# How fast can Petrus method go?



## ErikJ (Dec 18, 2008)

seriously.

I got a 13.41 average today which is like the third time I beat my pb average within 2 weeks. sub/low 14 averages are pretty common for me now and I am still getting faster. I bet that if my physical speed was better for step 4 and the last layer then Petrus method could be just as fast as Fridrich. 

what do you guys think?

details on the average: 14.59, 13.25, 13.23, 12.02, 14.59, 14.13, 13.67, 11.84, (10.64), 14.03, 12.72, (15.03)


----------



## panyan (Dec 18, 2008)

my fastest solve is 1.40.24 (thats minutes!) using the beginner method. I am not quick but at least i can do it. Im sorry, but im no use on this thread!


----------



## Rabid (Dec 18, 2008)

ErikJ said:


> I bet that if my physical speed was better for step 4 and the last layer then Petrus method could be just as fast as Fridrich.



If 99% of cubers (thought experiment) used *Method A*,
Then *Method A* would be the fastest method.


----------



## JTW2007 (Dec 18, 2008)

The fastest I've ever heard of Petrus going is just below 13s.


----------



## ConnorCuber (Dec 18, 2008)

I don't believe there is a limit to any method.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 18, 2008)

panyan said:


> my fastest solve is 1.40.24 (thats minutes!) using the beginner method. I am not quick but at least i can do it. Im sorry, but im no use on this thread!


states worthlessness*  Anyway, anythings possible, with time and maybe some luck. Oh and of course.......


GO PETRUS


----------



## Dene (Dec 18, 2008)

Rabid said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > I bet that if my physical speed was better for step 4 and the last layer then Petrus method could be just as fast as Fridrich.
> ...



Ok, then consider this method:

Step 1: Before looking at the cube, you do an A perm. There is no reason for this, you just do it.

Step 2: You then randomly do another 10 moves, why not?

Step 3: Proceed to solve the cube 1 piece at a time using a 30 move T perm.

Step 4: With 4 pieces to go, randomly do another 10 move scramble.

Step 5: Finally, finish solving the cube.

If everyone did this method would it be faster than Fridrich?


----------



## James Kobel (Dec 18, 2008)

ConnorCuber said:


> I don't believe there is a limit to any method.



True, I know people who have done sub-10 with Roux non lucky, and I _know_ that you(Erik, the rest of you have no chance of beating him to it) can get a sub 12 average with Petrus.


----------



## Dene (Dec 18, 2008)

ConnorCuber said:


> I don't believe there is a limit to any method.



Good luck in life.


----------



## James Kobel (Dec 18, 2008)

Dene said:


> Rabid said:
> 
> 
> > ErikJ said:
> ...



Well in that case it would be because if _everyone_ used that then noone would be using Fridrich so it would be faster.


----------



## Dene (Dec 18, 2008)

Ok then: if 99% of people used that method... You're fighting a losing battle, I would stop if I were you.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 18, 2008)

Petrus can go sub-13 or sub-12, sub-13 I'm sure of...petrus rocks

P.S. - when he says method A, he means an EFFICIENT method, not an idiotic one -_-


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 18, 2008)

Rabid said:


> ErikJ said:
> 
> 
> > I bet that if my physical speed was better for step 4 and the last layer then Petrus method could be just as fast as Fridrich.
> ...


So if everyone who used method A averaged 15, and 1% of people who used method B averaged 12, then method A is faster?
Anyway, the percentage of cubers who use a method has nothing to do with how fast a method can be.


----------



## James Kobel (Dec 18, 2008)

Dene said:


> Ok then: if 99% of people used that method... You're fighting a losing battle, I would stop if I were you.



I can't lose to that argument until I see a 30 move T-perm. In a few minutes I will memorize it then I will give you an A5 for your uber inneficient method.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 18, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> Rabid said:
> 
> 
> > ErikJ said:
> ...


They speak of fastest times of any solver. And as of right now, it's much more common to here of Harris Chan and Fridrich solvers then of gods like Erik here...


----------



## Dene (Dec 18, 2008)

James Kobel said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Ok then: if 99% of people used that method... You're fighting a losing battle, I would stop if I were you.
> ...



On the spot, I am not about to find a 30 more T perm, but I'm sure you can be crative and find one for yourself, for example, do (R2 D2)x6 at some stage during a normal T perm, which would come out to near 30 moves.
I have no idea what "A5" means.


----------



## Brett (Dec 18, 2008)

A5 means average of 5.

R Perm them a U Perm is 26 moves for me. Then a U U U U and you've done 30 moves. Good luck...


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 19, 2008)

James Kobel said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Ok then: if 99% of people used that method... You're fighting a losing battle, I would stop if I were you.
> ...



F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'

there you go, exactly 30

On-topic: Petrus can be very fast, once blockbuilding becomes fully braindead. Erik certainly hasn't pushed the limits yet.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 19, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> James Kobel said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


ha, nicely done actually. Y and a Ja, sexyful.


----------



## mrbiggs (Dec 19, 2008)

Dene said:


> Rabid said:
> 
> 
> > ErikJ said:
> ...



This analogy is not apt. If everyone did this method, then people who do Fridrich in this imaginary world would be the fastest in the world.

It's not that 99% of people do Fridrich. It's that EVERYONE who is top in the world uses a variation of it. Granted, this doesn't prove beyond any doubt that Fridrich is fastest...but it certainly implies it. 

It's up to Petrus users at this point to show that their method works at the highest level. Until I see someone getting sub-12 averages with Petrus, I see no reason to believe that it's as fast as Fridrich.


----------



## jackolanternsoup (Dec 19, 2008)

James Kobel said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Ok then: if 99% of people used that method... You're fighting a losing battle, I would stop if I were you.
> ...



Be sure to take a video of your A5 and post it.


----------



## Dene (Dec 19, 2008)

mrbiggs said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Rabid said:
> ...



What do you mean? He explicitly said: If 99% of people use a method, it will be the fastest one. I gave a method. Imagine if 99% of people used it? They would certainly not be faster than the 1% who use Fridrich (or some other more efficient method). Of course by 99%, I mean 99% of speedcubers, not of some other morons. You haven't changed anything.


----------



## Speedy McFastfast (Dec 19, 2008)

I chose the sub 10 button. Does everyone know why Petrus isn't as fast as Fridrich yet? Because nobody has used it that would be good with it.

Take it this way: Anyone could learn to speak German, but for some people, it sortof just "clicks." It's the same way with cube methods.

Anyone can learn Petrus, but there are only a few people where it will really click in their heads. We haven't found those people yet. Fridrich method has found people like Chan, however, so for now it's faster.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 19, 2008)

Dene said:


> mrbiggs said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



I am pretty sure that 99% or more of the cubers (not speedsolvers) that can solve a cube use a beginners method like layer-by-layer. No way to prove that though


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 19, 2008)

I think Petrus is for smart people and Fridrich is something that us regular humans can use to beat the smart people. I'm just too stupid to see good blocks in 15 seconds and recognize EO quickly. If some genius with perfect lookahead comes out, he/she would probably use something crazy like Petrus+ZBLL without any recognition delay and easily sub-8. If only I can use Petrus, then I'd have no problem at all with learning all of MGLS...


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 19, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> I'm just too stupid to see good blocks in 15 seconds



that's something I have to work on.

I spend too much time looking for a 2x2x2. I should be able to find one then look to see which 2x2x3 would be best and find the pieces for that. Direct 2x2x3 make Petrus super fast.


----------



## mrbiggs (Dec 19, 2008)

Dene said:


> What do you mean? He explicitly said: If 99% of people use a method, it will be the fastest one. I gave a method. Imagine if 99% of people used it? They would certainly not be faster than the 1% who use Fridrich (or some other more efficient method). Of course by 99%, I mean 99% of speedcubers, not of some other morons. You haven't changed anything.



The specifics of his sentence were wrong, but the overall point is correct. Fridrich should be currently considered best because most of the best use it. You're correct in that popularity as a whole is irrelevant, but I think the gist of his argument was along the right lines.


----------



## enigmahack (Dec 20, 2008)

The only point I'd like to make, and I don't know if anyone brought it up: 
Best method indicates that whatever is best for you will also be best for me. 

Best for xxxx is very subjective for just that reason. 

The real question would be: Which method is more likely to get faster averages by those who practice it. 

From a scientific perspective, you would need to have a group of people all only learning Fredrich, another Petrus, another Roux, etc. 
All groups are only allowed to study/practice these methods x hours per day for a period of y days. Even that is VERY biased because a 13 year old is going to learn WAY faster than a 29 year old. There are too many variables to be able to specify which is "better"

Roux seems to be best for fewest moves "generally", Petrus very shortly behind it. Fredrich is a very fast brute-force alg crunching method, but I think they ALL could be equally fast given the right circumstances.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 20, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> *I think Petrus is for smart people and Fridrich is something that us regular humans can use to beat the smart people.* I'm just too stupid to see good blocks in 15 seconds and recognize EO quickly. If some genius with perfect lookahead comes out, he/she would probably use something crazy like Petrus+ZBLL without any recognition delay and easily sub-8. If only I can use Petrus, then I'd have no problem at all with learning all of MGLS...


Hahahaha, I could get along with you. Anyway MGLS isn't even complicated though. And one final, thing, seeing blocks, you just aquire a really different view. You have to do it a lot more than you would a cross to be good at it, but I think it's freakin cool. Crosses just make me want to eat grenades, so for me, Petrus is a more interesting approach, than ...well........SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM. Ha, I have no clue what I just did, but it's done.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 20, 2008)

Here's what I think. There are two options. Either Petrus is at least as good as Fridrich for speedsolving, or Fridrich is faster on an absolute scale. I'm talking about potential speed, which determines what is considered good.

- If Petrus is at least as good as Fridrich, then I suggest we judge Petrus users by Fridrich standards. Makes sense, right? But then all you Petrus users who are not sub-20, or barely? You wouldn't make it to a competition final round, go practice more. How about if you're one of the best Petrus users in the world? That's not that impressive, you're just starting to be decent. My point of view is that that the only reason ErikJ and Johannes are impressive 3x3 solvers is because they use Petrus. If you really think Petrus is just as good as Fridrich, you should find them no more impressive than all the Fridrich guys who can average in the 13s. Those guys aren't called gods of the method - they're not even considered to be world-class. I think 13.41 is a truly amazing Petrus average, but if you did a 13.41 average of 5 in competition you'd be ranked, like, 40th in the world. That's not godly.

- If Fridrich is better than Petrus... well, we don't even have to talk about that, because nobody who uses Petrus would agree with me. But I really do think this is a possibility. (As for Roux, I'm really not sure.) You can't trade tips on Petrus as easily as Fridrich, because it's so intuitive. Once you know how to do the edge flip and LL as efficiently as possible short of ZBLL, there's really nothing left for anyone else to teach you. So if you want to complain about not having enough resources for your method, stop - it's irrelevant. You have to learn intuition on your own. And if Johannes and Erik could spend years doing Petrus only, and still not be sub-12, I'm not sure anyone can. I simply don't think you can be as fast at Petrus as the current fastest cubers are at Fridrich.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 20, 2008)

I've done Petrus all day today until now with 90% of the time doing 1 or 2 look CLS and getting times ranging from 19 to 45. The 19 was easy blocks, and decent recognition of EO and good LL. After doing so much Petrus, Fridrich just feels so easy. It's feels like doing a 2x2 after doing a 4x4 cube or Beginner's LBL after Fridrich. There was great improvement in my lookahead because the method is just so brain dead. Can someone who use Petrus compare the times of their Petrus and Fridrich F2L only?

Fridrich:
5:	00:10.71	x This one was continued as a 1LLL with ELL I stopped the timer for the F2L, but the whole solve should have been around 13 seconds.
4:	00:15.02	x
3:	00:15.40	x
2:	00:15.34	x
1:	00:13.98	x
Avg. 5:
00:14.09	
3 of 5:
00:14.78
Petrus:
5:	00:15.37	x
4:	00:31.04	x Last 2 slots mess up
3:	00:19.01	x
2:	00:22.67	x
1:	00:22.89	x EO mess up
Avg. 5:
00:22.19	
3 of 5:
00:21.52
This is a bad average for me.
Fridrich trial2:
5:	00:13.47	x
4:	00:12.43	x
3:	00:12.76	x
2:	00:11.04	x
1:	00:14.30	x
Avg. 5:
00:12.80	
3 of 5:
00:12.89
This is more typical when I warmed up.
Petrus trial2:
5:	00:13.73	x
4:	00:21.13	x
3:	00:19.43	x
2:	00:19.22	x
1:	00:25.40	x
Avg. 5:
00:19.78	
3 of 5:
00:19.93
At least one good F2L! It was EO skip. Apparently I suck more at EO than I thought.


----------



## krazedkat (Dec 20, 2008)

It can only go as fast as YOU can go ...


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 20, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> I've done Petrus all day today until now with 90% of the time doing 1 or 2 look CLS and getting times ranging from 19 to 45. The 19 was easy blocks, and decent recognition of EO and good LL. After doing so much Petrus, Fridrich just feels so easy. It's feels like doing a 2x2 after doing a 4x4 cube or Beginner's LBL after Fridrich. There was great improvement in my lookahead because the method is just so brain dead. Can someone who use Petrus compare the times of their Petrus and Fridrich F2L only?
> 
> Fridrich:
> 5:	00:10.71	x This one was continued as a 1LLL with ELL I stopped the timer for the F2L, but the whole solve should have been around 13 seconds.
> ...


Both me and Erik, and all the other Petrus users I know use OLL/PLL. Often our last layer is just a sune =].


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 20, 2008)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Both me and Erik, and all the other Petrus users I know use OLL/PLL. Often our *last layer is just a sune* =].



Last layer, or OLL?


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 20, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > Both me and Erik, and all the other Petrus users I know use OLL/PLL. Often our *last layer is just a sune* =].
> ...


Last layer, that is if you get a pll skip, which is what i meant.


----------

