Sub1Hour
Member
*method isn't a roux variant*This is mukerflap we're talking about
method bad
*method isn't a roux variant*This is mukerflap we're talking about
*method isn't a roux variant*
method bad
????
What do you mean, the move count could easily be sub-50 HTM for most of your solves if you're smart with block building
This is mukerflap we're talking about
Average eo cross without ZBLL 54
average petrus without ZBLL 50,
so i am pretty sure petrus is more efficient
that was prob eo line
movecount of first 5 solves:
64
49 (got a f2l square skip)
61
50
42
Duh. That’s why cfop is the best, even though it has a higher move countMethod with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.
Man, I wonder if 3/5 solves fit my criteramovecount of first 5 solves:
64
49 (got a f2l square skip)
50
61
42
and this is when hes very slow solving not going at 10 tps
Dude, you forgot Heise.I'm pretty sure petrus has the fewest move count.
Dude, you forgot Heise.
how can i cherry pick example solves when there are barely any petrus example solves are on youtubeMan, I wonder if 3/5 solves fit my critera
Man, I wonder if the definition of most of the time is more than 50%
Man, I wonder if 60% > 50%
Man, I wonder if you cherry-picked example solves from someone that is better at TPS than efficiency
Man, I wonder if Petrus is actually the most efficient big-4 speedsolving method if you know how to do it properly
Man, I wonder if you read your posts before posting them to look if there is any kind of common sense strewn throughout them, just in case something actually makes sense for more than 3 sentences
rip LMCFMethod with the fewest move count doesnt entirely mean the fastest imo.
Here are more realistic movecounts:
CFOP: 55-60
Roux: 45-50
Petrus (ZBLL): 45-50
ZZ (EOCross+ZBLL): 50-55
Here's why I think ZZ>Petrus IMO (as this was the context of the discussion): TPS. The ergonomics of Petruz, while not being bad, aren't as good as the ergonomics of ZZF2L because you have the problem of overturning and the extension as a step, is, as most Petrus solvers would agree upon, the most awkward step of the method. With ZZ the most awkward step is the first step, same with Roux and CFOP which means that some awkwardness can be negated by planning it properly. This is harder in Petrus. You also have worse ergonomics for EO in the middle of the solve than the a pair in a ZZ solve.
Anyway, why was it moved? It was doing perfectly fine in the other thread.
About the blind spots.But consider the fact that ZZ has more blind spots. Because Petrus uses direct solving at the beginning of the solve you don't end up with BL and BR blind spots. If you build 2x2x3 on BD the EO step becomes much easier. Plus even though finger tricks are harder because you plan block build at the start this helps to circumvent that problem. Even so, slower turning means that you theoretically have more time to look ahead, increasing the ability to be efficient. On a side note because Petrus always solves right block during Petrus F2L so you can make more consistent use of last slots algorithms (WV, Phasing, etc.). I'd say Petrus and ZZ are on equal footing, it just really depends if you prefer efficiency or TPS.
Edit: I forgot to mention that of the big 4 Petrus makes the best use of colour neutrality.
You know you orient LL edges for Petrus too and can use the aforementioned subsets with Petus...I'd find ZZ to be much faster than petrus becuz even though petrus has fewer moves to solve whole F2L, ZZ influences last layer with EO and can be done with one whole alg with ZBLL. Just doing OLL and PLL on petrus could be fine, but ZZ has so many tricks up its sleeves that its just super efficient to solve. It may seem like petrus can just finish F2L faster than ZZ, but becuz ZZ has way much better fingertricks, ZZF2L is faster. And geez, if a ZZ user cant do ZBLL, that user can do phasing and then ZZLL which is just solving the whole last layer with only 170 something algs, or just use OLS->PLL or COLL->EPLL. There's so much flexibility with ZZ and I really think petrus doesn't really have much but just more freedom. The only downside about ZZ is that it is super difficult (and I mean VERY DIFFICULT) to get fast with becuz theres so much an average human can comprehend. You'd have to be very committed to become sub-8 or sub-7 with ZZ and experience/practice all the tricks to perfect your solutions and strategies.