# Is Petrus a dead method? Does the community still think it can be "fast"?



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

The title is pretty descriptive. I've noticed since my long break from cubing that interest in the Petrus method has really dwindled. Back maybe a year or two when I was really trying to get fast, before Roux really caught on in popularity, there were lots of people interested in Petrus. I was constantly asked questions, and so was ErikJ. It was commonplace for newbies to say something like "Petrus is slow". And when anybody said that, they were just overwhelmingly smashed into the ground by people saying the opposite. I don't really see any of that today. I see a TON of Roux solvers nowadays, and a lot of them are realllly fast. But I'm not really seeing any new, fast Petrus solvers. 

I think that Petrus just isn't as fast as Roux or Fridrich anymore. *Let's try not to argue semantics or technicalities here either. *We do that wayyyyy too much on the forum. I'm not attacking anything, or anyone. Now, when I say it's not as fast, I mean that if you were to put an equal time into practicing Petrus, Roux, and Fridrich, that you would have the highest times using Petrus. I'm really curious to see what the community thinks nowadays. Is Petrus still a viable method? As fast as Fridrich/Roux?

Edit: I know I left the poll answers pretty cut and dry with the yes/no, but I wasn't sure what to put otherwise. I just wanted a general idea.


----------



## emolover (Feb 11, 2012)

I think it could be a fast method. But I think the orientation of the F2L edges for the last part is stupid. One cube rotation wont hurt. 

Honestly though, I think Petrus and CFOP have converged because of X-cross.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

I've tried X cross before it's really fun. The idea behind good edges is a good one though...at least in theory? Every step counts towards solving the cube. 2x2 reduces to 3 sides, 2x2x3 to 2. Step 4 is pew pew pew. Then only having to learn 7 OLLs is awesome possum. Could EO/ bad edges be over restrictive? F2L pairs are like the epitome of freedom....


----------



## insane569 (Feb 11, 2012)

I use a modified Petrus for OH and i think it can be fast if used in full and practiced as much as any other method.


----------



## emolover (Feb 11, 2012)

Yea, the 7 OLL's are nice. I have been learning COLL lately and I cant wait until I am finished so I only have to use 4 PLL's.

Petrus uses EPLL not ELL right?


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

When you say modified Petrus do you mean you skip bad edges and do F2L pairs? That used to be reallly frowned upon.

Edit ya Petrus uses COLL EPLL


----------



## insane569 (Feb 11, 2012)

I do the 2x2x3 block using whatever and then EO followed by R U ing for last 2 F2L pairs with 2 look OLL and full PLL. I need to advance more and use the full method. This is for OH so I can RU really quickly.


----------



## Specs112 (Feb 11, 2012)

Petrus is a perfectly serviceable method on the same tier as CFOP and Roux.

What does seem different to me is that unlike the deluge of "lol fried rice is best" people and the few vocal Roux elitists, there really aren't Petrus users who go out of their way to sell their method at all. Which in part explains the whole popularity thing.


----------



## emolover (Feb 11, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> That used to be reallly frowned upon.


 
Why? If you use it as a combination method I think it should be fine.


----------



## Escher (Feb 11, 2012)

Petrus is just too 'big' for speed imo - the lack of restrictions (in terms of initial blockbuilding) make it efficient but also difficult to make a framework out of. There are just too many situations to take into account in the early stages/middle of a solve - when you want things to be simple but flexible.
Petrus/CFOP haven't converged imo - CFOP is just badly named these days 

I think another point is the restriction to 2-gen for blockbuilding while finishing f2l is bad - 2gen just isn't fashionable these days, as people have discovered why it isn't as OP as they thought it was 

If the last year is anything to go by, hopefully we should be seeing a bunch more people using Roux. It needs a bunch of development, in bad and good directions (like CFOP has experienced), but I think one day it could feasibly be the most-used method.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 11, 2012)

I think Petrus definitely has some serious potential, but not quite as much as Roux and Fridrich do. That's not to say you can't get fast with Petrus, though; if someone with very good tps posted a sub-10 Petrus average I'd probably believe it, but I really doubt you could get near the best Fridrich times that have been achieved. As Escher says, 2gen isn't as overpowered as people thought - it's true that you can get very high turnspeed with it, but you can also get high turnspeed with other substeps, and 2gen F2L slots often use significantly more moves. And, if you ask me, having oriented edges for the LL doesn't save time if you're still doing it in two steps - especially considering the extra moves/time you need to set the oriented edges up.


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 11, 2012)

I stumbled across Petrus right after I learned Ortega as my first speedsolving method. I loved learning from Lars's site. I got down to about 40 seconds and then stopped for a few months. I picked the cube back up in December, and since then I have moved from 40 seconds to 25. I am still steadily improving with Petrus, and I don't plan on switching any time soon. I feel like for me when I drop time, it's because I have gotten better at combing two steps into one. For example, my times dropped considerably when I started finding and fixing bad edges while making the 2x2x3, and again when I started planning step 4 during EO. I think that if someone were able to blend together the steps extremely well, sub 10 averages would be possible. Perhaps I'm being a little too optimistic since I've been improving so fast recently, but I don't think the Petrus method will move anywhere without optimism. I think that the method could seriously benefit if more people started using it. I'm positive that there are many improvements to be made, such as forcing EO skips every time and possibly a missing link solution during EO. It just frustrates me that Petrus discussion and ideas end up getting so stifled in general, since I see a world of possibilities for the method. 

Anyway, Josh, I think that you should not lose faith in the method at all, but challenge yourself to break this horrible plateau you've hit. I'm rooting for you.


----------



## insane569 (Feb 11, 2012)

Would it be possible to orientate edges before anything else like say ZZ.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> I stumbled across Petrus right after I learned Ortega as my first speedsolving method. I loved learning from Lars's site. I got down to about 40 seconds and then stopped for a few months. I picked the cube back up in December, and since then I have moved from 40 seconds to 25. I am still steadily improving with Petrus, and I don't plan on switching any time soon. I feel like for me when I drop time, it's because I have gotten better at combing two steps into one. For example, my times dropped considerably when I started finding and fixing bad edges while making the 2x2x3, and again when I started planning step 4 during EO. I think that if someone were able to blend together the steps extremely well, sub 10 averages would be possible. Perhaps I'm being a little too optimistic since I've been improving so fast recently, but I don't think the Petrus method will move anywhere without optimism. I think that the method could seriously benefit if more people started using it. I'm positive that there are many improvements to be made, such as forcing EO skips every time and possibly a missing link solution during EO. It just frustrates me that Petrus discussion and ideas end up getting so stifled in general, since I see a world of possibilities for the method.
> 
> Anyway, Josh, I think that you should not lose faith in the method at all, but challenge yourself to break this horrible plateau you've hit. I'm rooting for you.



You give me hope! Maybe there is something that could be improved in the method...but I've never been much of a pioneer myself. When people really get into the cube theory/algorithm generation jargon I just get completely lost. I can hardly grasp FMC and commutators, so I really don't think I would be able to do much as far as finding this "missing link". I'm not even really sure what it would entail. I know I've heard the term in reference to ZZ before, but that's about it. 

Would someone be willing to try and come up with some ideas? I'm really not a major intellect when it comes to stuff like this. I've contributed hardly at all to the method. I've just put in a lot of time and effort into turning blockbuilding into a series of "cases" in my mind. Like Escher was saying there's just so many possibilities. I'm somewhat fast because I just don't use them.


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 11, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> You give me hope! Maybe there is something that could be improved in the method...but I've never been much of a pioneer myself. When people really get into the cube theory/algorithm generation jargon I just get completely lost. I can hardly grasp FMC and commutators, so I really don't think I would be able to do much as far as finding this "missing link". I'm not even really sure what it would entail. I know I've heard the term in reference to ZZ before, but that's about it.
> 
> Would someone be willing to try and come up with some ideas? I'm really not a major intellect when it comes to stuff like this. I've contributed hardly at all to the method. I've just put in a lot of time and effort into turning blockbuilding into a series of "cases" in my mind. Like Escher was saying there's just so many possibilities. I'm somewhat fast because I just don't use them.


 
I think we are opposites, because i spend a lot of time thinking about the method and how it works, and not enough time practicing my cases and such. I came up with a missing link solution in January where corners are permuted during EO. It was very inefficient, and a better solution than mine that accomplished the same thing was discussed in an old thread. I don't think either of these could beat CPLS, but if someone found a good way to permute the corners during EO, the LL would be down to 2GLL, and this would make the EO step useful, which was one of qqwref's problems. This is why I answered yes to your poll, because I feel that petrus is on the verge of becoming a sub 10 method if only enough thought was put into it.

pseudo blocks.


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 11, 2012)

I plan on making Petrus my Main method for Big Cubes. I dont like CFOP and im slow at it and Roux is just a hassle(For BC) , so Petrus is the best.

I really wish you had a website where you explained the method(I didnt understand Lars site) and make it fun.

Waffle made a fun site to learn Roux and people loved it. 
Think about it?


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 11, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> I plan on making Petrus my Main method for Big Cubes. I dont like CFOP and im slow at it and Roux is just a hassle(For BC) , so Petrus is the best.
> 
> I really wish you had a website where you explained the method(I didnt understand Lars site) and make it fun.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, that's the big problem with petrus. Unfortunately, there's a ton you have to figure out for yourself. I think that even if you did learn from a new site, you should still try to understand Lars's site because there are a few gems in there. Petrus is pretty simple actually though. An experienced cuber should be able to learn it quickly. Just build a 2x2x3 as fast as you can, then watch Josh's bad edge tutorial and then fill in two pairs.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

I did make a Petrus website tutorial thing before but I really tried to focus on making Petrus faster so most of my tutorials were "advanced". If someone with some website skills wanted to make a website I wouldn't mind supplying videos/written content to supplement it but only if there was actually a demand for it. There isn't really anybody who would go there except you. (ironic that your name is panda cuber =P)

I like Petrus because it is a more intuitive approach than Fridrich and thusly a lottt more fun. And I like it over Roux because M slices on big cubes are horrible. I just did some playing around with weird free form variations of petrus solves that didn't include EO and I didn't really find anything that I thought was too useful. One idea I had was make a 2x2 block and then solving F2L with FRU, which was doable, but all I really wound up doing was some strange freefop/blockbuilding stuff with some edge control. It was cool, but definitely not great for speedsolving. It has wayyy to much freedom. Freeform methods are not optimal for speedsolving.

Now Noah; you were talking about putting something like psuedo blocks into a speedsolve. Really all I got out of the past half hour messing around was this; I need to turn faster. My problem isn't in my efficiency (at least I think). Back in the day when I was trying to improve I assumed that my problem was lookahead and efficiency. This was largely fueled by ErikJs famous "advanced petrus tutorial" pt.1 and 2, which if you ask me, are definitely solutions that are not geared towards a speedsolve. They're probably more a reflection of his blockbuilding skills in FMC more than speedsolving. So here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna turn fast, and see what I can do. Maybe I'll actually learn a couple new PLLs since some of mine could be a lot better. I'll just throw everything I have into TPS. Assuming my move counts are fine. Is 60 alright for a speedsolve? If you check the solution to the slow motion vid I put up recently Brest did a reconstruction and it was about on par with most of my solutions. Pretty typical. 

TLDR; gotta go fast. I'm just going to try to improve TPS and see where it gets me.


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 11, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Yeah, that's the big problem with petrus. Unfortunately, there's a ton you have to figure out for yourself. I think that even if you did learn from a new site, you should still try to understand Lars's site because there are a few gems in there. Petrus is pretty simple actually though. An experienced cuber should be able to learn it quickly. Just build a 2x2x3 as fast as you can, then watch Josh's bad edge tutorial and then fill in two pairs.


 
My problem isnt doing the method. My problem is making it efficient. 
As a Roux user, I look for the most efficient solution possible. (That I can think of). 
When doing a Petrus solve, My EO takes forever and so does my 2 gen pairs cause im not used to it. And I dont know the shortcuts to make it efficient.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 11, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> So here's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna turn fast, and see what I can do. Maybe I'll actually learn a couple new PLLs since some of mine could be a lot better. I'll just throw everything I have into TPS. Assuming my move counts are fine. Is 60 alright for a speedsolve? If you check the solution to the slow motion vid I put up recently Brest did a reconstruction and it was about on par with most of my solutions. Pretty typical.


Sounds good. And 60 is fine - normal, even. Gogogo 6tps :]


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 11, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> I came up with a missing link solution in January where corners are permuted during EO. It was very inefficient, and a better solution than mine that accomplished the same thing was discussed in an old thread. I don't think either of these could beat CPLS, but if someone found a good way to permute the corners during EO, the LL would be down to 2GLL, and this would make the EO step useful, which was one of qqwref's problems.


There are more 'solutions' to the missing link than you think.
(I can think of four that I've documented /somewhere/) (here's one)
I've came up with a few that get as low as an extra 3 moves, but setting some 2G situation often isn't worth it if you aren't willing to put an effort forth and do the last step at once.

Petrus is great for many things, but at this point it really seems poor in comparison to CFOP/Roux for most people.
Not to self-promote too much, but I'd rather quote this than type up my points again..



StachuK1992 said:


> I'm not really a fan of Petrus, past the 2x2x3. I'll make that rather clear here. I love that block-building is more-so popularized by Petrus, but as a method in whole, there's just something to it that's a turn-off to me. I think it's the EO stage. I won't outright say it's "bad", because it simply isn't, but I don't think I'll be practicing it much.
> 
> Petrus is kind of well-documented. There's an obvious general hub or two of Petrus solvers (Lars' website, that site advertized on SS by some thread that's frequently on the homepage). These two sources are surely enough to get one into Petrus, but I don't feel that enough different approaches to teaching the method are yet presented. Fortunately, there are enough after-EO approaches to take that *are* well documented, somewhere or another. I think a single collaborative page *coughwikicough* divided by users' preference of approach would be pretty awesome. That's all I really have to say for Petrus. It's solid, decently-documented, and--I don't really like it. Meh, I'm not sure why. I average ~21 with it, btw.


This addresses most issues I have with Petrus, qq covered the rest.


----------



## teller (Feb 11, 2012)

I have no use for EO, but the 2x2x2 block-build is the cornerstone of a CFOP x-cross. Feliks started out with CN Petrus; this is not a coincidence.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

teller said:


> I have no use for EO, but the 2x2 block-build is the cornerstone of a CFOP x-cross. Feliks started out with CN Petrus, this is not a coincidence.


 I'm honestly not surprised. It seems like Petrus is a really good starting point. 2x2x3 gives you insight into blockbuilding, EO into edge manipulation, s4 into fridrich style f2l pairs, and 2x2 into x crossing. Roux and Fridrich seem to come naturally once you're proficient with Petrus.


----------



## Ranzha (Feb 11, 2012)

In regard to EO, I've contemplated just orienting the F2L edges and solving with OLL/PLL. It's probably really frowned upon, but as a CFOP solver, it's more comfortable than Petrus-style EO.
Additionally, when I felt bored or intrigued, after 2x2x3, I'd utilize the S slice to form F2L pairs rotationlessly, use CLL, and then L5E. I dunno if anyone's done this as of yet, nor have I looked.


----------



## cubernya (Feb 11, 2012)

teller said:


> I have no use for EO, but the 2x2x2 block-build is the cornerstone of a CFOP x-cross. Feliks started out with CN Petrus; this is not a coincidence.


 
You're thinking about Rowe, not Feliks


----------



## teller (Feb 11, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> You're thinking about Rowe, not Feliks


 
Crap...I just checked the old podcasts and you're right. Wtf...I suck. Don't listen to me.


----------



## Athefre (Feb 11, 2012)

Sub-10 is the new thing. Roux is as popular as it is now because there was one person that practiced enough to meet that goal and post videos. A good tutorial is helpful, but most people expect evidence before they will switch.

At this time it doesn't matter much if Petrus is ~1 second slower than CFOP and Roux. I recall 5 or 6 years ago people weren't sure about Roux because they thought M turns held it back. Like ZZ, Petrus needs someone to have the confidence and determination of the CFOP and Roux users and frequently post sub-10 videos.


----------



## pdilla (Feb 11, 2012)

All in all, the amount of thinking that you are doing in Petrus seems to lower the speed ceiling imo. It's a great method nonetheless, and it's invaluable if you are a CFOP user who wants to understand F2L efficiency. Yeah, my Fridrich tag is showing, but I gotta pay my respects to Petrus. It has really shaped me into a cuber that I never would have been without it.

So a "yes" from me.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 11, 2012)

Athefre said:


> I recall 5 or 6 years ago people weren't sure about Roux because they thought M turns held it back.


Heh, I remember this too. To be fair, though, it was a lot harder to find a cube that was good with M slices then.

And I still think Roux is a poor choice for someone who is naturally bad at M slicing


----------



## irontwig (Feb 11, 2012)

It's good, but I find it too rigid; FreeFOPftw.


----------



## insane569 (Feb 11, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> In regard to EO, I've contemplated just orienting the F2L edges and solving with OLL/PLL. It's probably really frowned upon, but as a CFOP solver, it's more comfortable than Petrus-style EO.
> Additionally, when I felt bored or intrigued, after 2x2x3, I'd utilize the S slice to form F2L pairs rotationlessly, use CLL, and then L5E. I dunno if anyone's done this as of yet, nor have I looked.


 
That is similar to how I solve OH. I get up to the 2x2x3 but then I do EO and continue to solve last 2 pairs with RU. This helps for OH since I can R U really quickly and then I only have 2L OLL so I don't have to relearn alot of OLLs. Then its just PLL which I can relearn some algs for since its not a crazy amount.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 11, 2012)

Well if you did full Petrus for one hand then you could just have 7 OLLs, all of which can be done 2 gen. And you wouldn't have to waste your time with 2 look OLL, and ofc you'd still get 2 gen F2L finish. Not sure why you would only fix the F2L edges.

@ atthefre I'm not sure that I'm the guy to take Petrus to sub 10.


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 11, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> @ atthefre *I'm not sure* that I'm the guy to take Petrus to sub 10.


 
Not with that attitude!


----------



## Zarxrax (Feb 11, 2012)

There are really 3 primary factors that go into how fast a method can be.
1) Efficiency of moves (how many moves a solve typically takes)
2) intuition / look ahead (how fast you can figure out what to do)
3) Ergonomics / turn speed (how fast you can actually do it)

Now, fridrich is pretty awesome on points 2 and 3.
But I would say that Petrus probably only beats it on point 1.

Its impossible to really test the overall efficiency of these methods in any legitimate way,
but we CAN test partial attributes of each one.

For example, the average number of moves is something that is known.
And turn speed is something that can be tested by using prepared solves.
For example, if you take a fast cuber like felix, and give him a prepared solution, and let him practice it several times, then we would see roughly how fast the turning of this particular method is. Of course, it would need to be done with several fast cubers, and over several different solutions.
I'm guessing that due to the freedom of petrus, the actual turn speed cant get very fast until near the end.


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 11, 2012)

I think Petrus has more potential for OH than two-handed. Too much <R,U> isn't always good for two hands, but I think it's a lot better for OH.



insane569 said:


> Would it be possible to orientate edges before anything else like say ZZ.


 
But then it would just be a restricted form of ZZ..

EDIT : Did the forum's font change? O__o
EDIT2 : Oh never mind, I just realized I was zoomed in to the page by about 10% =_______=


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 12, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Not with that attitude!


 I'm not in highschool anymore. I have a job and I go to college. I can't just cube allll dayyy every dayyy.


----------



## mariano.aquino (Feb 13, 2012)

I don't think there's a missing link or something like that. we need more people using petrus so that we can share opinions and see what's the better way to perform each step, and how to merge them.
I have a question for faster users. I've seen a 2-gen multi-slotting approach at ZZ's rider's page. Are we using that for petrus?
Also, has someone experimented with full MGLS-P? I mean, not only so-called EJLS but also cases with last corner on U?


----------



## Godmil (Feb 13, 2012)

Well I'll take a stand and say No.
I don't know exactly why, but the method has had plenty of time and enough popularity for someone to prove that it can be very fast, and it's just never happened. Roux has shown that CFOP doesn't have the monopoly on fast methods, but Petrus just hasn't been able to keep up. It's still a nice method, and has it's advantages, but for the effort required speed isn't one of them (at least relatively).


----------



## stoic (Feb 13, 2012)

emolover said:


> Honestly though, I think Petrus and CFOP have converged because of X-cross.


 


Escher said:


> CFOP is just badly named these days


 
Off-topic and tongue in cheek but here goes:
XFOP any takers?!?
Might please the purists who don't like "Fridrich"


----------



## kinch2002 (Feb 13, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> Is Petrus a dead method?


No, I just used it as the basis for a solve at Irish Open. I got 28 moves.


----------



## Escher (Feb 13, 2012)

ellwd said:


> Off-topic and tongue in cheek but here goes:
> XFOP any takers?!?
> Might please the purists who don't like "Fridrich"


 
Fridrich is actually more descriptive imo 
...Although obviously some people love to make the methods origins political.

The only thing I can imagine being useful and non-restrictive would be to call it 'slots', but that's a dumb name.


On-topic again: I might practice Petrus for a while and see what I can get.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 13, 2012)

@ Ellwd when I do Fridrich solves I X cross the vast majority of the time =3 If I were to switch methods, I think that's what I would do. The only reason I don't use Fridrich besides having to learn full OLL is that the cross is SO BORING. 

@ Escher what kind of times can you get? I'm going for the brute force turn fast approach and it seems to be working so far. I've been getting mostly high 14 averages which is pretty good for instant improvement imo.


----------



## Escher (Feb 13, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> @ Escher what kind of times can you get? I'm going for the brute force turn fast approach and it seems to be working so far. I've been getting mostly high 14 averages which is pretty good for instant improvement imo.


 
I'm terrible at EO - I am good at recognising it but rubbish at solving it efficiently (I should really spend some time reading your tutorial and learning stuff), so my times aren't really reflective of what I could get with practice - about 12-13 if I skip EO, 15-16 if I actually go and do it. My 2x2x2 isn't as efficient as it used to be somehow :/


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Feb 14, 2012)

The Petrus method has a lot of unique steps, all of wich require experience not brute force ( like "learn 57 OLLs" ).

I also thought it might be possible to get better at inspection time usage (and plan ahead the full 3x3x3 ), but this seems to be to much over the top (at least for me - and the majority of cuber, too)
( I think Roux is currently the winner in the category: inspection time usage )

Using (full) MGLS to simplyfy Step2 (or Step 4) is the most promising way to enhance Petrus, i currenty can think of. And I really would like to see some Petrus records.

But I believe currenty there is no way to be "worldclass" with Petrus.


----------



## Godmil (Feb 15, 2012)

oll+phase+sync said:


> The Petrus method has a lot of unique steps, all of wich require experience not brute force ( like "learn 57 OLLs" ).
> 
> Using (full) MGLS to simplyfy Step2 (or Step 4) is the most promising way to enhance Petrus, i currenty can think of.


Given MGLS has nearly twice as many algs as OLL, would you not call that a 'brute force' step?


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 15, 2012)

I'd definitely call that a brute force step. 

From what I've read in this thread the most likely reasons (to me) that Petrus is slow compared to other methods are;

1. Edges are solved in 2 separate steps
2. Step 4 move count is really high at times

So there's 2 things we can do to solve these problems. We can either eliminate the bad edge + step 4 approach, OR, we can make the EO step worth doing by combining some of the other steps together. (MGLS, WV, and ZBLL come to mind.) 

Noahaha recently came up with a "SuneLS" which is a last slot system meant to force Sune ZBLL cases the majority of the time. If somebody can come up with or justify another approach with EO, LL or something like that I'll go ahead and learn it. The only reason I haven't started to learn Sune LS yet is because it didn't seem to receive all that great of feedback.


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 16, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> I'll just throw everything I have into TPS. Assuming my move counts are fine. Is 60 alright for a speedsolve?


 
No. 55-60 is an alright average for CFOP, but a Petrus movecount should definitely be less. 50, maybe. Without a 5+ move advantage, you can't even begin to argue that Petrus is in the same league as CFOP. Working on TPS is definitely important, but you're adding moves somewhere and need to stop.



JLarsen said:


> I'd definitely call that a brute force step.
> 
> From what I've read in this thread the most likely reasons (to me) that Petrus is slow compared to other methods are;
> 
> ...


 
A couple things here:
Why would you force Sune ZBLL? Sune/Antisune is the worst set. T/U are much easier to recognize, and H has a smaller number of cases. Since the T/U sets have a lot of inverse pairs, you could easily learn those two and then just force two adjacent twisted corners. That would be much easier than learning to force a single set.

As for your reasons for Petrus's relative slowness, you left out the biggest issue - ergonomics. Building a 2x2x2 can be roughly equated with building a cross or a 1x2x3, as far as movecount and speed are concerned. However, 2x2x3 will likely require some rotations or some nasty moves, whereas CFOP pairs are generally nice, and second roux block is <rRU>. Petrus EO with sometimes require a rotation and are 3+gen, Roux EO is MU with no rotations. COLL+EPLL is more moves than OLL+PLL and generally quite a few COLL cases suck, whereas there are good algs for pretty much every OLL/PLL by now. Also, I think OLLCP and KCLL are more viable and useful advanced methods as compared to ZBLL.

I'm just not feeling optimistic for Petrus as a speedsolving method. It is pretty good for starts in FMC though.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 16, 2012)

imho the hardest step in Petrus is the 2x2x3 expansion, which is why I only block build after the 2x2x2 if I have a free pair, otherwise I just complete the X-cross. With the EO you don't really save any moves on the F2L, and on the LL really only if you know ZBLL. So basically it's a monster method if you can plan out 2x2x3s and know ZBLL, especially for slower turning events like OH and Feet (or linear FMC). And yeah, for FMC 2x2x3 kick ass, but most of the time it's just better to get on with solving pieces than orienting edges.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 16, 2012)

DavidWoner said:


> Why would you force Sune ZBLL?


 
Because it's different.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Feb 16, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> I
> 1. Edges are solved in 2 separate steps


 
What do you mean by this ?



JLarsen said:


> 2. Step 4 move count is really high at times


I think the optimal average for this step is 11 moves, but I don't see how a human can aproche this. (even slanting opportunities are too rare ) 
on the other hand I don't think step 4 is worse than standard F2L.


Regarding MGLS - for sure it is a brute force step, but that's not necessarily bad (like OLL)

also: 
- all the algs can be done 2-gen 
- mirror ratio is very high (OLL mirror ratio is very small )
- recognition is easy too (like OLL)
- still less algs than learning Sommer + Winter for FR and BR slot.

What really holds me back from even starting MGLS is that there is no solid 2 step approach ( If you don't know an OLL just do EO and CO seperate ) (not even an unsolid approach I know of)


----------



## Escher (Feb 16, 2012)

oll+phase+sync said:


> What really holds me back from even starting MGLS is that there is no solid 2 step approach ( If you don't know an OLL just do EO and CO seperate ) (not even an unsolid approach I know of)


 
Just begin by learning all the one/two corners oriented cases (not that many), and then using sunes to reduce the 3/4 mis-oriented corners cases.

I learned the I and Im cases in about 15 minutes - it's really not that hard. I should finish off O and +/- sometime :/


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 16, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Because it's different.



Lol. Well, I didn't come up with the idea, and I've never been good at cube theory. I really don't know anything about ZBLL or alternative LL methods, so your guess is probably better than mine. 



oll+phase+sync said:


> What do you mean by this ?



It was something QQ mentioned and it made a lot of sense to me. It's starting not to make as much sense now lol but I took it to mean that we have two separate orientation steps; one for edges, and one for corners. That's not as efficient as solving LL in 2 steps? 


@ Woner You made some good points. Thanks for the advice. I'll have to work on my move counts as well then. And like I said before. I'm no pro with Petrus. 15 seconds is decent but there's going to be lots of flaws in my solves still. I'm just trying to work them out.


----------



## Sillas (Feb 16, 2012)

This thread is serious?
Petrus' Method is 'the father' of all block building method. It's also very efficient for Fewest Moves.
It maybe not can be fast now, but still very helpful and and definitely isn't a dead method.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 16, 2012)

Sillas said:


> This thread is serious?
> Petrus' Method is 'the father' of all block building method. It's also very efficient for Fewest Moves.
> It maybe not can be fast now, but still very helpful and and definitely isn't a dead method.



I really meant dead as a speedsolving method. Hindsight is always 20/20 but I should've probably left out the first part of the thread title. 

Update on move counts; I just did some slow solves that were slightly more efficient than usual, some even quite lucky, and the lowest movecount I got was 55. I'm thinking that 60 really isn't as unreasonable for a Petrus speedsolve as Woner said. It might not be the greatest, but I don't think 50 is really practical as a goal. At least not in a speedsolve.


----------



## Rpotts (Feb 16, 2012)

55 is very high for your lowest move count in slow solves. I do freefop slow solves everyday at work, counting moves. Mid 40s are common, 50s is average, and this is for some pretty cfop-y freefop.


----------



## jrb (Feb 16, 2012)

Petrus could definitely be as fast as CFOP or Roux(IMO). I think the reason no one has gotten as fast times as with CFOP or Roux with Petrus is that not many people use Petrus.


----------



## Kyle™ (Feb 16, 2012)

I think I average 50-60 move count for my solves. My lowest move count is with my last slot variation, where I average 49 moves per solve. ( Taken from ao12 ). There are so many difficult cases with that step so I don't use that variation too often in real solves.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 18, 2012)

After some discussion in my example solve thread  I've decided to try X cross for a while. Page 3 is really all you need to read for an explanation. I realized that while my 2x2 solutions are good, it's too difficult to take advantage of the freedom of 2x2x3 in a speedsolve. The result is ridiculous movecounts.


----------

