# Petrus is like, so dead now.



## PetrusQuber (Sep 21, 2019)

I use Petrus, and I have noticed nobody is really using it anymore. I, along with a couple of other people, am like the solitary Petrus user on this forum which is still active. The majority of users seem to be CFOP, Roux, or ZZ . So there isn't much discussion on how to improve on specific areas here for me. What are your thoughts on this? Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles? Anymore people using Petrus?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 21, 2019)

I think that as a method, Petrus is a good method, especially for teaching beginners advanced techniques. As a speedsolving method I don't think that it has the ergonomics to keep up with the other methods. 2x2x2 is fine (see xcross) as are the last 2 steps (right block and ZBLL). The main problem with it is the ergonomics and lookahead of expanding to 2x2x3. I'd argue that intuitive RUF is worse than intuitive RUL in many cases. As far as the EO step itself, I don't see it as a weakness or advantage. 

Imo, LEOR is a better Petrus alternative. The steps are FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL. The last 2 steps are the same and the first steps are pretty much equal (it's slightly on the side of petrus by 1 move). The biggest difference is that you can see EO in inspection (if you're good), as you do EO while solving the 2x2x3, not after, and the expansion to EO2x2x3 is all RUMr (with controlled Fs in certain situations) and rotationless in comparison to the LUF > RULFM y'. The movecount is pretty similar (maybe the same), but the ergonomics are just better for LEOR. I also think that it is definitely competitive with the "big 3" and certainly has some aspects that make it more attractive than CFOP, Roux or ZZ, but also some drawbacks like any method.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 21, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> I think that as a method, Petrus is a good method, especially for teaching beginners advanced techniques. As a speedsolving method I don't think that it has the ergonomics to keep up with the other methods. 2x2x2 is fine (see xcross) as are the last 2 steps (right block and ZBLL). The main problem with it is the ergonomics and lookahead of expanding to 2x2x3. I'd argue that intuitive RUF is worse than intuitive RUL in many cases. As far as the EO step itself, I don't see it as a weakness or advantage.
> 
> Imo, LEOR is a better Petrus alternative. The steps are FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL. The last 2 steps are the same and the first steps are pretty much equal (it's slightly on the side of petrus by 1 move). The biggest difference is that you can see EO in inspection (if you're good), as you do EO while solving the 2x2x3, not after, and the expansion to EO2x2x3 is all RUMr (with controlled Fs in certain situations) and rotationless in comparison to the LUF > RULFM y'. The movecount is pretty similar (maybe the same), but the ergonomics are just better for LEOR. I also think that it is definitely competitive with the "big 3" and certainly has some aspects that make it more attractive than CFOP, Roux or ZZ, but also some drawbacks like any method.


Ok. I'm going to try continuing Petrus, but I'll see if I get tempted to swap. What is LEOR, in word friendly terms?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 21, 2019)

Left block just like in Roux, EODFDB (just like EOLine with ZZ but with FB solved), right block just like Petrus, ZBLL (or other EO solved LL things).


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 21, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles


Was it ever popular?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 22, 2019)

GAN 356 X said:


> Was it ever popular?


Back in early 2000, where CFOP was in it’s early stages, and Roux and ZZ weren’t even invented yet.
I think Petrus is fast enough to get sub 10 at least, so I’m going to continue using it (my target is sub 20). Can’t throw away months of practise


----------



## tx789 (Sep 22, 2019)

It not as good as other methods. Inspecting a 2x2x3 block will help but solving a cross edge and then doing EO and then F2L is worse than CFOP.


----------



## SM cubing (Sep 22, 2019)

please do not use petrus if you want to be fast


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 22, 2019)

tx789 said:


> It not as good as other methods. Inspecting a 2x2x3 block will help but solving a cross edge and then doing EO and then F2L is worse than CFOP.


You don't insert a cross edge.


SM cubing said:


> please do not use petrus if you want to be fast


How fast? Also, how fast are you and what method do you use?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 22, 2019)

SM cubing said:


> please do not use petrus if you want to be fast


Why not? Petrus is still a very good method and sub 8 is definitely possible. I would still say that it's not big 3 level, but the most similar method to petrus that could reach the same speeds as the big 3 is LEOR.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 23, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Why not? Petrus is still a very good method and sub 8 is definitely possible. I would still say that it's not big 3 level, but the most similar method to petrus that could reach the same speeds as the big 3 is LEOR.


Because by using it you are holding yourself back from progressing as fast or as far as you could with other methods


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 23, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> Because by using it you are holding yourself back from progressing as fast or as far as you could with other methods


Shake my head at people that can only learn one method


----------



## Iwannaganx (Sep 23, 2019)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> Shake my head at people that can only learn one method


Sorry, but I'm getting close to sub 30 with cfop and i can't learn algs. At all. Like not even full pll. I know a total of like 20 algs and I don't want to learn like roux as well lol


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 23, 2019)

Iwannaganx said:


> Sorry, but I'm getting close to sub 30 with cfop and i can't learn algs. At all. Like not even full pll. I know a total of like 20 algs and I don't want to learn like roux as well lol





Filipe Teixeira said:


> Shake my head at people that can only learn one method


As long as you are good at one method I don't think it matters much. Honestly, I think the algs from oll are easier to remember but there are more of them. Which was easier to learn, oll or pll?


----------



## tx789 (Sep 23, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> You don't insert a cross edge.
> 
> How fast? Also, how fast are you and what method do you use?



You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 23, 2019)

tx789 said:


> You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.


I’ll see how it goes nevertheless.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 23, 2019)

It takes about 15 mins to learn a new method if you know what you're doing, and the more you learn the easier it becomes.


tx789 said:


> You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days.


Solving EO is actually really helpful. It's more efficient to solve EO, do RB then solve LL with ZBLL compared to cross edge, 2 pairs, OLL, PLL. It's also faster if you do it right. The problem with Petrus is the extension to 2x2x3. If that step were good, Petrus would be still very good. And I don't see what hardware has to do with it. If you're on about 2-gen, right block is amazing in comparison to your 2 average F2L pairs, old hardware or new.


----------



## Izaden (Sep 23, 2019)

Disclaimer: I am VERY new to speed cubing.

I feel like if you prefer block building methods that Roux would be more appealing to most as the principles are very similar but Roux has fewer average moves and requires far less algs. There are also less long pauses due to Petrus requiring early edge orientation.
I'm not trying to say Petrus is bad, but I can see why Roux would be a more enticing method.

I am learning Cfop atm.

Good luck getting your time sub 20!


----------



## u Cube (Sep 23, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> I use Petrus, and I have noticed nobody is really using it anymore. I, along with a couple of other people, am like the solitary Petrus user on this forum which is still active. The majority of users seem to be CFOP, Roux, or ZZ . So there isn't much discussion on how to improve on specific areas here for me. What are your thoughts on this? Why has usage of the Petrus method dwindles? Anymore people using Petrus?


I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 23, 2019)

u Cube said:


> I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.


I doubt it. EO has benefits such as reducing rotations (which are 1 ETM each), ZBLL and halving the number of F2L cases. And I do think that EO in Petrus actually makes it better because of the amazing RB and ZBLL.


----------



## efattah (Sep 23, 2019)

I tend to agree with u Cube; after years of trying to make new methods my general conclusion is that future methods will not involved orient->permute steps, but rather direct solve. Consider OLL->PLL vs. ZBLL or 1LL, or 2-look CMLL (orient/permute) vs. direct CMLL. That is a simplification, but hundreds of experiments (that I have done) generally point to the fact that direct solve has greater potential in the long term. But you can still get extremely fast with orient->permute methods.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 23, 2019)

u Cube said:


> I think that the reason petrus has gone downhill is because of the EO step, and frankly why ZZ will in the near future have the same fate. EO has almost zero benefits compared to its positives and I think that people have realized that/ not wanted to put in the work to improve it.


You better not say that about ZZ...

There are many benefits to EO. Honestly petrusquber, just stick with Petrus. Also I tried Petrus and I am sub 40 so ya.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 24, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> It takes about 15 mins to learn a new method if you know what you're doing, and the more you learn the easier it becomes.
> 
> Solving EO is actually really helpful. It's more efficient to solve EO, do RB then solve LL with ZBLL compared to cross edge, 2 pairs, OLL, PLL. It's also faster if you do it right. The problem with Petrus is the extension to 2x2x3. If that step were good, Petrus would be still very good. And I don't see what hardware has to do with it. If you're on about 2-gen, right block is amazing in comparison to your 2 average F2L pairs, old hardware or new.



Petrus is better on old hardware like 2003 hardware. EO first is better, but is EO that useful for solves. RUL is a bad move set RUD is much better.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Sep 24, 2019)

I just got an 11.734 single with Petrus! Good for a method I never use
Edit: 11.048


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 24, 2019)

Wow. Lots of misinformation in here about Petrus, at least from what I know. For reference, I quit cubing for about a year around this time last year, and at the time was around 9.5 for my global average, and I used Petrus. Petrus isn't fast. But neither are CFOP, Roux, ZZ, etc. The reason being is a method can't inherently be fast because its just a way to go about solving the cube. People can solve the cube fast using methods, some being more popular than others which gives a false sense of "No one uses this so it must be bad" or "Everyone uses it so it must be good." Every method has their flaws but many have benefits to make up for those flaws. For example, CFOP is very set in the manner of which you do the steps. Your cross solutions most likely all look similar, F2L solutions, etc. This simplicity allows for fast TPS and easy look-ahead, at the cost of being restricted to essentially RULF and a few rotations. Roux has its benefit in its linearity. You will always do LB/RB/CMLL/EOLR/4c. But because the first step is always RB, you can choose the most efficient RB you find, which allows for better lookahead into SB, and so on. The downside of this is a large portion of it is intuitive which many seem to struggle with, but has the benefit of lower movecount meaning you don't need to worry about TPS as much. Petrus on the other hand, hasn't been explored much, if at all. We all know it ends with the EO:LL state, where ZBLL can be used to solve it. But so can Fish and Chips, OCLL/PLL, COLL/EPLL and so on. But that's one of Petrus' downsides. It is linear and largely intuitive (excluding EO, which imo should be algorithmic similar to CFOP's F2L where you learn it intuitively but drill it to essentially algs) which creates a large area where there isn't much that can be adjusted. Take Roux for example. In its infancy, Roux's last step, which is LSE, was very uniform of EO/LR Edges/4c, but as time went on it was essentially altered to be EOLR which is the first two steps combined in to one step. This isn't doable in Petrus unless you are crazy at blockbuilding and can direct build a 3x2x2 (No expansion whatsoever) Similarly, many people do/did EO with Petrus "wrong." In this case, wrong doesn't actually mean wrong, but rather sub-optimal. People will build the block on the left because that's how many tutorials taught it and do EO RUFBS, when actually it is better to do it with the block built in BD, so that your EO is now RULFM which is a much better movegroup and also allows better look-ahead from EO into F2L as you rotate back to do F2L 2-gen as you no longer have a blind spot, which is common in other methods unless you specifically avoid it. 

As for the misinformation, "...solving a cross edge and then doing EO and then F2L..." -- tx789

This is blatantly incorrect, as you do not solve DF/DR depending on your block location and then do EO. You do EO and then your F2L, and very rarely do I ever do it by placing DR and then 2 pairs as it is less efficient and removes the blind spot benefit I mentioned earlier. 

"You solve a 2x2x3 block then EO, then solve F2L. The last two pairs of CFOP is way faster than that. Solving EO isn't even that good. Cubes are much better these days " -tx789

Again, there's a bit incorrect here. The last two pairs of CFOP is not analogous to RB of Petrus. It isn't a comparison that makes sense. 

"Solving EO isn't that good" I believe most people would beg to differ. I mean, there is a reason so many people use partial edge control to avoid dot OLL's right? All of the OCLL's excluding H and Pi (I believe) are all able to be oriented in about 7 or 8 moves. Compare that to standard OLL's average movecount. Again, if you have a lower movecount, you don't need to turn as fast which is where Petrus' strengths lie. 

"Cubes are much better these days" 

While not incorrect, it is irrelevant. I can pull out my old dayan Lunhui and get the same times on it as I do my GTS3/Tengyun/Whatever else. 

"Roux has fewer average moves and requires far less algs. There are also less long pauses due to Petrus requiring early edge orientation." -- Izaden

You mentioned you were very new, but that doesn't mean that you can pass false information off as fact. Nothing against you here, you're new, but Petrus and Roux have very comparable movecounts, and I believe using HARCS they both average around 40 moves, though Roux may be a move or two less, but that's a computer. Someone who has essentially mastered Roux and another who has done the same for Petrus should have virtually equivalent movecounts.

"EO has almost zero benefits..." -- u Cube

EO has nowhere near zero benefits. Lower movecount, easier look-ahead, better movegroup, the list goes on. 

"Petrus is better on old hardware like 2003 hardware. EO first is better, but is EO that useful for solves. RUL is a bad move set RUD is much better." --tx789

Hardware is irrelevant as everyone is on the same hardware now, and everyone was on the same hardware in 2003. I'll ignore your EO statement to avoid repeating myself more. As for your statements on movegroups, RUL isn't bad, and I agree that RUD is better, but neither are used in Petrus except for in LL and on occasion F2L -- special cases and keyhole respectively. 


TL;DR: Seems a lot of people don't know methods as well as they think they do, and attempt to pass off said misinformation as fact. I call them out on it


----------



## u Cube (Sep 24, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> There are many benefits to EO. Honestly petrusquber, just stick with Petrus. Also I tried Petrus and I am sub 40 so ya.


petrus is better than zz so if he has to use one better petrus


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Sep 24, 2019)

u Cube said:


> petrus is better than zz so if he has to use one better petrus


How?
“Zz- RUL the world” - Cubicle Zz shirt


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 24, 2019)

u Cube said:


> petrus is better than zz so if he has to use one better petrus


If Petrus>ZZ, Petrus>CFOP.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 24, 2019)

2180161 said:


> You mentioned you were very new, but that doesn't mean that you can pass false information off as fact. Nothing against you here, you're new, but Petrus and Roux have very comparable movecounts, and I believe using HARCS they both average around 40 moves, though Roux may be a move or two less, but that's a computer. Someone who has essentially mastered Roux and another who has done the same for Petrus should have virtually equivalent movecounts.



Analyzed 100 scrambles and this is what I got. 



Spoiler: Petrus



SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 31
MOST MOVES: 48

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
3x2x2 9.16 7 10 3236
eo 4.96 3 8 193
f2l 9.91 7 12 47
zbll 15.75 8 21 5
TOTAL 39.78 25 51 3481





Spoiler: Roux



SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 28
MOST MOVES: 45

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
fb 6.72 4 8 530
sb 10.11 7 13 296
cmll 10.28 0 16 15
lse 11.04 5 15 44
TOTAL 38.15 16 52 885





Spoiler: ZZ



SOLVES: 100

LEAST MOVES: 32
MOST MOVES: 46

STEP MEAN BEST WORST TIME (ms)
eoline 6.23 4 8 140
lb 8.87 6 11 86
rb 10.04 6 12 62
zbll 15.85 9 23 0
TOTAL 40.99 25 54 288


Also HARCS doesn't do CFOP but movecount is < 60 with some of the basic stuff, could probably be ~50 with pseudo f2l, LSLL trick and some last layer improvements.

Critiques
finding optimal for ever single step in a solve isn't always doable so you can probably add a few moves to each of these to get "normal speed solves"
Roux doesn't use NMC, NMB, CMLLEO, pinkie pie, EOLR, etc. Also doesn't allow for 2 blocks to be built simultaneously etc. 
Petrus and ZZ don't use WV (idk any other extensions of Petrus but let me know if you know any)
ZZ doesn't do 3/4 cross which is what most people use
Petrus an ZZ use 2011 ZBLLs which are RUL for the most part, they seem to be a bit more efficient than most modern algs (but less fingertrickable)


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 25, 2019)

u Cube said:


> petrus is better than zz so if he has to use one better petrus


Ok buddy that’s a lie. ZZ is definitely better than Petrus (no offense Petrus users I support you) because you pre-orient edges instead of orienting them after 2 steps. ZZ is meant to be used if you strive to learn ZB. Also Petrus was meant to be used as a beginner speedsolving method where as ZZ wasn’t intentionally.



Underwatercuber said:


> Analyzed 100 scrambles and this is what I got.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are only 493 ZBLLs


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Sep 25, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> There are only 493 ZBLLs


He mean from the year 2011 lol


----------



## jo1215 (Sep 25, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Ok buddy that’s a lie. ZZ is definitely better than Petrus (no offense Petrus users I support you) because you pre-orient edges instead of orienting them after 2 steps. ZZ is meant to be used if you strive to learn ZB. Also Petrus was meant to be used as a beginner speedsolving method where as ZZ wasn’t intentionally.


ZB is a different method than ZZ


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 25, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Ok buddy that’s a lie. ZZ is definitely better than Petrus (no offense Petrus users I support you) because you pre-orient edges instead of orienting them after 2 steps. ZZ is meant to be used if you strive to learn ZB. Also Petrus was meant to be used as a beginner speedsolving method where as ZZ wasn’t intentionally.


It really is messed up on what method is better and why. It would be soooo much easier to just say there’re all equal.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 25, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> It really is messed up on what method is better and why. It would be soooo much easier to just say there’re all equal.


But that's boring.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 25, 2019)

2180161 said:


> "Petrus is better on old hardware like 2003 hardware. EO first is better, but is EO that useful for solves. RUL is a bad move set RUD is much better." --tx789
> 
> Hardware is irrelevant as everyone is on the same hardware now, and everyone was on the same hardware in 2003. I'll ignore your EO statement to avoid repeating myself more. As for your statements on movegroups, RUL isn't bad, and I agree that RUD is better, but neither are used in Petrus except for in LL and on occasion F2L -- special cases and keyhole respectively.
> 
> ...




The point about hardware is that new finger tricks are possible on new cubes that were too hard to be used on old hardware if they could be at all. EO being solved is a plus but the differance between EO and non EO isn't as big the difference being bigger on old cubes.

You getting the same times on a old Lunhui is probably says more about you and your turning than the differance between 2011 cubes and 2019 cubes.


In terms of Petrus is kind of feels like it is basically not used at all for a reason. Also despite it is low number of users Roux has had some very fast people at it. Whether it is Kian or Sean Patrick Villanueva or Alex Lau back in the day. Popular doesn't equal good but the fastest Petrus user or ZZ is much slower compared to their Roux counterparts of course the number of people using it affect this.


----------



## ottozing (Sep 25, 2019)

(for all Petrus defenders in this thread)

poast fizeek


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Sep 25, 2019)

jo1215 said:


> ZB is a different method than ZZ


I meant ZBLL.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Sep 25, 2019)

ottozing said:


> (for all Petrus defenders in this thread)
> 
> poast fizeek


Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.

*completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 25, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.
> 
> *completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*



So here's one thing right. "Poor turning ergnomics"
In what world, does Petrus have bad ergonomics? Your 2x2? Yeah same movegroup as cross and typically less moves if CN. 3x2x2? RUF(DLM can be used on a case by case basis) That's the same movegroup as CFOP's F2L. EO? RULF(M) That's not a bad movegroup either. EO? Oh right, its RU, because we all know that 2-gen is the worst movegroup possible. The LL? Yeah I mean that depends on your algs, but theoretically could be done entirely RUD/RUL/RUF/whatever else movegroup you want to use. 

Poor look-ahead is an argument I see against Petrus all the time, but no one ever expands on it, which really makes no sense to me. Its a similar argument to blind spots. Blind spots are the result of difficult look-ahead or something inherent with the method (Roux and BD during the whole solve pretty much) but people tend to look-ahead around it. Petrus has VERY good look-ahead if you know how to solve with Petrus. During your 2x2x2 you should be looking ahead to your 3x2x2, since the 2x2x2 is so few moves, you should be able to 1-look it. This is great look-ahead for the 3x2x2. Then you have EO. Your block was built in the back, so EO is right in your face. Assuming you finish your block off with an R move of some kind (the most likely way) you know that any piece not on the R axis is not going to move, so you can look at your EO there already. You do your EO, and while you do your EO, you can take note of where all the pieces are and do it from there. So the claim of bad look-ahead is very, very wrong, and has no substance behind it.

Petrus has very minimal, if any blind spots. The only 2 I can think of would be the 2x2->3x2x2 expansion, but that shouldn't matter if you're solving properly (i.e looking ahead because you 1 looked the 2x2) and BR "slot" after doing EO, which still shouldn't matter, because you do EO with your block in back, so you know what pieces are in that blind spot since you rotate.

Not everyone switched from Petrus to CFOP for a reason. I switched from CFOP to Petrus and in fact, achieved faster times with Petrus, and in a faster practice time-frame. 

It may have been around for as long as CFOP and while that does give it time to develop, I've already made the statement that there's nothing to really develop Petrus on except for maybe some LSLL method, but even then ZBLL is a 2LLSLL so that's pretty much optimal. No one being fast with it really depends on your definition of fast. I was about 9.5 with it and still improving when I quit cubing, and while that's not like top 100 or 500 or anything, that's still far from slow.


----------



## White KB (Sep 25, 2019)

You should add an "I only use it for FMC" answer. Most people only use it for FMC, so if that dies...
then Petrus _is_ like so dead now.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 25, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> Low movecount means it’s fast and since it has to eo for last layer it’s better than cfop.


 This is true. It has a better LL than CFOP and a better movecount by 10 moves (ish).



Underwatercuber said:


> *completely ignores poor turning ergonomics, poor lookahead, frequent blind spots, anecdotal evidence that everyone switched to cfop from petrus for a reason and that even though petrus has been around for as long as cfop and has had plenty of time to develop there is no one fast with it*


 The ergonomics are good for 2x2x2, EO, RB, LL, just not as good for expansion. Even then, those ergonomics aren't bad, they're just worse than the rest of the solve. Lookahead isn't poor. As 2180161 said, it's actually very good. Blind spots aren't an issue with petrus except for 3 pieces if you're bad at planning ahead. 

Now, anecdotal evidence.

This is the worse type of evidence. It's the evidence used by people who don't think that vaccinations work, it's the type of evidence used when you have no other evidence because it has the illusion of being strong when it is not. If you are mainly basing your argument on anecdotal evidence, it's not a good argument. You're not going to convince anyone about the existence of God by saying 'I saw God in a dream' unless you manage to prove to someone you a) had that dream and b) you didn't just see God in a dream, but that God was talking to you in that dream. Instead, an argument is much better if it's based on solid facts/generally accepted to be true statements (such as cosmilogical arguments, but we're not getting into a philosophy debate). So please don't use anecdotes as data. I don't know who said it, but 'the plural of andecdote isn't data'.


----------



## tx789 (Sep 26, 2019)

2180161 said:


> Petrus has very minimal, if any blind spots. The only 2 I can think of would be the 2x2->3x2x2 expansion, but that shouldn't matter if you're solving properly (i.e looking ahead because you 1 looked the 2x2) and BR "slot" after doing EO, which still shouldn't matter, because you do EO with your block in back, so you know what pieces are in that blind spot since you rotate.
> .


All methods have blind spots because the cube does. You only see three faces at once. RUF or RUL. To see the BU sticker you have to rotate it may be a half roation but it still is move the whole cube or doing a turn.

CFOP you solve cross first and should inspect cross+1 if you want to be fast. By attempting to solve the BL F2L pair first the worst F2L blind spot is filled. Rather than rotating to see the BL edge. Now you have to only look at the U layer and the other empty F2L spots which only one side can be seen. Assuming a right hand dominant solver. 

In Petrus solving just a 2x2x2 in inspection seems worse than just a cross since when extending to a 2x2x3, with the 2x2x2 block is placed in the DBL position. The edges are possibly in the positions of DR and DF which a worse position to look for compared to E-slice or U-layer edges. Even if you don't do cross+1 in inspection. You have to look for 2 pieces of which there are 4 options rather than 3 pieces with three options far more scattered across the cube. There is also the fact the block building is slower than F2l inherently. Post 2x2x3 and after 2 F2L pairs the differance in blind spots between Petrus and CFOP is small but CFOP is better since DR edge is solved. 

Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.

Also for Roux your blind to the DB edge unless you do a M move and look at the back face rotating the cube. The cube has blind spots which affect each method differently. 




One question would you inspect for 2x2x3 block? Seems like it should be comparable to cross+1 but slow since the move group is worse.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 26, 2019)

White KB said:


> You should add an "I only use it for FMC" answer. Most people only use it for FMC, so if that dies...
> then Petrus _is_ like so dead now.


Ok then.


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 26, 2019)

tx789 said:


> All methods have blind spots because the cube does. You only see three faces at once. RUF or RUL. To see the BU sticker you have to rotate it may be a half roation but it still is move the whole cube or doing a turn.
> 
> CFOP you solve cross first and should inspect cross+1 if you want to be fast. By attempting to solve the BL F2L pair first the worst F2L blind spot is filled. Rather than rotating to see the BL edge. Now you have to only look at the U layer and the other empty F2L spots which only one side can be seen. Assuming a right hand dominant solver.
> 
> ...



Blind spots here doesn't mean pieces you can't actually see, but rather pieces you can't see and don't know what's there. Just because I can't SEE BD when I solve roux, doesn't mean I don't keep track of what's there. Just because I don't SEE what's in BR/BL when solving with CFOP doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what's there. Just because I don't SEE DL/DR when I solve with ZZ doesn't mean I don't keep track of what's there. Just because I can't SEE what's in BR for Petrus doesn't mean I don't know what is there. 

All of your assumptions imply the person solving has no awareness of the cube other than what is currently being solved, which is not realistic. Even a beginner has some awareness of where things other than what they are solving are. Minimal, but still exists. 

Solving a 2x2x2 in inspection is better than the cross. The reason being, that they have the same movegroup, the 2x2x2 is less moves despite both steps solving the same number of pieces (4), and the 2x2x2 moves every piece to the R, U, or F faces, allowing for easier tracking/look-ahead. Again you make an assumption that block-building is slower than F2L. I have yet to see that proven in a case where it matters. With Roux, your last steps (CMLL/LSE) are pretty much entirely algorithmic, and you've block-built with less moves than it would take for F2L, meaning you can turn slower and look-ahead easier with the block-building, meaning you can spam TPS at the end. With Petrus, it is the same thing. Block-build the F2L with EO, spam TPS on LL. 

As for the statement of COLL being worse than the standard OLL, I can only see that as the case for sune and anti-sune and even then, you end up with an EPLL, all of which are super easy to sub-1. If I do COLL/EPLL, I typically have a last layer time of around 2.3-2.5 seconds. If I use OLL/PLL, assuming edges oriented, I typically have closer to the 2.7-3 second range. 

You seem to have very little actual usable knowledge on the topic and recommend you either learn, or stop talking.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Sep 26, 2019)

tx789 said:


> Also one point about EO. EO takes time to solve and how much time does it save vs not doing it. LL examples in CFOP being things like COLL. Using a slower COLL than the standard OLL is only worth it if the PLL you avoid are much slower than the ones you want which isn't always the cases.


EO takes time to solve, but then you don't have to solve it during RB (which makes RB A LOT more ergonomic) and it also gives you a ZBLL for LL, which is better than OLL/PLL. Also, COLL/EPLL>OLL/PLL, and even if it's not better, it's certainly equal to it and it's fewer algs and it gives a better jump onto ZBLL as you already know about a 12th of the algs needed.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 28, 2020)

Not to sound mean, but...

I'm just going to say it because nobody else will. Almost nobody uses Petrus because it is really hard to get fast at it, there are not very many resources to help make it fast, and if you want to get as fast as possible, you need to learn almost 500 algs.

I'm not being mean or criticizing anybody who uses Petrus, it just isn't a method that you can use to get really, really fast.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 28, 2020)

Define fast. Is a sub-10 Ao12 fast?


----------



## fuzzballcat (Jan 28, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Not to sound mean, but...
> 
> I'm just going to say it because nobody else will. Almost nobody uses Petrus because it is really hard to get fast at it, there are not very many resources to help make it fast, and if you want to get as fast as possible, you need to learn almost 500 algs.
> 
> I'm not being mean or criticizing anybody who uses Petrus, it just isn't a method that you can use to get really, really fast.


Agreed. If more research was done into it we might find that it has lots of potential, but as of now there's just not enough resources out there.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Define fast. Is a sub-10 Ao12 fast?


(In this context, because I know somebody will ask,) fast meaning world-class, so sub-7-ish.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 28, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> (In this context, because I know somebody will ask,) fast meaning world-class, so sub-7-ish.



@Tao Yu how much work have you put into Petrus to be sub-10(or close), and how fast do you think that you personally could get if you used it a bunch?


----------



## Tao Yu (Jan 28, 2020)

ProStar said:


> @Tao Yu how much work have you put into Petrus to be sub-10(or close), and how fast do you think that you personally could get if you used it a bunch?



The dates on the videos on my youtube channel give a decent idea of my progression with the method. A lot of my progression speed is thanks to the time I spent practicing roux and CFOP though, so my Petrus progression probably won't tell you anything particularly meaningful. I think I took a few breaks too which also complicates matters. No idea how fast I could get with practice.

My belief as to the reason why Petrus hasn't taken off is because it never got it's Alex Lau - someone who became world class with the method and actually broke UWRs with it. People like this are really one in a million because it takes such a large time investment, and I would say that it will be harder to find someone like this for Petrus, because there are more doubts that it could be better than or on par with CFOP.

I actually don't think lack of resources is the biggest problem. In my opinion, if you want to become the next Alex Lau you should not care about there not being resources. Resources for Roux and CFOP didn't come from nowhere, someone has to be the first. You should consider _all _of the currently available resources to be outdated and be prepared to become the innovator, the creator of resources yourself. Nobody becomes world class without a bit of creativity and imagination.

This was my approach to Petrus. I came up with most of what I know about Petrus by myself, because there weren't any resources out there that I considered to be of a good enough standard. I didn't stop getting faster because of the lack of resources, but rather because I stopped practicing.


----------



## jdh3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Who cares if it's popular? If it works for you, use it... I understand your frustration of not finding a lot of help on it, but working with it you may find some other ways that will help you speed up.

I use CFOP and I'm still finding ways to get faster that I didn't learn from anyone. Some moves may involve more turns than a more popular way of doing an alg, but I can actually excecute it faster, so I use it. We are all different, what works for me may not work for you.

If sub 20 is you goal, and that is possible with Petrus, keep going for it... don't let someone else tell you it's an inferior method. 

I don't compete with anyone but myself.


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 28, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Back in early 2000, where CFOP was in it’s early stages, and Roux and ZZ weren’t even invented yet.
> I think Petrus is fast enough to get sub 10 at least, so I’m going to continue using it (my target is sub 20). Can’t throw away months of practise


at least you try


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 28, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> at least you try





jdh3000 said:


> Who cares if it's popular? If it works for you, use it... I understand your frustration of not finding a lot of help on it, but working with it you may find some other ways that will help you speed up.
> 
> I use CFOP and I'm still finding ways to get faster that I didn't learn from anyone. Some moves may involve more turns than a more popular way of doing an alg, but I can actually excecute it faster, so I use it. We are all different, what works for me may not work for you.
> 
> ...





Tao Yu said:


> The dates on the videos on my youtube channel give a decent idea of my progression with the method. A lot of my progression speed is thanks to the time I spent practicing roux and CFOP though, so my Petrus progression probably won't tell you anything particularly meaningful. I think I took a few breaks too which also complicates matters. No idea how fast I could get with practice.
> 
> My belief as to the reason why Petrus hasn't taken off is because it never got it's Alex Lau - someone who became world class with the method and actually broke UWRs with it. People like this are really one in a million because it takes such a large time investment, and I would say that it will be harder to find someone like this for Petrus, because there are more doubts that it could be better than or on par with CFOP.
> 
> ...





ProStar said:


> @Tao Yu how much work have you put into Petrus to be sub-10(or close), and how fast do you think that you personally could get if you used it a bunch?





BenChristman1 said:


> (In this context, because I know somebody will ask,) fast meaning world-class, so sub-7-ish.





fuzzballcat said:


> Agreed. If more research was done into it we might find that it has lots of potential, but as of now there's just not enough resources out there.





ProStar said:


> #Bump





fuzzballcat said:


> I think for those willing to learn ZBLL the EO step is great... however, for the rest of us who don't want to go around learning hordes of algorithms EO is more of a time-waster than a timesaver.


You’ve all been having mini conversations while I was asleep lol.
@DerpBoiMoon yes I do 
@jdh3000 I know, it’s not so much as the lack
of resources, it’s the lack of cubers 
that use Petrus, and I can share 
times with, help each other out
with. Ah well . Btw my goal is
sub 8, already sub 20 now.
@Tao Yu yeah I agree, unlike say beginner’s
method where every step is clearly
outlined, Petrus has a lot of block
building in it, which makes it very
flexible. I only went to lar5.com 
for the steps, the rest I worked out
myself. I have yet to be innovative 
with Petrus though!
@fuzzballcat well, I’m willing to be that guy
who learns full ZBLL, although
I think the EO step can be 
beneficial without it... I guess
I guess I’ll just have to be that
person who becomes world
class and make videos to
increase Petrus’ popularity.


----------



## jdh3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Btw my goal is
> sub 8, already sub 20 now.


Ok, I must've read that on one of the replies.


----------



## brododragon (Jan 28, 2020)

Petrus with zz-blah


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Petrus with zz-blah


it seems ok but you almost never have a skip


----------



## ProStar (Jan 28, 2020)

Petrus with 2x2x2 then OPAPETI2! Orient and Permute all Pieces Except Those In 2x2x2!


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Jan 28, 2020)

I don’t think you guys realized but you bumped like a 4 month old thread lol


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Petrus with zz-blah


I’m not really sure about this... I guess I could influence the ZBLL during F2L, but probably better to straight up do normal super fast F2L then any ZBLL set.


----------



## brododragon (Jan 28, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I’m not really sure about this... I guess I could influence the ZBLL during F2L, but probably better to straight up do normal super fast F2L then any ZBLL set.


There are way less algs


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 28, 2020)

But is learning it worth it over ZBLL if I didn’t care about alg count?


----------



## brododragon (Jan 28, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> But is learning it worth it over ZBLL if I didn’t care about alg count?


I would learn zbll if I had that will power.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 28, 2020)

Maybe I should use Petrus-blah when I finish two sets of ZBLL, until I complete the whole set.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jan 28, 2020)

Personally, I find Pi and H to be the ZBLL sets with the hardest recognition and the worst algs. Forcing them every solve doesn't sound like a good time, but maybe you could make it work if you have better algs and a better recognition system than me.


----------



## brododragon (Jan 28, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> Personally, I find Pi and H to be the ZBLL sets with the hardest recognition and the worst algs. Forcing them every solve doesn't sound like a good time, but maybe you could make it work if you have better algs and a better recognition system than me.


I find the easiest way to learn recognition is just practice and let your subconscious do the work.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I find the easiest way to learn recognition is just practice and let your subconscious do the work.


lol you're telling Tao Yu to practice? xD


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 28, 2020)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> lol you're telling Tao Yu to practice? xD


Like he doesn't do that enough learning full ZB and having sub-10 singles with 10 different methods.


----------



## brododragon (Jan 28, 2020)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> lol you're telling Tao Yu to practice? xD





WarriorCatCuber said:


> Like he doesn't do that enough learning full ZB and having sub-10 singles with 10 different methods.


I'm just saying how I do it.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jan 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I'm just saying how I do it.


We were just joking.


----------



## brododragon (Jan 28, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> We were just joking.


I know. I was just clarifying.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jan 28, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I find the easiest way to learn recognition is just practice and let your subconscious do the work.



This is how I learned ZBLL recognition. I'm saying that in my experience, I found it easier to subconsciously learn patterns in the T, U, L, S and As sets than in the Pi and H sets.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Feb 12, 2020)

I use a variation of the Petrus corner method as 2-look CMLL in Roux (and any other time I need to solve corners). Permuting first enables 2-look CMLL with only 4 algorithms. Here's my prior post about it, with a flowchart:









The New Method / Substep / Concept Idea Thread


At this point, virtually every last slot+last layer method has been proposed and has either been turned into an alg set or deemed inviable. What you proposed is just using after the first 3 slots to force a Winter Variation case, which is slower than just inserting the slot and doing OLL...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## fuzzballcat (Feb 13, 2020)

Who else here uses Petrus on 2x2?


----------



## brododragon (Feb 13, 2020)

fuzzballcat said:


> Who else here uses Petrus on 2x2?


My 2x2 broke, so no...

But I wish I had one so I could do that intuitive 1-look.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 13, 2020)

I guess? I mean, it’s kinda hard to distinguish from other methods which do LBL, like ortega...


----------



## ProStar (Feb 13, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I guess? I mean, it’s kinda hard to distinguish from other methods which do LBL, like ortega...



I once made a joke about 3x3 methods on 2x2. Even if you do Roux or Petrus, it's still just 1st layer LL in some way lol


----------



## dudefaceguy (Feb 18, 2020)

Roux is actually very similar to Petrus, and I really see it as an improved version of Petrus. This is because the last layer in Petrus is the same as the last steps of Roux, but less convenient than Roux. In both methods, you solve the last layer’s corners first and then solve edges. But Roux gains an advantage by leaving 6 edges unsolved until the last step, rather than solving the DF and DB edges early (too early).

The Allan algorithm that the Petrus method uses to solve the last 4 edges is a conjugate of the same 4-move commutator that Roux uses to solve the last 4 edges. In Petrus, the DF and DB edges are already solved so we have to perform and undo setup moves. In Roux we avoid this by leaving the DF and DB edges unsolved.

So Roux and Petrus are really the same, except for the DF and DB edges. In Petrus you solve them early, which restricts your moves without any substantial benefit, and also requires you to break and restore them in the last step. So, just do Petrus but leave these 2 edges unsolved until the last step. This is Roux.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 18, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> rather than solving the DF and DB edges early (too early).


Well, Petrus-W is a compromise.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 18, 2020)

We... Don’t... Really use Allan now. (F2 U’ R’ L F2 R L’ U’ F2). Plus you can 1LLL the last layer.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Feb 18, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Well, Petrus-W is a compromise.





PetrusQuber said:


> We... Don’t... Really use Allan now. (F2 U’ R’ L F2 R L’ U’ F2). Plus you can 1LLL the last layer.


Both of these responses raise the question of how to define the Petrus method. How far can you deviate from the method as described on Lars Petrus's website before it's a new method? Lars Petrus himself on his website raises the possibility of one-look last layer (which I suppose would be ZBLL), so this seems like it's still Petrus. Petrus-W seems like a different method altogether though.

If you make a 2x2x3 block but leave out the EO step before completing the last layer, is it still Petrus?

I know this is a question of semantics and there is no right answer, but I’m interested in how PetrusQuber defines Petrus since this is their thread.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Both of these responses raise the question of how to define the Petrus method. How far can you deviate from the method as described on Lars Petrus's website before it's a new method? Lars Petrus himself on his website raises the possibility of one-look last layer (which I suppose would be ZBLL), so this seems like it's still Petrus. Petrus-W seems like a different method altogether though.
> 
> If you make a 2x2x3 block but leave out the EO step before completing the last layer, is it still Petrus?
> 
> I know this is a question of semantics and there is no right answer, but I’m interested in how PetrusQuber defines Petrus since this is their thread.


I really define it as doing 2x2, 2x3, F2L, and LL. Anything different (like no EO or petrus-w) is still a Petrus, but just a varaint.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 19, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Both of these responses raise the question of how to define the Petrus method. How far can you deviate from the method as described on Lars Petrus's website before it's a new method? Lars Petrus himself on his website raises the possibility of one-look last layer (which I suppose would be ZBLL), so this seems like it's still Petrus. Petrus-W seems like a different method altogether though.
> 
> If you make a 2x2x3 block but leave out the EO step before completing the last layer, is it still Petrus?
> 
> I know this is a question of semantics and there is no right answer, but I’m interested in how PetrusQuber defines Petrus since this is their thread.


It kinda becomes FreeFOP.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> It kinda becomes FreeFOP.


Then again, aren't Petrus and ZZ both already normally FreeFOP?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 19, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Then again, aren't Petrus and ZZ both already normally FreeFOP?


No, FreeFOP has no EO.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> No, FreeFOP has no EO.


Depends how you define FreFOP. I think "solving the First 2 Layers Any way" could be interpreted as EO being okay.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 19, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> We... Don’t... Really use Allan now. (F2 U’ R’ L F2 R L’ U’ F2). Plus you can 1LLL the last layer.


Write it as R2 U' S' U2 S U' R2 and it becomes a reasonably fast U perm alg. (My first (and thus far only) sub-8 single ended with that!)

Also, dudefaceguy's remark applies not just to Allan, but also the very popular MU U perm algs: M2 U M' U2 M U M2 and mirrors thereof.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 19, 2020)

Two times this thread has been brought back from the dead now, every time when I thought it was gone for good 
My definition of Petrus is 2x2x2, 2x2x3, EO, F2L, LL. But there can be extensions. Just like with CFOP, you have XCross, Psuedoslotting, WV, etc. I recognise 2x2x3 done in anyway to be pretty much Petrus, for example. If we want to be fast with Petrus, we have to not limit ourselves in blockbuilding. So we can’t limit ourselves in steps. Do 2x2x3 at once. EO during F2L. Influence EO while doing 2x2x3. I all consider these Petrus. I only consider methods completely different to be a variant, such as Petrus-W (ZZ EO, L5EP)


----------



## Petrus_EW (Apr 15, 2021)

PetrusQuber said:


> Two times this thread has been brought back from the dead now, every time when I thought it was gone for good
> My definition of Petrus is 2x2x2, 2x2x3, EO, F2L, LL. But there can be extensions. Just like with CFOP, you have XCross, Psuedoslotting, WV, etc. I recognise 2x2x3 done in anyway to be pretty much Petrus, for example. If we want to be fast with Petrus, we have to not limit ourselves in blockbuilding. So we can’t limit ourselves in steps. Do 2x2x3 at once. EO during F2L. Influence EO while doing 2x2x3. I all consider these Petrus. I only consider methods completely different to be a variant, such as Petrus-W (ZZ EO, L5EP)


Do you consider LEOR as a variant of Petrus? More precisely the variant LEOR-b?

*LEOR-b:*


Solve a 2x2x2 in DBL
Solve the FL pair
EODF (EOStripe but only with the DF edge)
Right block
ZBLL


----------



## PetrusQuber (Apr 15, 2021)

Petrus_EW said:


> Do you consider LEOR as a variant of Petrus? More precisely the variant LEOR-b?
> 
> *LEOR-b:*
> 
> ...


The main LEOR wouldn’t be a Petrus variant imo, but LEOR-b is close enough with the general idea of building a 2x2x2 then a pair and doing EO while finishing the 2x2x3, then finishing the right block.
It’s pretty much Petrus but with 2x2x3 and EO combined


----------



## Petrus_EW (Apr 15, 2021)

PetrusQuber said:


> The main LEOR wouldn’t be a Petrus variant imo, but LEOR-b is close enough with the general idea of building a 2x2x2 then a pair and doing EO while finishing the 2x2x3, then finishing the right block.
> It’s pretty much Petrus but with 2x2x3 and EO combined


I wanted to know your opinion, because you are the most frequent user of Petrus, along with @ObscureCuber , your opinion is the same as mine. I think LEOR-b is quite similar to Petrus.


----------



## PetraPine (Apr 15, 2021)

Petrus_EW said:


> I wanted to know your opinion, because you are the most frequent user of Petrus, along with @ObscureCuber , your opinion is the same as mine. I think LEOR-b is quite similar to Petrus.


ehm.. it gets rid of a big pro of petrus, which is algorithmic EO, AND gets rid of a big pro of leor (eo in inspection),. so im guessing its just worse than both? i'd say if I were to pick another simular variant instead it would be natulis(eo+zbll) variant as it still has algorithmic eo but has better ergo than petrus (while being a bit less efficient)


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 15, 2021)

LEOR-b is a pretty situational thing. It's definitely useful to have as a thing, but should be used like EOLine for ZZ or non-linear blocks for Roux.


----------



## Petrus_EW (Apr 15, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> ehm.. it gets rid of a big pro of petrus, which is algorithmic EO, AND gets rid of a big pro of leor (eo in inspection),. so im guessing its just worse than both? i'd say if I were to pick another simular variant instead it would be natulis(eo+zbll) variant as it still has algorithmic eo but has better ergo than petrus (while being a bit less efficient)


Thanks for your opinion, helps me a lot to understand some things. About the Nautilus method I know very little, I only know that you should build a 1x2x3 block on the left and a 2x2x2 block on the right, but I don't have much information on how to continue.


PapaSmurf said:


> LEOR-b is a pretty situational thing. It's definitely useful to have as a thing, but should be used like EOLine for ZZ or non-linear blocks for Roux.


LEOR is a new method for me, I learned it three days ago and will continue to practice with it, to have a better understanding of how it works. Your information is very useful to me, thank you.
Anyway, my main method will still be Petrus.
*Petrus is not dead. *


----------



## PetraPine (Apr 15, 2021)

Petrus_EW said:


> Thanks for your opinion, helps me a lot to understand some things. About the Nautilus method I know very little, I only know that you should build a 1x2x3 block on the left and a 2x2x2 block on the right, but I don't have much information on how to continue.
> 
> LEOR is a new method for me, I learned it three days ago and will continue to practice with it, to have a better understanding of how it works. Your information is very useful to me, thank you.
> Anyway, my main method will still be Petrus.
> *Petrus is not dead. *


great to have more petrus users (=
anyway, you should check out nautilus and I'd recommend you use nautilus-A(this is an unofficial name i've given it(the zbll variant)
than it is very much like an inbetween of leor-petrus
while starting with a (leor) like FB, you still have algorithmic eo like petrus.
there are multiple approaches to EO if you want to get into it I would recommend-
FB(1x2x3)((on left) SB(2x2x2)((on right))
EO(only 11 algs) found here-








Nautilus EO Algorithms


EODB (2) Average number of moves for EODB: 6.50 UF-UL/UB,UF-UB/UR,UF-UL/UR,UF-UL/FR,UF-UL/DF,UF-/ULDB M' U M' U2 M' U M',M' U' M' U2 M' U' M',(U') M U M' U' M U M',(U') M2 U M U R U r',(U) M U M U M' U M',(U2) M R U R' U M' UF-UB/FR,UF-UB/DF,UF-UB/DB,UF-UR/FR,UF-UR/DF,UF-UR-DB (U) M2 U' M U' R U r'




docs.google.com




last square(you can start off by doing this by inserting edge, and doing f2l pair(or the opposite) but later can learn some of these f2l algs:








LXS (dFr)


UFR Average number of moves for the complete set: 8.27 r U2 r' U' R U R',(U) F R' F' r U R U r',(U2) R U R' U' R U' R' U' r U2 r',(U2) R U R' U R U M' U2 r',(U2) r U2 M U' R' U R U' R',(U) r U2 r' U2' r U2 r' (U) R U2 R' U2' r U2 r',r U2 r' U' R U' M' U2 r',R U' M' U2 M U R' U' R U R',(U2) R U R...




docs.google.com




*(I'd recommend the ones with 1x1x2 solved first)* but you can be sub-13 without any of these algs
than last layer which can be done however (usually ocll,pll or ZBLL)


----------



## Petrus_EW (Apr 16, 2021)

ObscureCuber said:


> great to have more petrus users (=
> anyway, you should check out nautilus and I'd recommend you use nautilus-A(this is an unofficial name i've given it(the zbll variant)
> than it is very much like an inbetween of leor-petrus
> while starting with a (leor) like FB, you still have algorithmic eo like petrus.
> ...


Oh how much information !!! Thank you. It will be very useful to learn the Nautilus Method, I was really lost, I did not know how to continue, but this helps me a lot


----------



## carcass (Apr 16, 2021)

I think the reason for the decline of petrus can be attributed to a few things: CFOP was online earlier, so all our cubing ancestors used CFOP and they taught the next dynasty. Also, ZZ is similar to CFOP so it has an easier transition. Roux has the advertising point of few algs, for people fed up with CFOP, and there are very fast Roux users. 
2 things: publicity and an advertising point.
Petrus has few moves, but Roux tends to be easier to get few moves on. Petrus has few algs, but it can't live up to learning 493 ZBLLs. Lars Petrus stopped seriously cubing when cubing became a thing again, and as the only fast user at the time, it couldn't be spread. As a result, people have to rely on first finding the method at all, second finding it before they get too comfortable with another method, and they have to see if it gives them a real benefit at all, and beginners tend to be impatient on that front. The lack of world class petrus users may be the main cause of its lack of popularity. When I was a new cuber, I remember searching things like "what cube does feliks use" because I wanted to mimic the best. 
Hopefully there is a world class user of petrus. That would make the cubing community more open to other ideas and new ways to solve the cube.


----------



## Petrus_EW (Apr 16, 2021)

​


carcass said:


> I think the reason for the decline of petrus can be attributed to a few things: CFOP was online earlier, so all our cubing ancestors used CFOP and they taught the next dynasty. Also, ZZ is similar to CFOP so it has an easier transition. Roux has the advertising point of few algs, for people fed up with CFOP, and there are very fast Roux users.​2 things: publicity and an advertising point.​Petrus has few moves, but Roux tends to be easier to get few moves on. Petrus has few algs, but it can't live up to learning 493 ZBLLs. Lars Petrus stopped seriously cubing when cubing became a thing again, and as the only fast user at the time, it couldn't be spread. As a result, people have to rely on first finding the method at all, second finding it before they get too comfortable with another method, and they have to see if it gives them a real benefit at all, and beginners tend to be impatient on that front. The lack of world class petrus users may be the main cause of its lack of popularity. When I was a new cuber, I remember searching things like "what cube does feliks use" because I wanted to mimic the best.​Hopefully there is a world class user of petrus. That would make the cubing community more open to other ideas and new ways to solve the cube.​​


​I think the vast majority, if not all, are looking for the "faster" method, so they are looking for which method is used by Max Park, Feliks Zemdegs, Leo Borromeo, Tymon and others. They discover that everyone uses CFOP and they decide to learn that method, because they want to be faster. That has led to very few people choosing to use other types of methods, even Roux, which is a method that in my opinion is at the level of CFOP or maybe more, has few users compared to CFOP users.​Petrus is not exempt from this.​In my case, however, I was looking for more efficient methods, there was a time when I was learning CFOP, I managed to learn full PLL and about half of OLL cases but it did not convince me, I did not feel comfortable and I started to learn new methods, Corners First, Columns first, Waterman, Petrus, Roux and more. Many of them seemed interesting to me, but with Petrus I found that you need to have ingenuity to build blocks, you need to acquire a spatial vision of the cube, the same happens with methods like Roux or Heise. That is why many do not choose both Roux and Petrus, they prefer to use CFOP, which is a pure and practically mechanical method of memorization, rather than intuitive assembly. The blocks in Petrus and Roux must be assembled intuitively, develop spatial vision, and be creative.​In addition, other factors must be taken into account, methods such as Petrus, Roux, ZZ or Heise require less movements, in the case of some of them less memorization, and are more efficient in FMC, this is also something that interests me a lot, not just speed resolution.​


----------



## brododragon (May 7, 2021)

wow a lot of words goin on here, i shall embark on an epic quest to read them all

UPDATE: reading is hard


----------



## PetraPine (May 7, 2021)

Petrus_EW said:


> I think the vast majority, if not all, are looking for the "faster" method, so they are looking for which method is used by Max Park, Feliks Zemdegs, Leo Borromeo, Tymon and others. They discover that everyone uses CFOP and they decide to learn that method, because they want to be faster. That has led to very few people choosing to use other types of methods, even Roux, which is a method that in my opinion is at the level of CFOP or maybe more, has few users compared to CFOP users.​Petrus is not exempt from this.​In my case, however, I was looking for more efficient methods, there was a time when I was learning CFOP, I managed to learn full PLL and about half of OLL cases but it did not convince me, I did not feel comfortable and I started to learn new methods, Corners First, Columns first, Waterman, Petrus, Roux and more. Many of them seemed interesting to me, but with Petrus I found that you need to have ingenuity to build blocks, you need to acquire a spatial vision of the cube, the same happens with methods like Roux or Heise. That is why many do not choose both Roux and Petrus, they prefer to use CFOP, which is a pure and practically mechanical method of memorization, rather than intuitive assembly. The blocks in Petrus and Roux must be assembled intuitively, develop spatial vision, and be creative.​In addition, other factors must be taken into account, methods such as Petrus, Roux, ZZ or Heise require less movements, in the case of some of them less memorization, and are more efficient in FMC, this is also something that interests me a lot, not just speed resolution.​




I've always thought this way about blockbuilding, its just hard to explain to anyone that doesn't cube or even that does but uses a non-blockbuilding method.
you learn to understand the cube beyond most people do, atleast in this aspect and it really feels like you have gained a skill through pure intuition and effort.
understanding roux and petrus blockbuilding and being effective at both imo means you can basically be good with any type of blockbuilding, this makes using any method alot easier to get used to as you can take block concepts and apply> it to this other method.
there is an (p)infinite amount of blockbuilding cases possible but they can all be simplified into another for finding an efficient solution.
I guess "spatial awareness" of the cube is always how i've put it


----------



## Petrus_EW (May 8, 2021)

​


ObscureCuber said:


> I've always thought this way about blockbuilding, its just hard to explain to anyone that doesn't cube or even that does but uses a non-blockbuilding method.​you learn to understand the cube beyond most people do, atleast in this aspect and it really feels like you have gained a skill through pure intuition and effort.​understanding roux and petrus blockbuilding and being effective at both imo means you can basically be good with any type of blockbuilding, this makes using any method alot easier to get used to as you can take block concepts and apply> it to this other method.​there is an (p)infinite amount of blockbuilding cases possible but they can all be simplified into another for finding an efficient solution.​I guess "spatial awareness" of the cube is always how i've put it​​


​I totally agree with you, only people who get used to or prefer to use block building methods are the ones who can really understand the knowledge that is achieved in the Rubik's cube with these methods. This is why I really appreciate block building methods like Petrus, Roux, or Heise. You can really learn a lot about how the cube works, you can achieve a broader understanding and knowledge of the Rubik's cube. And all this happens because you are doing it intuitively, you are looking for the most efficient way to put it together, and that requires ingenuity and creativity.​It is for the same reason that these methods are very important in FMC, where a high knowledge of the rubik's cube is required to carry out your solutions in the least number of movements.​If any of the members of this community ask me if Petrus is dead, my answer is a resounding no.​It is one of the best methods that could have been created and is also part of the history of Speedolving. Petrus deserves as much recognition as most methods.​


----------



## minxer293 (May 8, 2021)

Petrus is a cool method, but it had a lot of problems.

The entire point of speedcubing is to solve the cube fast. Due to how advanced and ergonomically friendly algorithms have gotten, it is ultimately faster to use algorithms as they require less time to think. 

Petrus, Roux, etc, are methods that use fewer algorithms and therefore use more thinking, which isn't optimal in the grand scheme of things.

Also, Petrus has an extremely low move count compared to other methods, and during the early days of cubing where hardware was garbage, using fewer moves was better.

Basically, Petrus was phased out due to better hardware and a greater need for speed.


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 8, 2021)

minxer293 said:


> Petrus is a cool method, but it had a lot of problems.
> 
> The entire point of speedcubing is to solve the cube fast. Due to how advanced and ergonomically friendly algorithms have gotten, it is ultimately faster to use algorithms as they require less time to think.
> 
> ...


I would argue that the definition of an algorithm is that of a sequence of memorised moves you can use to solve an area of the cube. And it’s generally the case that the more algorithms you learn, the faster you can proceed (such as full OLL and PLL). Even during F2L you’re not ‘learning’ algorithms, but you are still practising common moves that come up during F2L. Ideally as you go into F2L, you’d have a perfect idea of how to solve all 4 pairs and execute one long move sequence without pause to do so. But thats not something we learn as an algorithm, for the simple reason that there are too many of them and too many moves to reasonably memorise properly. Thats why things like 1LLL without EO are supposedly faster but doubted due to the lengthy identification process and execution (and learning 1.5k algs). The best way to solve the cube would be to memorise the countless numbers of solutions to every state in existence, but of course thats unfeasible. So we break down the cube into smaller sections, and use algorithms for even smaller sections within those.
These algorithms, while easy to learn and execute, restrict us, same with method steps. We don’t have total freedom over what we can do more efficiently, and actually, this is why X-Cross is becoming popular. Although it requires more thinking and planning to do, you’re more free to move and come up with better solutions instead of just constraining yourself to the same steps every solve.

Thats why ultimately, I believe at a high level, Petrus could become a feasible method for speedsolving. Blockbuilding has a lot of possibilities, but not nearly so many as we’d like to think, and certainly you can learn hundreds of triggers and subsolutions to steps, even doing so subconsciously. The main argument for Petrus is that while it’s more efficient, the thinking time to execute blockbuilding right now loses more time than the efficiency saves. Solution: we fit blockbuilding more into algs.

I haven’t written a long post in a while, probably tripped up several times there


----------



## Athefre (May 8, 2021)

PetrusQuber said:


> Thats why ultimately, I believe at a high level, Petrus could become a feasible method for speedsolving. Blockbuilding has a lot of possibilities, but not nearly so many as we’d like to think, and certainly you can learn hundreds of triggers and subsolutions to steps, even doing so subconsciously. The main argument for Petrus is that while it’s more efficient, the thinking time to execute blockbuilding right now loses more time than the efficiency saves. Solution: we fit blockbuilding more into algs.



I've been developing this solution for around a week. It takes care of one of the big weaknesses of Petrus. I also plan to accompany it with an additional improvement plan. The document should be ready to show soon.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 8, 2021)

Athefre said:


> I've been developing this solution for around a week. It takes care of one of the big weaknesses of Petrus. I also plan to accompany it with an additional improvement plan. The document should be ready to show soon.


Can't wait!


----------



## PetraPine (May 9, 2021)

minxer293 said:


> Petrus is a cool method, but it had a lot of problems.
> 
> The entire point of speedcubing is to solve the cube fast. Due to how advanced and ergonomically friendly algorithms have gotten, it is ultimately faster to use algorithms as they require less time to think.
> 
> ...


petrus doesn't have "extremely" low movecount its only like around 44~
the hardware argument isn't even an argument against the method lol, just saying it used to be more popular (which is a straight lie because it was most popular with like ~500 users in the mid 2000s long past the hardware would give any advantage to petrus)
the first thing you said is true, but like wrong? everything past inspection (223) in petrus can be done "algorithmically" like f2l, so there is not more thinking required


----------



## xyzzy (May 10, 2021)

minxer293 said:


> Also, Petrus has an extremely low move count compared to other methods, and during the early days of cubing where hardware was garbage, using fewer moves was better.


Using fewer moves *is still better now*. It didn't stop being better just because you could turn the cubes faster.


----------



## minxer293 (May 13, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> Using fewer moves *is still better now*. It didn't stop being better just because you could turn the cubes faster.


But as hardware became less garbage, ergonomically friendly movesets needed to be implemented more.


----------



## xyzzy (May 14, 2021)

minxer293 said:


> But as hardware became less garbage, ergonomically friendly movesets needed to be implemented more.


Your wording frames "ergonomically friendly" as some kind of objective or universal ideal, when it seems that it's more of something you have to adapt for the specific cube and cuber combination.

Regrips and rotations (mostly) don't rely on any properties of the hardware (size is the main factor, but aside from novelty items every cube has about the same size), so as turning got better, the relative cost of regrips and rotations went up. IOW, trading off regrips for more moves started to make sense… right? But there are two things you're missing from this equation.

Firstly, Petrus never had that many rotations or regrips in the first place. With good blockbuilding, the 222 is roughly comparable to cross, extending to 223 takes maybe one regrip, doing EO might take one rotation, and finishing F2L might take one regrip. This is all comparable to CFOP's 0.5 rotations per pair, and CFOP even has LU-RU grip shifts that Petrus doesn't.

Secondly, as cubes got _even better_, it turns out that move sets that were originally considered "bad" were in fact… not all that bad actually! See for example the recent resurgence of S-move algs.

My understanding is that people didn't want to use Petrus for the same reason they didn't want to use Roux: learning good blockbuilding is difficult and essentially a never-ending journey. Roux eventually won out as _the_ blockbuilding method to use, especially since it has competitive performance without needing to learn hundreds of long algs, but in a parallel universe it wouldn't've been strange to see Petrus win out instead.


----------



## PetraPine (May 14, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> Your wording frames "ergonomically friendly" as some kind of objective or universal ideal, when it seems that it's more of something you have to adapt for the specific cube and cuber combination.
> 
> Regrips and rotations (mostly) don't rely on any properties of the hardware (size is the main factor, but aside from novelty items every cube has about the same size), so as turning got better, the relative cost of regrips and rotations went up. IOW, trading off regrips for more moves started to make sense… right? But there are two things you're missing from this equation.
> 
> ...


I think the main reason roux won is because 
A.The blockbuilding is easier, mainly due to FB being shorted and relying on more basic 2d blocks
B.Roux is much more algorithmic, during sb+ which cfopers see and recognize as a good thing.
C.Roux was a method invented on forums much later than petrus, leading to it having a more consistent interest as it was new.


----------



## Cubing Forever (May 29, 2021)

Tao Yu got a sub 9 ao12.




Read the description lol


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 29, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Tao Yu got a sub 9 ao12.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting!


----------

