Petrus?

[fleeting_penguin]

But that's rather unsuitable for speedcubing. It's not that I want to be slow...

I guess I could do M turns by turning M and R both and then R' . It's way faster to do that then to get the necessary force with my thumb to squeeze that middle layer through.

 

[Johannes91]

Roux, in my mind, just seems to have the most potential right now.

What are your times with Petrus and Roux? Just wondering.

Then, I have to ask, what is the point of Petrus? It seems like a slower way than Fridrich F2L, with more thought required.

Again, Petrus doesn't require any more thinking than Fridrich. Why does it seem slower to you?
And the point? It's a very clever method.

It and Roux also seem heavily dependent on inspection time to cut down on F2L time.

How much experience do you have with those methods? Inspection time is not very big deal IMO. I think you should just start practising instead of just speculating...

So what would be your recommended course of action, and what would you recommend if I plan on being nonconformist and staying away from CFOP?

I would recommend Heise, but I've got the impression that you aren't aren't very interested in puzzles but just want to get fast times quickly. So I recommend Petrus.

 

[deadalnix]

The bad point in petrus compared with fridrich is the fingers tricks during F2L. But it's a very clever method (something beautiful in this method), and as a friend say's me : this methode respect the cube. It's a good method for speed and FMC.

Roux method is more effiscient in FMC than in speedcubing. This method has a great potential beaucause of it's flexibility during the solve.

For all these methods, you will need to practice a lot to get under 30.

I don't know heise method . . .

 

[badmephisto]

I never got into Petrus too much, but I think I understand it, and I don't see how it can be better than Fridrich, even if you do the 2-look OLL, orienting edges first. The only advantage to doing what to me seems extra thinking to orient all the edges after you get 2x2x3 block is that when you are done the F2L you only have one of 7 cases. Well in Fridrich, most of the time you only need to flip 2 edges... and its a trivial F R U R' U' F' which is really fast (or its inverse). So taking care of edges is not a problem and takes only split second.

It also seems like Petrus is doing things too much piecewise... orienting edges and corners in separate stages etc, while in Fridrich all orientation and all permutation is reduced to one algorithm that takes usually anywhere around 2 seconds each.

Like i said, i never actually got into Petrus, so i may be wrong, or I was looking at some beginner version of Petrus

 

[fleeting_penguin]

Again, Petrus doesn't require any more thinking than Fridrich. Why does it seem slower to you?
And the point? It's a very clever method.

I like cleverness too (I do AIME and USAMO stuff), but like badmephisto, based on my VERY limited experience and a few days practice, I find it worse for the reasons he stated.
Why would it be better than Fridrich? Don't get me wrong, if you can provide some evidence or argument that it is better Fridrich I'll hop right aboard the Petrus bandwagon. And you are right that I should practice more before asking stupid questions. I am sorry. I was just curious.

 

[Jack]

I don't know much about Petrus, so I may be wrong, but I think that one of Petrus' advantages is that it uses fewer moves than Fridrich. Also, about the orienting edges, it does help because it makes the rest of the F2L (after the 2x2x3 block) completely 2 generator and very fast, and also lets you use COLL on the LL.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

So then why does everyone (world class) use Fridrich, and not Petrus? Just personal preference?

 

[pjk]

What are your times with Petrus and Roux? Just wondering.

Never timed Petrus, and for Roux around 30 seconds. Of course, I don't use proper technique of building blocks, orienting/permuting corners, etc.

Just by looking at the steps involved, the recognition potential, and the move count, I think Roux has the most potential to be world class. I have not studied Heise yet, so I can't speak for it. For what I have seen though, it appears recognition would be a problem.

BTW, fleeting penguin, Anthony Hsu I believe uses Petrus and avg's sub-15.

 

[fleeting_penguin]

What's wrong with corners first solutions? They seem cool also, and I am playing around with Waterman's method. Is Waterman the most optimized corners first one, or are there others?

 

[griz]

what you could do to get a fast time is a petrus f2l and then do a coll then a pll so u would only have to learn 28 algs

 

[ExoCorsair]

BTW, fleeting penguin, Anthony Hsu I believe uses Petrus and avg's sub-15.

He uses Petrus F2L, then OLL/PLL.

 

[AvGalen]

what you could do to get a fast time is a petrus f2l and then do a coll then a pll so u would only have to learn 28 algs

Normally there are 40 COLL cases and 4 PLL cases after that. In this case it would be better to say:

Then do OLL (7)/PLL(21) where you only need to learn a small subset of the OLL-cases.

 

[griz]

you do know when you finish petrus f2l it puts a cross on top right

 

[AvGalen]

you do know when you finish petrus f2l it puts a cross on top right

Yes, that is why I said "OLL (7)", "small subset of the OLL-cases" and "4 PLL cases"

COLL is a reference to a system that Orients and Permutes the corners of the last layer and requires 40 cases. If you use that you would need 40+4 instead of 7+21 cases.

[slightly_offtopic]Why is it called COLL and not CLL?
COLL is not an abreviation of Corner Orientation Last Layer. It is used to mean Corners Last Layer, just like ELL is meant to mean Edges Last Layer or am I making a mistake?[/slightly_offtopic]

 

[Johannes91]

So then why does everyone (world class) use Fridrich, and not Petrus? Just personal preference?

Why is Windows more popular than Linux?

Almost everybody recommends Fridrich. There have been threads where people ask questions about Petrus or Roux, but everybody just ignores those and tells them to learn LBL and then move on to Fridrich.

And people who don't know anything about Petrus keep saying things that aren't true and make it sound like a bad method.

Anthony Hsu I believe uses Petrus and avg's sub-15.

I avg sub-15, too.

Why is it called COLL and not CLL?

CLL doesn't preserve EO but COLL does. That's where the O comes from. OCLL could be used to mean Orient Corners of Last Layer.

There's also CMLL.

 

[AvGalen]

CLL doesn't preserve EO but COLL does. That's where the O comes from. OCLL could be used to mean Orient Corners of Last Layer.

Thanks. I think my confusion comes from my 4 look last layer:
Edge-Orientation Last Layer
Corner-Orientation Last Layer -> Also COLL, but I never use that abbreviation!
Corner-Permutation Last Layer
Edge-Permutation Last Layer

P.S. Don't get people going on a "Why is Windows more popular than Linux?" question please

 

[griz]

Windoes i s alot more popular then linux. and most people recomend fridrich.like people recomend windows