# Petro Method Example Solve



## krazedkat (Aug 20, 2009)

And example of my method ...


NEW STEPS:
1. Make a cross on D -1 edge on DR.
2. Get two consecutive edges in the ring around the middle layer. Move them to LB and LF. 
3. Using the R face and some common sense, get the LL cross (permutated correctly) -1 edge on UR.
4. Rotate the cube y' and solve the U cross (again, correct permutation). You have now solved all the edges.
5. Solve corners using commutators/algs/whatever you want.

- Some credit goes to Nukoca for helping! -


Petro Method PROTOTYPE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTFgfirf9kA





Video of updated method coming soon!


----------



## isaacthecuber (Aug 20, 2009)

Why don't just make a cross on the first side, instead of permuting the pieces later?


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 20, 2009)

You can make either a cross, a line or a dot... Its whatever is quickest...


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Aug 20, 2009)

An interesting method, it seems like it would take a long time to solve. Was that full speed solving? if not what do you average at full speed?


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 20, 2009)

Note: I have only used this method about 20 times XD

I average just under a minute... And I don't practice it that much so its got potential...


----------



## qqwref (Aug 20, 2009)

krazedkat said:


> I average just under a minute... And I don't practice it that much so its got potential...



This isn't necessarily true. I just right now thought of a silly method (D edges, orient U edges, permute U edges, orient E edges, permute E edges, corners) and my second solve ever was a 50.91 but that doesn't mean the method has the potential to be decent.

Incidentally I think your method is kind of silly as well. You place the top edges without caring about orientation and permutation, which is an interesting idea, but then you orient and permute each set of edges *individually*. The only way placing the top edges first would be at all useful would be if you were going to fix both sets of edges at the same time in one algorithm, like the PBL step in Ortega. It would be more efficient to just make a cross, insert the middle layer edges normally, and then do the last layer edges without any cube rotations.
As for the corners, well, in your example solve (in the example solve thread) you seem to just use the Niklas commutator. You should definitely try to use more commutators to save moves.
I just tried a solve using that scramble and my basic Edges First method (cross, middle layers, LL edges, corners with commutators) and got 72 moves, so while your ideas might eventually lead to a method that could get decent times, you'll need to get a lot more efficient to even compete with a method that is known to be relatively slow.


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 21, 2009)

qqwref said:


> krazedkat said:
> 
> 
> > I average just under a minute... And I don't practice it that much so its got potential...
> ...


 
Thanks for the feedback. I will chew on that for a bit...


----------



## guitardude7241 (Aug 21, 2009)

I really don't see the point in this method.


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 21, 2009)

Explain... You have nothing to say but "I see no point"?


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 21, 2009)

Because you claim that there is "so much potential" but it's got so many moves I lost count. It took 3 minutes and 55 seconds just show a single solve xD


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 21, 2009)

xD You're a retard. Did you notice that I stop to show the steps. Also note this was done 20 minutes after awaking... Thus the YAWN!


----------



## Inf3rn0 (Aug 21, 2009)

The method probly doesnt have the potential to be great, but its still somewhat interesting i guess. Show me a sub 20 and ill change my mind.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 21, 2009)

I don't mind new methods coming out like this. It's nice to know people are thinking somewhat outside the box.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Aug 21, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> I don't mind new methods coming out like this. It's nice to know people are thinking somewhat *outside the box*.



Psh no.. they're thinking of methods other than fridrich


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 21, 2009)

Inf3rn0 said:


> The method probly doesnt have the potential to be great, but its still somewhat interesting i guess. Show me a sub 20 and ill change my mind.



Give me a month or two and I'll get down there XD...


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 21, 2009)

> xD You're a retard. Did you notice that I stop to show the steps. Also note this was done 20 minutes after awaking... Thus the YAWN!



I am not a retard. The way you use that word is very disrespectful and childish. You still did not explain why the method takes so many moves in your last post, though.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 21, 2009)

krazedkat said:


> Inf3rn0 said:
> 
> 
> > The method probly doesnt have the potential to be great, but its still somewhat interesting i guess. Show me a sub 20 and ill change my mind.
> ...



lol


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 21, 2009)

Why sub-20? People can already get sub-20 averages with 7-step LBL...


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 21, 2009)

qqwref said:


> krazedkat said:
> 
> 
> > Inf3rn0 said:
> ...



XD I took school into account :?....


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 22, 2009)

People are lucky to get to sub 20 in a month or two with a totally legit method lol


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 22, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Why sub-20? People can already get sub-20 averages with 7-step LBL...



yea... 
i want to see sub 15 (which can still be done lbl but whatever )


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 22, 2009)

@ a small kitten:
A "legit" method. WTF? This is legit dumbass...

@Luke:
sub 15... I may need some more time ...


----------



## qqwref (Aug 22, 2009)

krazedkat said:


> @ a small kitten:
> A "legit" method. WTF? This is legit dumbass...



He meant an advanced speedsolving method, I think.

I don't think you will get sub-20 with this method, by the way, even if it might be possible.


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 22, 2009)

What he said ^

But seriously, the method takes too many moves and is very roundabout. Breaking the sub 20 barrier for the first time is challenging enough even with methods like Fridrich.


----------



## guitardude7241 (Aug 23, 2009)

krazedkat said:


> Explain... You have nothing to say but "I see no point"?



Sorry for the delayed response, but the method really doesn't make sense to me. How? Because of the extra steps. I actually looked at the first 2 steps, then stopped after that. Don't include the belt method in your method just for extra steps. Why not make a belt, exchange pieces in layers, orient/permute pieces?


----------



## Nukoca (Aug 23, 2009)

I think this method could have some potential as an EF (Edges first) method. At this point, however, I believe it has too many steps to make a decent method.

Allow me to quote your comment on your vid for convenience.


The Video said:


> 1. Make either a cross, dot or a line on one side.
> 2. Make a ring around the middle.
> 3. Make crosses on top and bottom
> 4. Make crosses on the 4 remaining sides
> ...




Here's how I would suggest changing it (if you're up for suggestions):
1. Make a cross on D -1 edge on DR.
2. Get two consecutive edges in the ring around the middle layer. Move them to LB and LF. 
3. Using the R face and some common sense, get the LL cross (permutated correctly) -1 edge on UR.
4. Rotate the cube y' and solve the U cross (again, correct permutation). You have now solved all the edges.
5. Solve corners using commutators/algs/whatever you want.

If you manage to improve this method enough, I may just post it on my list of methods.


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 23, 2009)

Thank you Nukoa. I will try that later today ...


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 26, 2009)

BUMMMMP. I'm making another video...


----------



## joey (Aug 28, 2009)

Or you could just use KALTCHENKO.


----------



## Faz (Aug 29, 2009)

Tell us the movecount.


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 29, 2009)

Around 106... :?...


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2009)

106? I LOL'd


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 29, 2009)

Well. I got 106 3 times in a row :|...


----------



## a small kitten (Aug 31, 2009)

That's twice as much as typical advanced methods...


----------



## krazedkat (Aug 31, 2009)

Point taken. I'm still improving...


----------



## Vulosity (Aug 31, 2009)

:confused: Are you counting moves like U2, R2, etc. as 2 moves or 1?

106 is a pretty huge move count.


----------



## Nukoca (Aug 31, 2009)

What you're using to solve the corners can take up a lot of moves too. Using commutators will take WAY less moves than doing the same Niklas alg over and over again.


----------

