# To switch or not to switch...



## cubetimer (Jan 31, 2008)

I originally learned to solve using Petrus, then started learning Friedrich awhile back, then switched back to what I knew best. Currently I average around 35 -37 seconds on Petrus and 40 - 42 seconds with Friedrich. I'm really torn on whether I should keep with Petrus or jump on the Friedrich bandwagon...

I only use Petrus for F2L, then I use 1 move to orient corners only (since Petrus ensures the 4 edges are already upright) and 1 then 1 PLL move.

But considering I've not been doing Friedrich for very long and am already almost as fast, part of me thinks I may have better luck there.

Opinions?


----------



## skinnyandweak (Feb 1, 2008)

well of course it's up to you. fridich is easier to understand, but there's more to learn, while petrus requires some thinking, and not as much to learn. both are balanced out i guess, so it all depends on what you want to do.

i would say fridich since it's awesome =D


----------



## cubetimer (Feb 1, 2008)

I have to admit that I like Fridrich F2L more. It's fun pairing up the corners/edges... I'm just not very fast at it, I guess. Practice makes perfect


----------



## Inusagi (Feb 1, 2008)

I would say fridriech. It's much to learn, but it's worth it. Many experts is using this method.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 1, 2008)

I'd recommend Petrus, of course, but if you can't decide then you could just keep practising both.

Btw, it's not "fridich" or "fridriech". It's Fridrich.


----------



## cubetimer (Feb 1, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> Btw, it's not "fridich" or "fridriech". It's Fridrich.



D'oh!! Sorry, I realized I was wrong after my first post, tried fixing it on the second but somehow my fingers were convinced I still needed an 'e' 

One benefit I see to Fridrich (I got it right!) is that there are still a lot more moves I can learn to get quicker. It's kind of brute force, but it works. I could, on the other hand, learn all the combinations for the last steps in Petrus and perhaps get a similar result.

I guess there is no 'definite' answer on this one, it's preference. Still, I appreciate everyone's input


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 1, 2008)

Fridrich is usaly faster, that because the brute force used in the method almost newer put you in the situation where you have to think of what to do next, just reconise and execute. Petrus is much more complicated to do "perfect" because of the lack of brute force in some situations, you have to make decissions.

But if you can do near perfect solves using Petrus (like Johannes =), then it's faster because of lesser turns.

Practising Petrus a lot will in time put you in a state where you know all situations where you earlier had to think and make decissions, you start to recognise and exevute without thinking about it.

But most people newer get's that far, they start with Petrus because it is easier to pick up. But after some time they try out Fridrich and finds it is much easier to get fast using that than with Petrus because of the brute force and then switch...


----------



## Dirk BerGuRK (Feb 2, 2008)

Hey cubetimer,

I believe one can get just as fast with either method. I recommend Petrus. It looks cooler.


----------



## mizzle (Feb 2, 2008)

If you want cooler looking, use Roux. Combines the best of both Fridrich and block/corners first methods AND looks spiffy toward the end.

Also, Fridrich clones are boring.


----------



## ezh (Feb 5, 2008)

I started with Petrus with OLL and PLL, and averaged around 40-45. I started Fridrich about two weeks ago, and I average around 30 now.

I think if you've been doing Petrus for long enough, F2L on the left feels really intuitive. Just my thoughts.

By the way, nice timer.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 5, 2008)

Inusagi said:


> I would say fridriech. It's much to learn, but it's worth it.



lol

I'm sure you can instantly figure out good F2Ls with Petrus, while Fridrich must take months of training to figure out how to pair pieces together.

I personally find Petrus to be a lot more fun than Fridrich. I regret switching to Fridrich, to be honest.



> But if you can do near perfect solves using Petrus (like Johannes =), then it's faster because of lesser turns.



I think he'd disagree.

I currently average 13-14 on Fridrich and 16-17 on Petrus. I claim that it's my lack of lookahead on Petrus.


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 5, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> > But if you can do near perfect solves using Petrus (like Johannes =), then it's faster because of lesser turns.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he'd disagree.



Depends on wich part you mean, I know he claims the statement about the turns himself so it must be the one about his skills


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 6, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> Swordsman Kirby said:
> 
> 
> > > But if you can do near perfect solves using Petrus (like Johannes =), then it's faster because of lesser turns.
> ...



Yep, considering how much trouble I have solving just individual steps optimally, I'm *far* from perfect.


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 6, 2008)

But there are not many Petrus solvers that does it better than you, at least that is true =)


----------



## cubetimer (Feb 6, 2008)

ezh, glad you like my rubik's timer 

How much time do you guys spend practicing? I hear people like ezh say they went from 45 to 30 seconds in a couple weeks and it makes me think either I just have as much natural skill as some people, or I'm just not spending enough time doing it.

I have a wife, 3 kids with a 4th on the way, I own a business, and I'm the worship leader at my church, so I doubt I practice as much as some younger guys (I'm 28 this month), but I don't have a day go by without cubing a bunch. Drives my wife nuts. I've ALWAYS got it with me. I solve it when I'm driving, even. Probably not smart...

If it's an issue of time, I don't really have more to give to it. If it's natural ability, probably not much I can do. I keep saying I just want to consistently get sub 30, but we all know that once I get there I still won't be happy until I'm faster


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 6, 2008)

cubetimer said:


> ezh, glad you like my rubik's timer
> 
> How much time do you guys spend practicing? I hear people like ezh say they went from 45 to 30 seconds in a couple weeks and it makes me think either I just have as much natural skill as some people, or I'm just not spending enough time doing it.
> 
> ...



Nah, it's not like you spend more time practicing per day to get faster. I probably spend less time now than I used to.


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Feb 8, 2008)

cubetimer said:


> ...I'm the worship leader at my church...



Wow, I'm glad to see I'm not the only religious cuber around here...

As for the topic of this thread: I got to sub 20 Fridrich, and then got bored with cubing. Every solve was pretty much the same, just using brute force to get through it, and hoping I could get it consistently.

I was always trying to think of ways to make my own unique clone of Fridrich, and I was experimenting with a way of flipping bad edges while doing the last 2 F2L slots. I think it was Erik J at that point that said, "Why don't you just use Petrus?"

I switched, and I have never looked back. Petrus takes much longer to get used to, but I have found some neat tricks. My PB average is 18.99, nowhere near fast by some standards, but I still have a lot of room to improve with my block building and look ahead.

As far as Petrus being more efficient: I don't really think it's that much better. I average around 60 or so moves with Fridrich, and I average around 55 with Petrus. I have room to improve, but I don't think it's really THAT much more efficient...

Either way, Petrus feels much more rewarding. I highly recommend it.


----------



## Dene (Feb 8, 2008)

Speedy McFastfast said:


> cubetimer said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'm the worship leader at my church...
> ...



Actually I think you'll find there a quite a few...


----------



## Lofty (Feb 8, 2008)

Dene said:


> Speedy McFastfast said:
> 
> 
> > cubetimer said:
> ...



Yes there were more than I expected as well.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 8, 2008)

Speedy McFastfast said:


> Petrus takes much longer to get used to


I don't think you can really compare them, unless you've practised both equally much since you started cubing. How did the quote go... "Learning Lisp takes 1 day, except for those who already know Fortran. They'll need 2 days."



Speedy McFastfast said:


> I average around 60 or so moves with Fridrich, and I average around 55 with Petrus. I have room to improve, but I don't think it's really THAT much more efficient...


You sure do. About 45 is possible doing just one step at a time. I'd like to know how many moves the best Fridrich cubers average for F2L.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 8, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> Speedy McFastfast said:
> 
> 
> > Petrus takes much longer to get used to
> ...



Probably low 30's. I think Petrus + optimal ZBLL can do sub-40 total. Imagine, way into the future, when people can do optimal 2x2x3 starts... And when people can do optimal 2x2x3+fix bad edges...

And when people can do optimal solves period!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 8, 2008)

We already have a pretty good answer to the question of how many moves the best Fridrich cubers average for F2L - in this thread:
http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?t=2504

It was just 3 solves, but a pretty large sample of top cubers. Average was 33.83, according to Kenneth.


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 8, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> "Learning Lisp takes 1 day, except for those who already know Fortran. They'll need 2 days."





But seriusly, the more cube methods you know the easier it is to learn more of them. You can reuse algs or even steps, I know this for sure because I know how to solve CF (at least four methods), Petrus (OLL + PLL or COLL if so) exept bad edges that I have not practise, (intuition works fine but maybe not optimal). Full Roux, Any LBL using OLL, PLL, CLL, COLL, ELL as steps (add to that a great number of CLL + EOLL and ZB's). For edges first, my record is sub 25 

Keyhole F2L, Fridrich F2L, VHF2L (some ZB), Heise F2L + around 5 methods to solve F2L that I created myself.

Show me a method that I don't know that uses around 20-40 algs and I can promise a sub 60 solve in 3-5 tries.

And I'm not bragging, it is ment to be an inspiration to others, it is not that hard to learn more methods once you started.


----------



## mizzle (Feb 8, 2008)

Kenneth's right. The more you know, the faster you learn new things, and the easier it is to recycle the old.

It's really hard to pin down my method these days, because it switches multiple times a solve. I'll start out with some variation of orient edges first, Petrus block/Xcross, Roux blocks, or standard cross, put in pairs, screw with the centers, orient edges, orient corners early, and swap between CLL+ELL, OLL+PLL, COLL+EPLL, and various chunks of each of those.

I don't think I've had an average with a single method solid through in over a year. And to be honest, I think that's a lot more fun than getting to be sub15 with straight Fridrich.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 9, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> We already have a pretty good answer to the question of how many moves the best Fridrich cubers average for F2L - in this thread:
> http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?t=2504
> 
> It was just 3 solves, but a pretty large sample of top cubers. Average was 33.83, according to Kenneth.


But if you take only Harris' solves, for example, the average is 29.



Kenneth said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > "Learning Lisp takes 1 day, except for those who already know Fortran. They'll need 2 days."
> ...


I agree in general, but if you know one method and want to learn a very different one, you might have to unlearn many things and get rid of some habits. It might've been easier without knowing the first method at all. For example, when giving tips to a few Fridrich cubers who are learning Petrus, I've noticed that they keep talking about "cross edges" and F2L ce-pairs. Not to mention color neutrality...


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Feb 11, 2008)

I double Johannes on that (too lazy to quote today!) because when I switched over to Fridrich, I realized that I could only see ways to block together things in "Fridrich style" C/E pairs. I am just now at sub 20 starting to see how to put together corners and edges that would belong to the U or D layer in Fridrich.

Johannes, you say 45 is possible? But is that during a full speed solve? Slow Petrus solves are insanely good in few moves, but I don't think that it's possible to be nearly that optimal at full speed. How many moves do you average on speedsolves on Gabbasoft? That's where I'm getting that 55 from. That's also using OLL/PLL, no nifty tricks 

And while we're on the topic of few moves, how many moves does your F2L take, Johannes? I only worry about getting the F2L in few moves (I am for about 30) because the LL is all speed for me.

(Time for on topic!) For those who want to switch to Petrus, this is the kind of technical stuff you get to play with! Isn't it fun!


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 11, 2008)

Speedy McFastfast said:


> Johannes, you say 45 is possible? But is that during a full speed solve?


My average is around there, I think. Or at least I can average sub-20 and ~45 moves, in competitions where only speed matters I probably use a bit more.



Speedy McFastfast said:


> How many moves do you average on speedsolves on Gabbasoft? That's where I'm getting that 55 from.


I haven't used Gabbasoft in a long time, so don't know.



Speedy McFastfast said:


> And while we're on the topic of few moves, how many moves does your F2L take, Johannes?


The F2L/LL distinction isn't that clear to me, because I try to get a 1-look LL whenever I can. I did 5 speedsolves and got, in FTM: 32 25 22 32 25. So about 25-30 on average.


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Feb 12, 2008)

Ha, I guess it is a bit harder for you to get just the F2L because you know all of those LL tricks. I only use OLL and PLL, so I focus mainly on getting my F2L in the fewest moves I possibly can. Either way, I've got a lot of room to improve.


----------

