Should I Switch To Petrus? (Vid Included)

What's the difference between CMLL & COLL?

I think you should switch, this thread made me switch back to Petrus, & I'm down to 25, almost my Fridrich times, in just a day.
 
Well, in CMLL, if the corners are oriented correctly, you still have to permute them. There are 2 algs for this (adjacent and opposite). In COLL, if the corners are oriented correctly it would be best to just use PLL.
 
Gilles Roux's Site said:
The corners generate eight configurations of orientations (if you look at what should be U color) and six possible permutation cases. No need to learn 6x8=48 cases. For many of them, it's only a matter of symmetry, or applying a reverse sequence. You have to remember "only" 24 unique sequences if you want to master this step

This is what I was talking about.
 
EO and 4c are quite intuitive. I never looked them up...

mvg

i never looked them up too but i still count them as algs because i do them the same way every time unlike the blocks which are always different

In that reasoning:
fridrich F2L: there are only so many ways to put in a CEpair in a slot, and most of the people do them always the same way (the optimal way), therefore there are [put in a number] algs for intuitive F2L.
 
EO and 4c are quite intuitive. I never looked them up...

mvg

i never looked them up too but i still count them as algs because i do them the same way every time unlike the blocks which are always different

In that reasoning:
fridrich F2L: there are only so many ways to put in a CEpair in a slot, and most of the people do them always the same way (the optimal way), therefore there are [put in a number] algs for intuitive F2L.

sure why not
 
EO and 4c are quite intuitive. I never looked them up...

mvg

i never looked them up too but i still count them as algs because i do them the same way every time unlike the blocks which are always different

In that reasoning:
fridrich F2L: there are only so many ways to put in a CEpair in a slot, and most of the people do them always the same way (the optimal way), therefore there are [put in a number] algs for intuitive F2L.

sure why not

In that reasoning: when you improve on a method, you'll be able to recognize more paterns, which conclude to an algorithm, therefore the number of algs in a method will increase tremendously.
Therefore patern recognition wouldn't exist anymore, it is now called algorithm...
It's not that I cannot follow in your logic, it just doesn't seem to confirm with regular thinking paterns of the majority of the people (in my opinion, which isn't at all confirmed by statistical prove, only by intuition).

anyway, maybe we'll have to discuss this in another thread because we're going seriously off-topic and since I don't have anything usefull to say to the OP I won't continue this discussion on this time nor place :)

mvg
 
Last edited:
Give it a try if you like it :D Personally, I prefer algs to blockbuilding, but if it works for you them by all means try it!
 
Back
Top