# Petrus method...



## Neato (Aug 31, 2006)

Hi guys, first post for me on this forum 

Im cubing for a year now with not that much dedication...

I'm using the Petrus Method. I just know like *7 algorithms* which is just enough to solve every scrambled 3x3x3 cube. I've got a personal best of 29.33 and a average of 12 of 38.08. Now im planning to start serious buisiness (sub 20)...B)

Is it effective to continue the petrus method on advanced level, or change to a other method like friedrich / joels method...:unsure:

Oh and I just bought a 4x4x4 and a 5x5x5


----------



## pjk (Aug 31, 2006)

Hello and Welcome to the Speedcubing forums!
The Petrus method obviously has a lot of potential, as Lars was one of the fastest in the world. It seems that the Fridrich method is what most top cubers use, some use Roux, which is also fast. It is up to you to decide. I guess we can discuss the pros/cons of both 

I'll post more later, have to run for now. 
Patrick


----------



## Richard (Aug 31, 2006)

I would highly recommend swiching to the Roux method. It is based off block building (like the petrus method) but i think it's a little more simplistic. I use the roux and though i'm not that quick at it yet (30 sec avg or so), i know Thom Barlow started with the petrus method, got to 35 sec avg (i think), swiched to Roux, jumped back up to over a minute, but within 3 months was sub 20 with the Roux method. One great thing about the roux method is you can easily get sub 20 with just like 10 algorithms, so that's nice...but i guess it's also really personal preference.


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Neato_@Aug 31 2006, 12:40 AM
> *Is it effective to continue the petrus method on advanced level, or change to a other method like friedrich / joels method...:unsure:*


Petrus is really good. Definately enough to get sub-15 and even faster. Changing to Fridrich or Roux isn't really good idea IMO, because you are already used to Petrus. Roux is a bit more complicated and requires learning many new things... And Fridrich seems really boring after using Petrus, at least that's what I think. But do whatever feels best to you.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 31, 2006)

I would doubt the sub-15 and even faster part.
2004: 1 person sub-15 (Shotaro Makisumi)
2005: 1 person sub-15 (Shotaro Makisumi)
2006: 9 persons sub-15 (Anssi Vanhala, Shotaro Makisumi, Lars Vandenbergh, Ryan Patricio, Jo?l van Noort, Matt Walter, Ron van Bruchem, Darren Kwong, Leyan Lo)

I don't think any of them use Petrus or Roux.

I think in theory Petrus and Roux could be faster than Fridrich because they require less moves, BUT they also require more thinking during a solve.

Thinking could be replaced by experience and/or more algs so either stick with that you know and improve untill you have reached the limits of a method and then find ways to improve that method (Petrus -> Roux or Fridrich -> Vandenbergh-Harris -> Zborowski-Bruchem)


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by AvGalen+Aug 31 2006, 08:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>*QUOTE* (AvGalen @ Aug 31 2006, 08:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would doubt the sub-15 and even faster part.
> 2004: 1 person sub-15 (Shotaro Makisumi)
> 2005: 1 person sub-15 (Shotaro Makisumi)
> 2006: 9 persons sub-15 (Anssi Vanhala, Shotaro Makisumi, Lars Vandenbergh, Ryan Patricio, Jo?l van Noort, Matt Walter, Ron van Bruchem, Darren Kwong, Leyan Lo)
> ...


_
So you count only official records? Oh well, I can't even solve the cube then... The fact that almost nobody uses Petrus doesn't make it a bad method. It doesn't really require thinking if you are good enough, it's just harder. My goals are:
2x2x3-block: 3-4 seconds
orient edges: 1-2 seconds
step 4: 3 seconds
LL: 4 seconds
Whole cube: 11-13 seconds

These seem really realistic to me. It will perhaps take a year or even longer until I get close to those times, but I certainly know it's possible. But I can't get into a competition yet because I haven't got enough money, so I think you can just ignore me.

<!--QuoteBegin-AvGalen_@Aug 31 2006, 08:26 AM
*[..]untill you have reached the limits of a method and then find ways to improve that method (Petrus -> Roux or Fridrich -> Vandenbergh-Harris -> Zborowski-Bruchem)*[/quote]
Methods do not have limits. After you can solve every step optimally 10 moves per second, you can start to combine the steps. The fact that this is not really possible is not the method's fault, people are just not smart/fast enough. Roux is not an improved version of Petrus, they are two completely different methods.


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 31, 2006)

> *So you count only official records? Oh well, I can't even solve the cube then... / so I think you can just ignore me.*


 I am sorry if I offended you somehow, but I was just trying to show that nobody I know off is able to do sub-15 with Petrus. If you can (or know someone else), please tell me I am wrong!



> *The fact that almost nobody uses Petrus doesn't make it a bad method.*


I never said Petrus was bad. I do think Fridrich is just a little better for speedcubing (more moves, but less thinking) and tried to prove my point by looking at the best-of-the-best I know of.



> *Methods do not have limits. After you can solve every step optimally 10 moves per second, you can start to combine the steps*


 Methods DO have limits, for example in the average number of moves (>100 is impossible for Petrus and Fridrich, < 100 is impossible for http://s12.invisionfree.com/rubiks/index.p...wtopic=410&hl=). And if I would wait to combine my steps untill I reach 10 moves per second I will still be on a 4-look-last-layer when I am dead.

In my mind I divided methods in 7 groups (Blindfolded/Cycles, Layer-by-Layer, Corners-First, Pair-Based, Block-Based, Free style, Gods Algorith). Petrus and Roux are both block-based and since Roux is newer, I thought it was an improvement to Petrus. Thanks for correcting me on this.


----------



## Neato (Aug 31, 2006)

Wow guys, thanks for the many reply's. I think this forum is a great thing for the cubing community 

Well, for the 3x3x3 I will continue with the petrus method, and become the first sub 15 guy with it... 

My 4x4x4 and 5x5x5 are comming this week to my home.
For them I will use the "standard" method, which contains many friedrich "solutions"... :unsure:
So I can get both methods, and combine them afterwards if I get to the fast times...

Well I'll be active on this forum, so u can see my inprovements, and I'm willing to help other guys, and put my thoughts in some "great" (  ) discussions...


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Neato+Aug 31 2006, 11:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>*QUOTE* (Neato @ Aug 31 2006, 11:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, for the 3x3x3 I will continue with the petrus method, and become the first sub 15 guy with it... [/b]_


_
My best avg of 10 is sub-15 . And Anthony Hsu is sub-14 on Ryan Heise's simulator with petrus: http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/speed.html

<!--QuoteBegin-Neato_@Aug 31 2006, 11:58 AM
*Well I'll be active on this forum, so u can see my inprovements, and I'm willing to help other guys, and put my thoughts in some "great" (  ) discussions...*[/quote]
Nice! I think you'd like these forums, too: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/ and http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/

They are the most active ones. Welcome to the community!


----------



## Neato (Aug 31, 2006)

Thx 

But to stay on topic:
I just tested how many moves I used to solve 5 random cubes with my current method:

1. 98
2. 71 (good LL corners positions)
3. 75 (good twisted corners)
4. 95
5. 76

Comments?


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 31, 2006)

That's rather much. But I think it's mainly your LL, could you solve a couple cubes and count moves for F2L and LL separately?


----------



## Neato (Aug 31, 2006)

Yeah no problem, I will do 3:

1. 68 (F2L:50 LL:18) (Lucky LL)
2. 93 (F2L:53 LL:40)
3. 87 (F2L:55 LL:32)

So I guess my F2L sux, and I to improve my LL algorithms...

EDIT: I figured out I just know 2/7 OLL. So learning the other 5 today


----------



## pjk (Aug 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Johannes91_@Aug 31 2006, 05:25 AM
> *
> 
> 
> ...


 And also this one:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/blindf...ng-rubiks-cube/

All are pretty popular rubiks sites. Some people like different layouts, different things. The idea is NOT to split up the Rubiks community though.


----------



## Richard (Sep 1, 2006)

Lol, i want to throw in one more thing...

Isn't Gilles Roux sub 15? And i know Thom Barlow is close if not already there...


----------



## Johannes91 (Sep 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Richard_@Sep 1 2006, 02:53 AM
> *Isn't Gilles Roux sub 15?*


He is sub-14


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Richard_@Sep 1 2006, 02:53 AM
> * Lol, i want to throw in one more thing...
> 
> Isn't Gilles Roux sub 15? And i know Thom Barlow is close if not already there... *


 sub-16.

Gimmie a month 

~Thom


----------

