The disadvantage of block building

[JLarsen]

So I'm a Petrus solver, I average about 29 seconds overall. I've been using Petrus for about 4 months now. Now today my friend told me he got a 15 sec average f2l, and I got angry. I I just tinkered with Friedrich for about 20 minutes, and I average 35 seconds with it, ALREADY. I find that horribly rediculous. Friedrich requires sooo much less thought it's just absurd. The only thing you need to be able to do, is relative position, which i got a grasp on and use frequently, and then slotting, which I don't even use optimally, but intuitively, but still succeed in. I find Friedrich boring, but the brute force algs makes it soo much faster, that Eric guy who averages 14 with Petrus is my hero now.

 

[Escher]

you didnt define a disadvantage of it, you just complained about it. lol
imho, if you are not an absolute genius and you want speed, fridrich is the way to go.

Fridrich - Cross > 2x2x2 - Petrus
fridrich - 2 f2l pairs < 2x2x3 Petrus
fridrich - last 2 pairs > EO + last two slots Petrus (although last two slots are two-gen, the last two pairs for fridrich are generally 2/3 gen anyway)
fridrich - OLL + PLL > CLL + ELL - petrus

im not that familiar with petrus so feel free to correct me

the advantages of petrus are particularly damaged if one was to use EOLine or EOCross. a 3 gen F2L is certainly faster than the blockbuilding, EO + last two slots. plus personally, i do not like the petrus LL.

for FMC, it is great, but beaten by Heise
for speed, it is okay, but difficult to get very fast, and beaten by fridrich.

...this is why i chose fridrich to learn at the beginning of my cubing career (in combination with the fact that many of my friends were doing it).

However, even with these criticisms, i do intend to learn it.
for example, imagine Cross or x-cross, (1st +) 2nd slot, EO, last two pairs, & ZBLL... tasty no?

the most advantageous stage is certainly the two gen last two slots.

anyway, by christmas or january i plan to be using that with COLL and EPLL instead of ZBLL.

sorry for such a rambling post, im tired...
i might come and edit it later

 

[yurivish]

So I'm a Petrus solver, I average about 29 seconds overall. I've been using Petrus for about 4 months now. Now today my friend told me he got a 15 sec average f2l, and I got angry. I I just tinkered with Friedrich for about 20 minutes, and I average 35 seconds with it, ALREADY. I find that horribly rediculous. Friedrich requires sooo much less thought it's just absurd. The only thing you need to be able to do, is relative position, which i got a grasp on and use frequently, and then slotting, which I don't even use optimally, but intuitively, but still succeed in. I find Friedrich boring, but the brute force algs makes it soo much faster, that Eric guy who averages 14 with Petrus is my hero now.

You might want to check out ZZ; it's sort of a compromise between blocks and slots. The movecount isn't that good, but the moves are easier since the F2L after the first step is 3-gen - RUL. You can solve the cube without doing any cube rotations.

 

[Athefre]

Fridrich - Cross > 2x2x2 - Petrus

No, it's about the same amount of moves and solves the same amount of pieces.

fridrich - 2 f2l pairs < 2x2x3 Petrus

Step 2 is strange but it's less moves than combining and inserting two pairs in Fridrich, and still about the same amount of time (2 seconds?)

fridrich - last 2 pairs > EO + last two slots Petrus (although last two slots are two-gen, the last two pairs for fridrich are generally 2/3 gen anyway)

Now Step 3 is the step that made me stop trying to use Petrus and move over to "Roux". Orienting the edges felt weird, it felt like I wasn't accomplishing anything, even if it allows you to solve the right 1x2x2 using only R and U and gives you slightly faster OLL recognition.

Step 4 is very fast, though with Fridrich up to this point you have the 2x2x3 block plus the DR edge already solved. Yes with Fridrich you have to use F (or B, L, etc) sometimes but people have found fast solutions using those moves, they aren't uncomfortable.

fridrich - OLL + PLL > CLL + ELL - petrus

I don't think most Petrus users use C[O]LL. A big thing here for Petrus is that you only have 7 OLLs to memorize.

 

[Escher]

okey dokey

yeah, its kind of evident i dont know a great deal about petrus...

anyway, i am really attracted to the EO step in petrus.
with the same, or similar ends...

it beats normal fridrich, as recognition is a lot faster in one of 7 than one of 57.
it beats ZZ EOLine, as that is really quite hard to do intuitively and fast.

it beats ZBF2L, as i dont fancy learning hundreds of algs, with slow recognition.

it beats VH, as you waste loads of time reducing a different pair to one of two cases, and also learning 32 algs. it is probably just faster to do the pair normally and orient the cross normal two look OLL style.

its just generally great

 

[ErikJ]

that Eric guy who averages 14 with Petrus is my hero now.

hahaha, thanks.

yeah it is tough to get fast with petrus, but it's way more fun to solve with than fridrich so it's worth it. Having edges oriented on the LL every time is awesome and it only takes like one second to flip them. 2gen F2L finish is also very nice.

I think it's best to do EO after the 2x2x3 and not during the last slot. it's much faster and the cube is at the perfect angle to look ahead for the next few steps.

I think the only thing I don't like about it is the inspection time. It is a lot harder for me to find a nice 2x2x2 block than for someone to find a cross. I also don't like the last layer approach given with the method. it costs lot's of recognition time and the algs aren't pretty. I used COLL and ELL when I was averaging in the mid 20s.

stick with it and good luck!!!

 

[JLarsen]

that Eric guy who averages 14 with Petrus is my hero now.

hahaha, thanks.

yeah it is tough to get fast with petrus, but it's way more fun to solve with than fridrich so it's worth it. Having edges oriented on the LL every time is awesome and it only takes like one second to flip them. 2gen F2L finish is also very nice.

I think it's best to do EO after the 2x2x3 and not during the last slot. it's much faster and the cube is at the perfect angle to look ahead for the next few steps.

I think the only thing I don't like about it is the inspection time. It is a lot harder for me to find a nice 2x2x2 block than for someone to find a cross. I also don't like the last layer approach given with the method. it costs lot's of recognition time and the algs aren't pretty. I used COLL and ELL when I was averaging in the mid 20s.

stick with it and good luck!!!

Exactly what I mean, cross solving< 2x2x2. It takes a lot longer to find
because there are soo many possibilities, but I find it so much more exciting. I mean Friedrich is just like okay cross, slots, brute algs, done. But Petrus you can solve it like someone might actually think you would solve a rubik's cube, like when people are scrambling my cube, they try to separate 1x2's and stuff, even though for most, those would be worthless!

Oh and can somebody explain coll and ell? Preferable spelling out that acronym, and telling me what they accomplish/entail. I use 7 oll's and 21 pll's, my last layer is a bajillion times faster than my f2l. Like 20 second f2l, 7-8 second ll. Block building ahem*

Edit: I looked into COLL and ELL and determined my ll is far too good for my current skill to begin with, even if COLL is really freakin cool. I just wonder if I'd be able to remember another 40 cases very easily.

 

[ErikJ]

Exactly what I mean, cross solving< 2x2x2. It takes a lot longer to find
because there are soo many possibilities, but I find it so much more exciting. I mean Friedrich is just like okay cross, slots, brute algs, done. But Petrus you can solve it like someone might actually think you would solve a rubik's cube, like when people are scrambling my cube, they try to separate 1x2's and stuff, even though for most, those would be worthless!

Oh and can somebody explain coll and ell? Preferable spelling out that acronym, and telling me what they accomplish/entail. I use 7 oll's and 21 pll's, my last layer is a bajillion times faster than my f2l. Like 20 second f2l, 7-8 second ll. Block building ahem*

Edit: I looked into COLL and ELL and determined my ll is far too good for my current skill to begin with, even if COLL is really freakin cool. I just wonder if I'd be able to remember another 40 cases very easily.

my problem with COLL wasn't remembering the cases. my recognition and execution were bad. OLL and PLL are definitely faster.

If I were you I'd practice F2L. your last layer will get better just because you'll get faster at the algorithms.

 

[Brett]

I use Petrus, and I average like 23 seconds. I average around 17 with Fridrich, but that doesn't feel like an accomplishment. If I go to a competition I don't even know what I would use to solve x_X

I use Petrus for fun. I enjoy solving with it.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

imho, if you are not an absolute genius and you want speed, fridrich is the way to go.

...

Fridrich - Cross > 2x2x2 - Petrus
fridrich - 2 f2l pairs < 2x2x3 Petrus
fridrich - last 2 pairs > EO + last two slots Petrus (although last two slots are two-gen, the last two pairs for fridrich are generally 2/3 gen anyway)
fridrich - OLL + PLL > CLL + ELL - petrus

All of that was essentially wrong.

a 3 gen F2L is certainly faster than the blockbuilding,

And still wrong.

 

[Escher]

lol, fine, why i am wrong (on so many counts...)?

and no, CLL and ELL is not better than OLL/PLL.
so

but really now, tell me more.

 

[JLarsen]

lol, fine, why i am wrong (on so many counts...)?

and no, CLL and ELL is not better than OLL/PLL.
so

but really now, tell me more.

I honestly think it was purely to bash you because it's not like there was an extreme flaw in your logic where somewhere you were like, "2 PLUS 2 IS CHICKEN!"

Anyway there was a question I had further, what was it... oh yeah! Eric: Are you completely color neutral? I think it's really not possible that you aren't. I'm yellow white color neutral, and I have to expand my 2x2x2 to the white or yellow. Is it really worth it? Also do you expand in all directions?!?! I find that impossible to grasp, as I only expand off into the right and only with yellow or white as my D. Are there really any huge gains here to be made? Or is it really something that I should only be looking into after like sub 20 averages...

 

[ErikJ]

Eric: Are you completely color neutral? I think it's really not possible that you aren't. I'm yellow white color neutral, and I have to expand my 2x2x2 to the white or yellow. Is it really worth it? Also do you expand in all directions?!?! I find that impossible to grasp, as I only expand off into the right and only with yellow or white as my D. Are there really any huge gains here to be made? Or is it really something that I should only be looking into after like sub 20 averages...

I am only yellow/white color neutral. Over the summer I tried to be 100% color neutral but It didn't work out too well. I don't think that being 100% color neutral would help very much because it's only one new direction to expand. But it bothers me sometimes when I get scrambles with really nice direct 2x2x3 but I can't use them because of their location.

I usually build my 2x2x3 on the left side so the 2x2x2 is on D and the part I am adding on is on U. depending on which direction I expand it I will hold the 2x2x2 on the back or front.

 

[fanwuq]

I am only yellow/white color neutral. Over the summer I tried to be 100% color neutral but It didn't work out too well. I don't think that being 100% color neutral would help very much because it's only one new direction to expand. But it bothers me sometimes when I get scrambles with really nice direct 2x2x3 but I can't use them because of their location.

I usually build my 2x2x3 on the left side so the 2x2x2 is on D and the part I am adding on is on U. depending on which direction I expand it I will hold the 2x2x2 on the back or front.

Interesting. You are giving me more hope to use Petrus more for Speedsolving.

 

[Escher]

I honestly think it was purely to bash you because it's not like there was an extreme flaw in your logic where somewhere you were like, "2 PLUS 2 IS CHICKEN!"

hehehehe.

anyway, i should probably try and find a close analysis of blockbuilding vs cross making. *cue somebody giving me a link to some obscure website*
as far as i can see, cross and the 2x2x2 block are roughly the same in terms of length (notwithstanding ready built pairs etc).
anyway...

pre inspection time - toss up. fridrich has slightly more moves to do, but look ahead is a bit easier, whereas lookahead for petrus is a little harder, but has less moves.
first two pairs/finish 2x2x3 block + EO - toss up. perhaps petrus will have a very easy extension, or a very difficult one, and recognition on EO is relatively difficult, unless he is using intuitive, which will take marginally longer. perhaps fridrich will have several stuck pairs, or ready made ones.
last two pairs/last two slots - toss up. petrus gets two gen, but recognition is slightly slower at the beginning as look ahead past EO is probably a little harder than the streamlined look ahead fridrich gets.
OLL/PLL / CLL/ELL - toss up
OLL recognition + execution is marginally faster than CLL. ELL is faster than PLL, unless fridrich gets an ELL too.

my point is that they could both be as fast as each other, just there are more people using fridrich and incidentally more fast (i.e sub 12) people.

and i am not wrong when i say that if you want to get fast quickly then you should go for fridrich. i mean even I got to sub 20 in about 90 days, and im not that good at things like this. Chukk for example, is FAR better than me at look ahead (he speed BLDs the 2x2) or intuitive steps. but simply because i practiced 3x3 2H a LOT i got to sub 20 first. evidently, fridrich is not about brains. which is why its easier to get fast.
lets just say that almost anyone can be fast at fridrich, but not everyone can be fast at Petrus.
sorry for the rant + the stereotypical fridrich/petrus argument anyway...

 

[JLarsen]

I really think it just needs to be left at Petrus is harder than Friedrich. One requires as little delay as possible, and I mean NONE really as I learned last night while talking to Eric. Which brings me to my next point....

ERIC IS EVEN MORE MY HERO NOW.

I was talking to him about the speed I do in my solves, my average turns per second, and he told me I needed slow solves. Before this conversation I averaged about 29. Well hello it's tommorow, and my first solve after my slow f2l runs was a freakin 21. Anyway long story short, I'm pretty much sub 25 now, it's just that when I'm timing I can't focus that well over time, I just have this tendency to go too fast, but that'll leave with time. Thanks again Eric!

 

[Escher]

thats like 15% improvement over night... that is pretty amazing!

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

lol, fine, why i am wrong (on so many counts...)?

and no, CLL and ELL is not better than OLL/PLL.
so

but really now, tell me more.

Uh. CLL and ELL aren't compatible with Petrus method, so I don't know what you're getting at. Not to mention why you even think that you CAN'T use OLL and PLL with Petrus. And don't refer to the blocks as "slots", because that's trying to make Petrus more like Fridrich, which is wrong as well.

 

[Escher]

fine,
using petrus' site, he positions the corners and twists them, and then does an EPLL.

CPLL
COLL
EPLL.

reduced to
CLL
EPLL.

i assumed that everyone would know what i meant when i said ELL. seeing as EOLL is done, obviously only EPLL is left. calling it 'CLL/ELL' make more obvious the difference between it and OLL/PLL.

and of course you can use OLL/PLL with petrus.
but 'the petrus method' is not the same as 'Petrus f2l with fridrich LL'.

k?

 

[fanwuq]

fine,
using petrus' site, he positions the corners and twists them, and then does an EPLL.

CPLL
COLL
EPLL.

reduced to
CLL
EPLL.

i assumed that everyone would know what i meant when i said ELL. seeing as EOLL is done, obviously only EPLL is left. calling it 'CLL/ELL' make more obvious the difference between it and OLL/PLL.

and of course you can use OLL/PLL with petrus.
but 'the petrus method' is not the same as 'Petrus f2l with fridrich LL'.

k?

What?
Full Petrus LL is ZBLL.
He has all the algs on his site. I think Petrus himself either uses OLL/PLL or COLL/EPLL, and probably some random ZBLL algs. I think he also had a system where you orient Corners and permute edges at the same time, then A or E perm it.