• 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!

Should I stick with Petrus?

AvGalen

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
6,857
Likes
90
Location
Rotterdam (actually Capelle aan den IJssel), the N
WCA
2006GALE01
YouTube
arnaudvg
#22
I would recommend sticking with Petrus. Not many people use it, well compared to Fridrich, and people are getting faster and faster with it, whilst Fridrich is leveling off kind of.
That is just a really wrong statement. This year the 333-avg WR has been broken a couple of times by different speedcubers that all used Fridrich.

I am not saying Petrus isn't good, but all methods are used more and more and all times are improved over and over.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
3,511
Likes
14
Location
Waffletopia
WCA
2008MANA02
YouTube
cubes4lyfe
#25
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
810
Likes
0
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
WCA
2008LAUD01
YouTube
lordskull14
#26
It probably has the most potential for a 3x3 method.
Absolutely agreed. The minute I get back from Nationals, I'm switching.
Or you could just use Petrus :p
or you can just use Roux :rolleyes:

I know...I use it :D

In terms of fun
Roux>Fridrich
Haha that is very true :D. I'm sure this has been proposed before but since EPLL + COLL isn't as fast as OLL + PLL (debatable) What about using blockbuilding for the first 2 blocks and then filling in the remaining 2 edges for the F2L? Then finishing off with OLL and PLL. I'm positive that this has been proposed before but can it be faster than pure roux?
 

JLarsen

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,880
Likes
6
Location
Dover, New Hampshire, USA
WCA
2009LARS03
YouTube
Sn3kyPandaMan
#27
Puzzle master, I really don't see how edge orientation steps are bad. In both Petrus and Roux all I ever seem to see is people saying that EO is garbage, and that we should just do Fridrich instead. The point of Roux is to reduce the cube to M and U, and the purpose of Petrus, to reduce the R and U. Those are the fastest parts in both methods! It's the reason we make these pretty blocks, they reward us further on down the road in our solves. I actually think OLL/PLL would be slower.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
810
Likes
0
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
WCA
2008LAUD01
YouTube
lordskull14
#28
I'm not saying that it would be faster. I was just curious. And no I mean that instead of doing COLL for the corners how about filling in the last 2 edge slots and then doing OLL and PLL. As opposed to doing (correct me if i'm wrong): COLL, Solve UR and UL edges, Orient Edges, Permute remaining 6 edges.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
810
Likes
0
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
WCA
2008LAUD01
YouTube
lordskull14
#30
Oh Okay I thought you were saying to make 1x2x3 blocks, and then turn it into an f2l when you said insert 2 edges.
No you're correct as to what I meant. Instead of doing: first 1x2x3 block, second 1x2x3 block, COLL, Orient remaining edges, Solve UR and UL edges, Solve remaining edges.

I thought of doing: 1x2x3 block on left, 1x2x3 block on right, Fill in DF and DB edges to form an F2L, OLL, PLL to finish cube. As I said multiple times though I am positive that someone else has thought of this before.
 

JLarsen

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,880
Likes
6
Location
Dover, New Hampshire, USA
WCA
2009LARS03
YouTube
Sn3kyPandaMan
#32
Oh Okay I thought you were saying to make 1x2x3 blocks, and then turn it into an f2l when you said insert 2 edges.
No you're correct as to what I meant. Instead of doing: first 1x2x3 block, second 1x2x3 block, COLL, Orient remaining edges, Solve UR and UL edges, Solve remaining edges.

I thought of doing: 1x2x3 block on left, 1x2x3 block on right, Fill in DF and DB edges to form an F2L, OLL, PLL to finish cube. As I said multiple times though I am positive that someone else has thought of this before.
Then I don't see what I said wrong in the first place. Miscommunication...
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
810
Likes
0
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
WCA
2008LAUD01
YouTube
lordskull14
#33
Oh Okay I thought you were saying to make 1x2x3 blocks, and then turn it into an f2l when you said insert 2 edges.
No you're correct as to what I meant. Instead of doing: first 1x2x3 block, second 1x2x3 block, COLL, Orient remaining edges, Solve UR and UL edges, Solve remaining edges.

I thought of doing: 1x2x3 block on left, 1x2x3 block on right, Fill in DF and DB edges to form an F2L, OLL, PLL to finish cube. As I said multiple times though I am positive that someone else has thought of this before.
Then I don't see what I said wrong in the first place. Miscommunication...
I do turn it into an F2L.
 

JLarsen

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,880
Likes
6
Location
Dover, New Hampshire, USA
WCA
2009LARS03
YouTube
Sn3kyPandaMan
#35
Puzzle master, I really don't see how edge orientation steps are bad. In both Petrus and Roux all I ever seem to see is people saying that EO is garbage, and that we should just do Fridrich instead. The point of Roux is to reduce the cube to M and U, and the purpose of Petrus, to reduce the R and U. Those are the fastest parts in both methods! It's the reason we make these pretty blocks, they reward us further on down the road in our solves. I actually think OLL/PLL would be slower.
What I was saying here was not to turn it into an f2l, I just never said specifically that.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
66
Likes
0
YouTube
cheiney
Thread starter #36
I think I might just end up sticking with Petrus. I looked some more stuff up about Roux and their M slices were pretty sweet, so I tried doing some 1x2x3 blocks. That made me realize how much more I love Petrus. There's also this kind of sense of pride that comes with it, too. Thanks everyone for helping me with my decision. I just need to know if it's a good idea to just stick with OLL/PLL until I learn MGLS and EJF2L.
 

JLarsen

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,880
Likes
6
Location
Dover, New Hampshire, USA
WCA
2009LARS03
YouTube
Sn3kyPandaMan
#37
EJf2L is just a small section of MGLS called CLS. You only need to learn 16 algs total, so they are basically one thing, no need to learn full mgls. There is an expansion of Petrus you can use that requires all 108 algs but no one uses it yet. I might have gone for it if I was already fully CN, but it's not worth it. I say stick with OLL PLL because EJF2L is based on that. Also, EJF2L is nothing to make you faster, it just makes your bad solves less bad really. I use it for nasty Step 4b cases to make them faster, and in rare cases to make a 2x2 when it is really obvious and nice, like 4 moves.

Just ome general advice. Good luck with Petrus!
 
Top