is also the fact the block building is slower than F2l inherently. Post 2x2x3 and after 2 F2L pairs the differance in blind spots between Petrus and CFOP is small but CFOP is better since DR edge is solved.

Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.

Also for Roux your blind to the DB edge unless you do a M move and look at the back face rotating the cube. The cube has blind spots which affect each method differently.




One question would you inspect for 2x2x3 block? Seems like it should be comparable to cross+1 but slow since the move group is worse.
 

2180161

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
748
Location
Illinois
WCA
2014HEDR01
YouTube
LiquidFizz
All methods have blind spots because the cube does. You only see three faces at once. RUF or RUL. To see the BU sticker you have to rotate it may be a half roation but it still is move the whole cube or doing a turn.

CFOP you solve cross first and should inspect cross+1 if you want to be fast. By attempting to solve the BL F2L pair first the worst F2L blind spot is filled. Rather than rotating to see the BL edge. Now you have to only look at the U layer and the other empty F2L spots which only one side can be seen. Assuming a right hand dominant solver.

In Petrus solving just a 2x2x2 in inspection seems worse than just a cross since when extending to a 2x2x3, with the 2x2x2 block is placed in the DBL position. The edges are possibly in the positions of DR and DF which a worse position to look for compared to E-slice or U-layer edges. Even if you don't do cross+1 in inspection. You have to look for 2 pieces of which there are 4 options rather than 3 pieces with three options far more scattered across the cube. There is also the fact the block building is slower than F2l inherently. Post 2x2x3 and after 2 F2L pairs the differance in blind spots between Petrus and CFOP is small but CFOP is better since DR edge is solved.

Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.

Also for Roux your blind to the DB edge unless you do a M move and look at the back face rotating the cube. The cube has blind spots which affect each method differently.




One question would you inspect for 2x2x3 block? Seems like it should be comparable to cross+1 but slow since the move group is worse.
Blind spots here doesn't mean pieces you can't actually see, but rather pieces you can't see and don't know what's there. Just because I can't SEE BD when I solve roux, doesn't mean I don't keep track of what's there. Just because I don't SEE what's in BR/BL when solving with CFOP doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what's there. Just because I don't SEE DL/DR when I solve with ZZ doesn't mean I don't keep track of what's there. Just because I can't SEE what's in BR for Petrus doesn't mean I don't know what is there.

All of your assumptions imply the person solving has no awareness of the cube other than what is currently being solved, which is not realistic. Even a beginner has some awareness of where things other than what they are solving are. Minimal, but still exists.

Solving a 2x2x2 in inspection is better than the cross. The reason being, that they have the same movegroup, the 2x2x2 is less moves despite both steps solving the same number of pieces (4), and the 2x2x2 moves every piece to the R, U, or F faces, allowing for easier tracking/look-ahead. Again you make an assumption that block-building is slower than F2L. I have yet to see that proven in a case where it matters. With Roux, your last steps (CMLL/LSE) are pretty much entirely algorithmic, and you've block-built with less moves than it would take for F2L, meaning you can turn slower and look-ahead easier with the block-building, meaning you can spam TPS at the end. With Petrus, it is the same thing. Block-build the F2L with EO, spam TPS on LL.

As for the statement of COLL being worse than the standard OLL, I can only see that as the case for sune and anti-sune and even then, you end up with an EPLL, all of which are super easy to sub-1. If I do COLL/EPLL, I typically have a last layer time of around 2.3-2.5 seconds. If I use OLL/PLL, assuming edges oriented, I typically have closer to the 2.7-3 second range.

You seem to have very little actual usable knowledge on the topic and recommend you either learn, or stop talking.
 

PapaSmurf

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
425
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.
EO takes time to solve, but then you don't have to solve it during RB (which makes RB A LOT more ergonomic) and it also gives you a ZBLL for LL, which is better than OLL/PLL. Also, COLL/EPLL>OLL/PLL, and even if it's not better, it's certainly equal to it and it's fewer algs and it gives a better jump onto ZBLL as you already know about a 12th of the algs needed.
 
Top