X-CROSS can you do it?

[James Ludlow]

(hey, it's fun to debate/discuss! but if you like, just tell me what you mean with the bolded part and we'll leave it at that)

it's a Petrus-turned-Fridrich solve but not if you have no intention of continuing with petrus, and/or planned for the block to be part of the cross.

I have next to no knowledge of petrus, so if I was to build a 2x2 block then make an x cross, it would definately not be a petrus-turned-cfop solve.

You right though, it is fun to debate/discuss.

Are you a petrus solver by the way?

EDIT - What he said too ^^^^^^^

 

[CharlesOBlack]

(hey, it's fun to debate/discuss! but if you like, just tell me what you mean with the bolded part and we'll leave it at that)

it's a Petrus-turned-Fridrich solve but not if you have no intention of continuing with petrus, and/or planned for the block to be part of the cross.

I have next to no knowledge of petrus, so if I was to build a 2x2 block then make an x cross, it would definately not be a petrus-turned-cfop solve.

You right though, it is fun to debate/discuss.

Are you a petrus solver by the way?

EDIT - What he said too ^^^^^^^

Naw, I am/was a CFOP solver but now I'm sorta switching to Roux. (haven't decided yet.)

If you have a Petrus-turned-fridrich solve, without any intention of continuing with Petrus, then you just keep doing fridrich, and it's still a Petrus-turned-Fridrich solve...

If you made a 2x2x2 and then you added the rest of the cross, it'd be a Petrus-turned fridrich solve though, no matter what (according to my view)

also, I believe it's possible to have an unintentional Xcross.

 

[nck]

Petrus turned Fridrich? Would you call a 1x2x3→2x2x3 Roux-turned-Petrus?
I think most people would agree that block-building f2l and eo are more characteristic features of petrus than just a 2x2x2.
Technically. finishing f2l without one cross piece and adding it in at the end would be called a 'quadruple xcross' regardless of whether people choose to do it or not.
IMO if your building 2x2x2 with the intention of adding in the remaining cross pieces and solve f2l in slots, then it would be an Xcross instead of Petrus-turned-Fridrich. It's the same reason why you don't call EO-cross a ZZ-turned-Fridrich.

 

[CharlesOBlack]

Petrus turned Fridrich? Would you call a 1x2x3→2x2x3 Roux-turned-Petrus?
I think most people would agree that block-building f2l and eo are more characteristic features of petrus than just a 2x2x2.
Technically. finishing f2l without one cross piece and adding it in at the end would be called a 'quadruple xcross' regardless of whether people choose to do it or not.
IMO if your building 2x2x2 with the intention of adding in the remaining cross pieces and solve f2l in slots, then it would be an Xcross instead of Petrus-turned-Fridrich. It's the same reason why you don't call EO-cross a ZZ-turned-Fridrich.

in your opinion.

I'm analyzing the facts, not the intentions.

 

[Ranzha]

First scramble:

Double x-cross: z2 x U R D' F2 L2 U F' U' D R' U [11/11]
F2L3: x’ U2 L U L’ [4/15]
F2L4: U R’ U’ R [U’ y] R U R’ [8/23]
CLL: F R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ F’ [14/37]
ELL: M2 U F2 U M U’ F2 M2 U’ M’ [10/47].
47 moves, STM.
I got lucky there. Those two pairs were BEGGING me to make x-crosses.

EDIT: Btdubs, I wanted to put in the first pair, but halfway I saw the other already connected. Ftw!

 

[nck]

Petrus turned Fridrich? Would you call a 1x2x3→2x2x3 Roux-turned-Petrus?
I think most people would agree that block-building f2l and eo are more characteristic features of petrus than just a 2x2x2.
Technically. finishing f2l without one cross piece and adding it in at the end would be called a 'quadruple xcross' regardless of whether people choose to do it or not.
IMO if your building 2x2x2 with the intention of adding in the remaining cross pieces and solve f2l in slots, then it would be an Xcross instead of Petrus-turned-Fridrich. It's the same reason why you don't call EO-cross a ZZ-turned-Fridrich.

in your opinion.

I'm analyzing the facts, not the intentions.

Facts?
Maybe I'm too dumb to find a 'definition' of a 'Petrus-turned-Fridrich'.

or maybe we should just get rid of the term Xcross and replace it by 'Petrus block'

 

[CharlesOBlack]

First scramble:

Double x-cross: z2 x U R D' F2 L2 U F' U' D R' U [11/11]
F2L3: x’ U2 L U L’ [4/15]
F2L4: U R’ U’ R [U’ y] R U R’ [8/23]
CLL: F R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ F’ [14/37]
ELL: M2 U F2 U M U’ F2 M2 U’ M’ [10/47].
47 moves, STM.
I got lucky there. Those two pairs were BEGGING me to make x-crosses.

EDIT: Btdubs, I wanted to put in the first pair, but halfway I saw the other already connected. Ftw!

fastest 1x2x3 block I've ever seen

 

[Escher]

@CharlesOBlack: 2x2x2 start =/= Petrus. All it does is exclude you from doing a literal 'CFOP' or 'Roux' solve. The 'substeps' of x-cross don't really matter, the point is that you see more than just the cross in pre-inspection.

 

[Kirjava]

not necessarily. If the 2x2x2 is extended to a 2x2x3 then it isn't an Xcross anymore.

A 2x2x2 start is an xcross.

Not necessarily, depending on how you continue. Anyway, I only think of a start as an x-cross if you plan the entire thing in inspection, otherwise it's just something I would call block F2L or whatever or just trying not to be stupid and inflexible.

Kirjava said that a 2x2x2 start makes the solve an Xcross, but it doesn't.

This is assuming you're using CFOP - which is what this thread is about.

I had no idea you guys would suddenly decide that this thread was about FreeFOP for the sake of proving me 'wrong'.

Apparently what I see as obvious/redundant you pedants see as vital, so to refactor my statement-

A 2x2x2 start to a solve using the CFOP method is an xcross.

EDIT;

If you made a 2x2x2 and then you added the rest of the cross, it'd be a Petrus-turned fridrich solve though, no matter what (according to my view)

You don't know what an xcross is.

 

[CharlesOBlack]

not necessarily. If the 2x2x2 is extended to a 2x2x3 then it isn't an Xcross anymore.

A 2x2x2 start is an xcross.

Not necessarily, depending on how you continue. Anyway, I only think of a start as an x-cross if you plan the entire thing in inspection, otherwise it's just something I would call block F2L or whatever or just trying not to be stupid and inflexible.

Kirjava said that a 2x2x2 start makes the solve an Xcross, but it doesn't.

This is assuming you're using CFOP - which is what this thread is about.

I had no idea you guys would suddenly decide that this thread was about FreeFOP for the sake of proving me 'wrong'.

Apparently what I see as obvious/redundant you pedants see as vital, so to refactor my statement-

A 2x2x2 start to a solve using the CFOP method is an xcross.

EDIT;

If you made a 2x2x2 and then you added the rest of the cross, it'd be a Petrus-turned fridrich solve though, no matter what (according to my view)

You don't know what an xcross is.

according to chris. According to me, I know perfectly what an xcross is.

Spoiler

hint: this is one of those things that don't ever have a good ending to either party, just like discussing religion

 

[Escher]

according to chris. According to me, I know perfectly what an xcross is.

Spoiler

hint: this is one of those things that don't ever have a good ending to either party, just like discussing religion

Not really, it's more like just blank refusing to accept the standard (right) way of understanding terminology.

 

[PatrickJameson]

according to chris. According to me, I know perfectly what an xcross is.

Spoiler

hint: this is one of those things that don't ever have a good ending to either party, just like discussing religion

I need to find a surgeon. My hand seemed to have fused to my face.

 

[riffz]

according to chris. According to me, I know perfectly what an xcross is.

Chris defined it.


B' F' L R2 B2 R' B2 R B' F L R B2 U2 B L B U' R B F2 R' D2 B R'

XCROSS：R' F2 B' D2 R U' L2 B'

So according to you the first xcross you posted is actually not an xcross, seeing as a 2x2x2 is solved before the placement of the last 2 cross pieces. See how stupid and useless your definition is?

 

[James Ludlow]

So was I right?

 

[cmhardw]

I consider Xcross to be either:
1) seeing the direct solve to the Xcross during inspection
2) seeing the solve for the 2x2x2 and one other cross edge during inspection, with intention to locate and place the 4th cross edge during the solving phase.
3) seeing the solve for the 2x2x2 during inspection while making sure that the solution for the 2x2x2 puts the other 2 cross edges in a "good" position. A good position means easy to solve in relatively few moves.
4) Seeing the solve for the cross during inspection that either builds or preserves a c/e pair. For these solves you usually know how to place the pair during inspection as well.
5) Seeing the solve for the cross and one corner during inspection, with intention to locate and place the F2L edge during the solving phase using keyhole.
6) Seeing the solve for the cross and one F2L edge during inspection, with intention to locate and place the corresponding corner during the solving phase using keyhole.
Chris

I agree with his statements.

Feryll already posted what I feel counts as all types of what makes an X-cross. I personally would call a 2x2x2 start, with no pre-planning on the other pieces, to be a Petrich solve. Petrich is a very old term for Petrus-turned-Fridrich.

I would argue that if you plan only the 2x2x2 during inspection, but during the solve discover a nice continuation to make it become an X-cross, that it should probably still count as an Xcross. If you plan only the 2x2x2 during inspection, and then place the other cross edges one at a time, it's probably a Petrich solve. Either way, though, this is an incredibly gray area and depends on the person, and how they want to define X-cross.

Whether a solve is termed a Petrich or Xcross solve is not necessarily an important distinction though, the point is that you are utilizing block building to make an easier F2L than a standard cross + 4 pairs approach. So either way it is a good strategy, and can be worth a second or two saved, but the terminology I think is not necessarily as important.

My $0.02,
Chris

 

[iasimp1997]

not necessarily. If the 2x2x2 is extended to a 2x2x3 then it isn't an Xcross anymore.

Also, I think that a 2x2x2 is a bit different than a cross with a pair inserted. But that's just me.

Technically, it's a double x-cross.

 

[CharlesOBlack]

I consider Xcross to be either:
1) seeing the direct solve to the Xcross during inspection
2) seeing the solve for the 2x2x2 and one other cross edge during inspection, with intention to locate and place the 4th cross edge during the solving phase.
3) seeing the solve for the 2x2x2 during inspection while making sure that the solution for the 2x2x2 puts the other 2 cross edges in a "good" position. A good position means easy to solve in relatively few moves.
4) Seeing the solve for the cross during inspection that either builds or preserves a c/e pair. For these solves you usually know how to place the pair during inspection as well.
5) Seeing the solve for the cross and one corner during inspection, with intention to locate and place the F2L edge during the solving phase using keyhole.
6) Seeing the solve for the cross and one F2L edge during inspection, with intention to locate and place the corresponding corner during the solving phase using keyhole.
Chris

I agree with his statements.

Feryll already posted what I feel counts as all types of what makes an X-cross. I personally would call a 2x2x2 start, with no pre-planning on the other pieces, to be a Petrich solve. Petrich is a very old term for Petrus-turned-Fridrich.

I would argue that if you plan only the 2x2x2 during inspection, but during the solve discover a nice continuation to make it become an X-cross, that it should probably still count as an Xcross. If you plan only the 2x2x2 during inspection, and then place the other cross edges one at a time, it's probably a Petrich solve. Either way, though, this is an incredibly gray area and depends on the person, and how they want to define X-cross.

Whether a solve is termed a Petrich or Xcross solve is not necessarily an important distinction though, the point is that you are utilizing block building to make an easier F2L than a standard cross + 4 pairs approach. So either way it is a good strategy, and can be worth a second or two saved, but the terminology I think is not necessarily as important.

My $0.02,
Chris

incredible how I was trying to say that and everybody ignored me, while when YOU said it, everybody shut up. :rolleyes:

 

[cmhardw]

incredible how I was trying to say that and everybody ignored me, while when YOU said it, everybody shut up. :rolleyes:

I do agree with what you're saying for the most part, but I disagree with the following statement a bit, personally.

If you made a 2x2x2 and then you added the rest of the cross, it'd be a Petrus-turned fridrich solve though, no matter what (according to my view)

Again, this falls into that gray area I mentioned in a previous post, but I don't always consider a 2x2x2 start to be Petrich. The times I don't consider it to be Petrich are:

3) seeing the solve for the 2x2x2 during inspection while making sure that the solution for the 2x2x2 puts the other 2 cross edges in a "good" position. A good position means easy to solve in relatively few moves.

For these cases I would argue that your 2x2x2 solution is tailored to influence both of the remaining cross edges in such a way as to allow you to solve them in an easy 3-4 moves, or even less hopefully. This is still technically a Petrich start to your solve, but since the 2x2x2 solution was altered/tailored to account for the other cross edges I call it Xcross.

Again, I don't think there is one simple easy definition of what makes an Xcross during a solve. Basically I don't think this question has one solid correct answer. Part of it is this gray area of Petrich/Xcross and how the individual defines it, and I think that's fine.

Chris

 

[Kirjava]

incredible how I was trying to say that and everybody ignored me, while when YOU said it, everybody shut up. :rolleyes:

I'm getting bored of arguing about semantics with you, but you seem to have not noticed that a Petrich solve is a certain type of xcross.

My statement is still correct.

 

[QCcuber4]

i like it, i think ill practice that, it could actually save me what i need in time to reach sub 15 avg. thank you for the examples.