# !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



## ErikJ (Aug 9, 2008)

Average: 14.64 seconds
Individual Times: 13.68, 13.15, (13.03), 14.11, 13.50, 14.36, 14.52, 13.10, (18.13), 16.74, 17.09, 16.15

So close to sub 14. I had an amazing start with no lucky solves. then I popped on the 18 and the rest were crap. I was hoping for an OLL or PLL skip at the end to save it but it didn't happen. 

I will get sub 14!!!!!

Petrus method FTWWWWW!!!!!


----------



## joey (Aug 9, 2008)

I wouldn't say 14.64 is close to sub-14..

Also Fridrich is 'still faster' than Petrus


----------



## ErikJ (Aug 9, 2008)

well the actual average isn't close but look at the times. the last 4 solves ruined the whole thing. if I kept the original pace it probably would have been like 13.9X or 14.0X. I'm gonna say it was close.

fridrich is faster...for now...


----------



## Kyle™ (Aug 9, 2008)

great job erik. hey, when you see my new times you will cringe >: P


----------



## Brett (Aug 10, 2008)

sub-15 with petrus is still impressive. good luck getting sub-14


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Aug 11, 2008)

Petrus is still cooler than Fridrich. 100% of Petrus users would agree.

Oh, good job Erik.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Aug 11, 2008)

Speedy McFastfast said:


> Petrus is still cooler than Fridrich. 100% of Petrus users would agree.



Totally worthless statistic. 

I bet Erik will get it in a week or two.


----------



## ErikJ (Aug 11, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> Speedy McFastfast said:
> 
> 
> > Petrus is still cooler than Fridrich. 100% of Petrus users would agree.
> ...



I hope so. I just got a 13.00 average of 5 on cubemania. it was a bit lucky.


----------



## Brett (Aug 11, 2008)

Any tips on getting that fast with Petrus? Or is it just a combination of move optimization and looking ahead?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Aug 11, 2008)

i got one of thses today too

new PB average with 0 lucky solves:

Average: 14.60

Fastest Time: 12.48
Slowest Time: 16.28
Standard Deviation: 01.00

thats a pretty standard standard deviation, lol




Brett said:


> Any tips on getting that fast with Petrus? Or is it just a combination of move optimization and looking ahead?



yeah I'd say thats about it [although, sometimes a situation can be done with more moves faster than the optimal solution, depends on execution]

EDIT: i don't use petrus .... often


----------



## ErikJ (Aug 11, 2008)

Brett said:


> Any tips on getting that fast with Petrus? Or is it just a combination of move optimization and looking ahead?



Yes, TONS of look ahead and move optimization. and learn to pace yourself. find the perfect speed where you can look ahead but still be going decently quick. I'd be like a second faster if my physical speed for the LL was better. My PLL attack is around 50 seconds.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Aug 11, 2008)

ErikJ said:


> Brett said:
> 
> 
> > Any tips on getting that fast with Petrus? Or is it just a combination of move optimization and looking ahead?
> ...



Quiet, mine is around 55.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 11, 2008)

ExoCorsair said:


> Speedy McFastfast said:
> 
> 
> > Petrus is still cooler than Fridrich. 100% of Petrus users would agree.
> ...


Arnaud van Galen is cooler than Lars Petrus and Jessica Fridrich together. 75% of me would agree. 

And my PLL-attack is way faster than yours
[reason]I only know half of them[/reason]


----------



## ooveehoo (Aug 11, 2008)

Speedy McFastfast said:


> Petrus is still cooler than Fridrich. 100% of Petrus users would agree.



And many Fridrich users (I for example).


----------



## badmephisto (Aug 11, 2008)

I see similarities between Fridrich and Petrus and Windows and Mac. Most people use Windows, but there are Apple fanbois everywhere who would sacrifice a piece of their soul for its glory, and continuously insist that it is better.

and ooveehoo is like the wannabe that wants mac but he cant have it because he likes to play games. sad


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 11, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> I see similarities between Fridrich and Petrus and Windows and Mac. Most people use Windows, but there are Apple fanbois everywhere who would sacrifice a piece of their soul for its glory, and continuously insist that it is better.


s/Mac/Linux/ makes more sense to me. I know Fridrich F2L and I've used Windows, but they are just plain worse than Petrus and Linux even though they are more popular. I have valid reasons to prefer the latter, it's not "fanboyism" at all.

Fridrich : Petrus :: Windows : Linux


----------



## ooveehoo (Aug 11, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> and ooveehoo is like the wannabe that wants mac but he cant have it because he likes to play games. sad



That's so true, but I already use petrus for OH and feetsolving. I mean that I have a mac and a PC, but I only use windows for playing (my petrus average is a sucky 28-30sec, so I just have to use Fridrich in comps).


----------



## Brett (Aug 11, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> I see similarities between Fridrich and Petrus and Windows and Mac. Most people use Windows, but there are Apple fanbois everywhere who would sacrifice a piece of their soul for its glory, and continuously insist that it is better.
> 
> and ooveehoo is like the wannabe that wants mac but he cant have it because he likes to play games. sad



I'm a Mac fanboy and a Petrus fanboy.  People only don't use Macs because they're uneducated people who assume they can't run anything. Same for Petrus? (I was one of the ones who taunted it.. D: )

Lucky for Ooveehoo there's bootcamp. (Roux?)


----------



## shelley (Aug 11, 2008)

I'm a Linux user. Should I be learning Roux?


----------



## Brett (Aug 11, 2008)

shelley said:


> I'm a Linux user. Should I be learning Roux?



Or Heise. Seeing as Linux is more open script that would make more sense (pure intuitive instead of algorithms )


----------



## Henxu (Aug 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > Speedy McFastfast said:
> ...



Hahahaha.
Good Arnaud xDDDD
That's was amazing xD LMAO xDDD


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 11, 2008)

If we are going to make these comparisons, shouldn't they be like this:

*Corners First *= DOS. Hardly used anymore and those who still use it are veterans that know there are better systems around. However, after using a system that you know inside-out for so long it is hard to leave it.
*Layer-by-layer / Beginners *= Windows 95. Old system, was used by many people. It wasn't very advanced, but it was easy to use and some slight improvements were added later that made it a little better
*Keyhole + 4 look last layer *= Windows 2000. An improvement that could be used to get a much better understanding of the system, but most people just skipped this and went straight to....
*Fridrich *= Windows XP. Used now by most people, pretty fast, nice and compatible upgrade from previous systems. It has been around for a while and almost all flaws have been ironed out. However there are some fundamental problems that most people don't see but are well known by others.
*ZBF2L + ZBLL *= Vista. Better in theory, but requires more resources and isn't as well supported. Some people are making the switch, others that have made the switch return to their previous system.
*Petrus *= MacOS. It has gone through several several changes, but lately more and more people are making the switch and getting good results. It has a very solid base and is very optimised for the type of hardware it is run on. For some reason many of its users are a bit fanatical and try to convince others how perfect their system is.
*Roux* = Linux. It is new and has lots of potential, but not a lot of info is available. Sometimes you meet a user and they are always enthousiastic about their system and they tell you about all the freedom of use and different tricks they found. The system is still under high development and its founder is a big advocate in the community.
*Heise* = Linux from scratch. Extremely optimised, but using it requires huge amounts of dedication. Everyone questions its usefulness, but everytime you see it in action you are impressed.


----------



## Erik (Aug 11, 2008)

Wow arnaud, that's a really clever (and quite true at a lot of points) comparision ! 
I have to say I'm impressed


----------



## yurivish (Aug 11, 2008)

Are corners-first methods really bad? I know they're unpopular, but in terms of move count I thought they were respectable, and possible to get good at with practice.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 11, 2008)

Thanks Erik. I was just combining 2 subjects I know a lot about.

And corners-first isn't a bad method at all. If you learn a really advanced method you can "easily" get sub-15 with it. It's just that other methods are even faster


----------



## ParityErrors (Aug 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> *Roux* = Linux
> ...freedom of use...





Btw. I prefer both, Linux and Roux.


----------



## shelley (Aug 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> If we are going to make these comparisons, shouldn't they be like this:
> 
> *Corners First *= DOS. Hardly used anymore and those who still use it are veterans that know there are better systems around. However, after using a system that you know inside-out for so long it is hard to leave it.
> *Layer-by-layer / Beginners *= Windows 95. Old system, was used by many people. It wasn't very advanced, but it was easy to use and some slight improvements were added later that made it a little better
> ...




Maybe Heise could be FreeBSD?


----------



## ParityErrors (Aug 11, 2008)

shelley said:


> Maybe Heise could be FreeBSD?



I think it is more like Gentoo Linux.


----------



## shelley (Aug 11, 2008)

Ah, I see. Then Roux would be Ubuntu.


----------



## badmephisto (Aug 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> If we are going to make these comparisons, shouldn't they be like this:
> 
> *Corners First *= DOS. Hardly used anymore and those who still use it are veterans that know there are better systems around. However, after using a system that you know inside-out for so long it is hard to leave it.
> *Layer-by-layer / Beginners *= Windows 95. Old system, was used by many people. It wasn't very advanced, but it was easy to use and some slight improvements were added later that made it a little better
> ...



Great work there! Exactly how I see it as well. Its funny because its all true. Although I disagree with one single thing... Linux is not new  I think we are actually about to uncover evidence of dinosaurs using Unix based system anytime now. But the rest about it is exactly true  

And I use both WinXP and Fridrich  (Actually I was just using Vista but last saturday I rolled back to my preciousssss)


----------



## shelley (Aug 11, 2008)

Ooh, is blindsolving command-line work? There are many different methods, just as you can delve into the command line in any operating system. Solves cubes using very basic functions, requires a thorough understanding of how the cube/system works, and most importantly, it's all done without the benefit of a pretty GUI.


----------



## badmephisto (Aug 11, 2008)

shelley said:


> Ooh, is blindsolving command-line work? Solving using basic functions, requires a thorough understanding of how the cube/system works, and it's all done without the benefit of a pretty GUI.



well DOS is kind of command line work. Was there anything before DOS? rofl


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Aug 12, 2008)

Huh? I don't want Petrus to be associated with Macs. >:|


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 12, 2008)

shelley said:


> Ooh, is blindsolving command-line work? There are many different methods, just as you can delve into the command line in any operating system. Solves cubes using very basic functions, requires a thorough understanding of how the cube/system works, and most importantly, it's all done without the benefit of a pretty GUI.


Nice analogy, but I think blindsolving is more like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming_in_the_punch_card_era
You analyze the problem, think about your approach, generate a set of instructions which get executed (hopefully correctly) and only if everything was done perfectly do you get the required result. Otherwise you DNF

(and Unix is not Linux. Compared to Dos/Windows/MacOS Linux is new)


----------



## badmephisto (Aug 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Ooh, is blindsolving command-line work? There are many different methods, just as you can delve into the command line in any operating system. Solves cubes using very basic functions, requires a thorough understanding of how the cube/system works, and most importantly, it's all done without the benefit of a pretty GUI.
> ...



hahaha!


----------



## shelley (Aug 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Ooh, is blindsolving command-line work? There are many different methods, just as you can delve into the command line in any operating system. Solves cubes using very basic functions, requires a thorough understanding of how the cube/system works, and most importantly, it's all done without the benefit of a pretty GUI.
> ...



Yay! I like yours better.


----------



## mrCage (Aug 13, 2008)

Hi 

Most users prefer Friedrich beacause there is tons of good websites for it, and it has an extremely impressive track record. For same reason (?) Windows is by far most popular. One could also say there's a similarity between the vast choice of algs (Oll and Pll for instance) for friedrich and the vast choice of software for Windows. That is not to say that Linux does not have adequate software for everything 

As i still use LBL for 3x3x3 speed i should probably be running an Atari or something  (I'm on XP by the way ... )

(edit)
Calling speedcubers users is a deliberate pun ...
(/edit)

-Per


----------

