Petrus Potential

[DELToS]

Hey, I've thought about it a little, and I realized that with learning Petrus and practicing it alot, as well as full ZBLL, you could probably get pretty fast. Here's my quetion: I'm pretty much sub-20 with CFOP, If I practiced Petrus and learned (and practiced) full ZBLL, how fast could I get?

 

[Sajwo]

I don't see any reasons why somebody would start practising Petrus. If you want to be a cubing hipster, go ahead. But CFOP is better

 

[shadowslice e]

Well, I reckon sub-10 is possible with full ZBLL although you'd probably be better off doing FreeFOP, ZB or even FreeZB tbh cause petrus may be a bit too restrictive in terms of lookahead for the first block.

That said, if you want to, go for it!

 

[Berd]

If you want to use ZBLL use ZZ. It's so much fun!

 

[4Chan]

I'm sub-20 with petrus and ZBLL and there's tons of potential.
You'd have to do lots of practice, but ZZ is probably the better option. The marginal gains from completely block building the F2L takes a ridiculous time investment.

petrus may be a bit too restrictive in terms of lookahead for the first block.

Restrictions with first block?
Looking ahead to your... first block?

Are you sure you're doing petrus?

 

[shadowslice e]

Restrictions with first block?
Looking ahead to your... first block?

Are you sure you're doing petrus?

Yes, I mean at the start it's going to be difficult to look ahead to the whole block. It's also slightly harder to influence some things in the inspection time.

Ok, that wasn't particularly well explained. I mean that doing FreeFOP or ZZ may be better as you don't have to do the same F2L every time.

 

[Ranzha]

I don't see any reasons why somebody would start practising Petrus. If you want to be a cubing hipster, go ahead. But CFOP is better

What an absolutely awful post.

Yes, I mean at the start it's going to be difficult to look ahead to the whole block. It's also slightly harder to influence some things in the inspection time.

Ok, that wasn't particularly well explained. I mean that doing FreeFOP or ZZ may be better as you don't have to do the same F2L every time.

What does this even mean? Especially with regard to ZZ; I don't know any orientation-neutral ZZ solvers.

You're saying that finding the 2x2x2 in inspection will be hard? It's the same number of pieces as a cross, and fewer pieces than Roux FB. Additionally, Petrus solvers in the past found this to be no problem.

 

[shadowslice e]

You're saying that finding the 2x2x2 in inspection will be hard? It's the same number of pieces as a cross, and fewer pieces than Roux FB. Additionally, Petrus solvers in the past found this to be no problem.

Ok, I don't want to start any arguments. I think it's perfectly possible to do the F2L quickly but it would require far more practise than CFOP F2L or a bit more than Roux F2B. That said, it may just be that not enough people have really given Petrus a chance and it could likely be as fast as Roux and CFOP (in fact roux was somewhat lucky that the right person chose it at the right time (ie Alex).

So Blockbuilding the whole F2L will be more difficult than alternatives but it is not necessarily slower and may be faster in the right hands.

 

[molarmanful]

No guys! Y'all have it wrong! CFOP is for conformists. All the kewl kewberz use Petrus. Feliks uses Petrus to get sub-1 3x3 averages. PETRUS MASTER RACE!!!

In all seriousness, Petrus is pretty great -- it's just that not a lot of people care to put in the practice. I've been using Petrus seriously for 3-4 months, and my Petrus times are only a tad bit slower than my CFOP times. Lookahead is not too hard, really -- again, just some practice.

Oh yeah, people seem to think that Petrus must always start out the 2x2x2 block. Not true. You can do whatever you want as the first step, as long as you somehow end up with a 2x2x3 block. This means that you can start out with a 1x2x3 (which I do a lot), or you can just direct solve the 2x2x3 (which is also pretty great).

Another benefit that people seem to overlook: the fact that a lot of 1x1x2 blocks happen to be formed after EO (or even the 2x2x3 has been formed). There's also the fact that during EO, you can create/preserve blocks very easily, and you can look ahead super-far during this step.

Many cubers seem to think that Petrus is the most restricting of the Big 4 methods; in my opinion, it's the exact opposite that's true. You can mix and merge steps to your heart's content, freed from the constraints of the Cross-F2L setup.

 

[2180161]

Petrus is not restrictive at all. If you want to be a fast Petrus solver, GO FOR IT. PROVE THEM WRONG about Petrus

 

[porkynator]

I don't see any reasons why somebody would start practising Petrus. If you want to be a cubing hipster, go ahead. But CFOP is better

Practising different methods can improve your ability with your current main method; notable examples, assuming CFOP is your main method, are ZZ for EO control during F2L and Petrus/Roux for X-crosses.
Even more important (depending on your definition of "important") is that it's fun.

 

[StachuK1992]

Many cubers seem to think that Petrus is the most restricting of the Big 4 method

I heard that the guy that coined the term 'the big four' regrets including Petrus in this list.

There's nothing wrong with Petrus, I just really doubt it has the same potential for speedsolving as the other 3. I think the other 3 are generally equal.



A good comparison here is in the Smash world.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/smash/Five_Gods

There are 5 gods of smash, but players like Leffen are pretty damn close.

 

[shadowslice e]

I heard that the guy that coined the term 'the big four' regrets including Petrus in this list.

There's nothing wrong with Petrus, I just really doubt it has the same potential for speedsolving as the other 3. I think the other 3 are generally equal.



A good comparison here is in the Smash world.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/smash/Five_Gods

There are 5 gods of smash, but players like Leffen are pretty damn close.

I sort of agree with this. Personally I regret that the term was every really coined cause it's far too restrictive and discourages people from trying some other methods which could be equally as good.

 

[StachuK1992]

I've been in search of a new Big method for over 5 years. We're not there yet, so I feel no need to stress about the name being 'restrictive.'
The unfortunate fact is that most people are probably going to use a CFOP variant for a few more years, with slightly more people doing ZZ and Roux.

 

[shadowslice e]

I've been in search of a new Big method for over 5 years. We're not there yet, so I feel no need to stress about the name being 'restrictive.'
The unfortunate fact is that most people are probably going to use a CFOP variant for a few more years, with slightly more people doing ZZ and Roux.

I would say that we may well have let a few methods with tons of potential fall by the wayside such as PCMS (which I never really understood why it wasn't popular- or other columns first methods for that matter. I think the somewhat depressing truth is that people will only start using a truly new method (as opposes to ZB/CFOP type stuff) is if the creator gets very, very fast with the new method (such as what happened with Yau). Which reminds me, I need to start properly practising some of my method as get to sub-15 and beyond with them. Gonna try to be sub-14 or lower Roux first tho.