# Petrus Example Solves by Panda



## JLarsen (Feb 12, 2012)

[youtubehd]5wlckvgfTn8[/youtubehd]



description said:


> I hope it's everything you dreamed it would be.
> 
> Scrambles;
> D' F D2 F D R D2 F' U' B' F' L R2 B' F' L' B' F D' B' L' R' D F' U' L F L' U2 B'
> ...


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 12, 2012)

Yay Panda.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 12, 2012)

I am Spartacus


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 12, 2012)

Questions: 
You dont orient corners? After EO, youre supposed(Lars Site) to 'Niklas' the corners.
Whats your average TPS?


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 12, 2012)

You're "supposed" to use COLL EPLL in standard Petrus. I just do OLL PLL. Average TPS? Well I get somewhere around 60 moves, and I average somewhere around 15 seconds. That's 4 TPS. It's what I'm trying to work on currently.


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 12, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> You're "supposed" to use COLL EPLL in standard Petrus. I just do OLL PLL. Average TPS? Well I get somewhere around 60 moves, and I average somewhere around 15 seconds. That's 4 TPS. It's what I'm trying to work on currently.


 
60 MOVES!? Isnt petrus supposed to be efficient?


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 12, 2012)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO at 2:30 put the RED edge in first so that while you're putting in the WHITE edge you can influence edge orientation!!!!!


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 12, 2012)

Can't say I've ever done that outside of FMC/slow solves.


----------



## 5BLD (Feb 12, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> 60 MOVES!? Isnt petrus supposed to be efficient?


 
The high movecount of the 2-gen stuff is what made me quit Petrus.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 12, 2012)

I thought that might be the reason but I didn't want to act like I was too good for the reason to be my solutions

Edit: Wait. I'm supposed to be selling Petrus, right? 60 MOVES IS FINE. PETRUS IS THE BEST METHOD. IM REALLY GOOD.


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 12, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> Can't say I've ever done that outside of FMC/slow solves.


 
Really? It's actually very simple. You just have to know which edges are flipped by each of your edge insertions. Then, you can usually use one or two moves to save three during EO. This improves lookahead too.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 13, 2012)

Noahaha said:


> Really? It's actually very simple. You just have to know which edges are flipped by each of your edge insertions. Then, you can usually use one or two moves to save three during EO. This improves lookahead too.


 Yeah I know how it works I've just never incorporated it into my speedsolves.


----------



## Brest (Feb 13, 2012)

1st solve


Spoiler



D' F D2 F D R D2 F' U' B' F' L R2 B' F' L' B' F D' B' L' R' D F' U' L F L' U2 B'

x2 // inspection 
U' R2 y L U' L F' L' // 2x2x2 
y R' r U r' R2 u' R2 u // 2x2x3 
y R U' R' U' R' F' R // EO 
y' R U2' R U' R2 U R // RB block 
R U2' R' U R U' R' // RF pair 
R U R' U R U2' R' U R U2' R' U' R U' R' // OCLL 
U' z U2 R2' F (R U R' U')3 F' R2 U2 // PLL 
alg.garron

```
Step	2x2x3	2x3x3	F2L	LL	Total
HTM	15	21	36	34	70
```



Spoiler



(y U) R' U2 R F U' R' U' R U F' // COLL 
alg.garron

U' R U R' // ELS 
R2 U' L U' R2 U L' U2 R2 U' R2 // EJF2L 
alg.garron





2nd solve


Spoiler



z2 L2 B' F' D' L2 R' B2 R2 D' L' R2 B L2 R2 U F' L' D' L F L2 U R' D L' F D L' R2 B

y2 // inspection 
F l U R L2' U // 2x2x2 
x' y R' U' R U R' U y R U' R' U2' l' U2' l // 2x2x3 
y' R U' R' U' l' U' l // EO 
y' U' R' U R' U' R U R2 U' R' // RF block 
y U' U2' R U' R' U R U2' R' L' U R U' L R' // EJF2L 
U' R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F U2' // PLL 
alg.garron

```
Step	2x2x3	2x3x3	F2L	LL	Total
HTM	19	31	50	16	66
```



Spoiler



x' y R' U' R U R' U y *R U M' U2* // 2x2x3
x' y' L' U' L2 F2 L' // EO
y' R2 U R U R U' R' // F2L
(y U) L' U L U2 R' L' U L2 U' R U L' // ZBLL
alg.garron





3rd solve


Spoiler



y2 B R2 D2 B2 F R2 F' L2 B' L R2 D' L R2 B D' U' F R' B L D L' B' D' U B D B F2

y // inspection 
D L F' U2 R U' R' // 2x2x2 
z x' R' U2' R U' R2 U' R2 U' // 2x2x3 
z' R U' R' l' U' l // EO 
y' U' R' U2' R' // RF block 
R' U R U' R' U R // RB pair 
R U R' U R U2' R' U R U2' R' U' R U' R' // OCLL 
U' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' // PLL 
alg.garron

```
Step	2x2x3	2x3x3	F2L	LL	Total
HTM	15	17	32	30	62
```



Spoiler



(y U) R2 D' R U2 R' D R U2 R // COLL 
alg.garron

(y U) R2 D' r U2 r' D R U2 R // ZBLL 
alg.garron





4th solve


Spoiler



y B L' R' D B' F L R2 B2 F2 L U' F' L2 D' R' B F' R' F' D2 F2 R2 B2 F' L B2 D U R2

x y' // inspection 
U R2 D' x' F' L' x' D2 F' // 2x2x2 
U' U R U' R' U2' R U' x' z' R U' R' l' U' l U l' U2' l // 2x2x3 
y' F' U' l' U' l // EO 
y' U R U R' U' R U' R // BR block 
U2' R U R' U2' R U' R' U R U' R' // RF pair 
U2' R' F' r U R U' r' F // OCLL 
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U' // PLL 
alg.garron

```
Step	2x2x3	2x3x3	F2L	LL	Total
HTM	25	25	50	24	74
```



Spoiler



(U') U2 x' U' F R2 U' R y' U2 R2 // 2x2x3
alg.garron

(y) R' U R2 D r' U2 r D' R2 U' R // COLL / ZBLL 
alg.garron





5th solve


Spoiler



x2 y D' B U L R' B F' D L R D F' U B2 R U R2 F2 L2 R' D2 L' U' B2 L' R' U2 B' U L2

y x2 // inspection 
U2' R2 y (r U' r2' r2 U r') U r U' r2' // 2x2x2 
U' R y R' U R2 U2' // 2x2x3 
z' R U' R2' F R r U' r' // EO 
y' U R' U' R' // RF block 
R' U' R U' R' U' R // RB pair 
R U2' R2' U' R2 U' R2' U2' R // COLL 
U y2 R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' // EPLL 
alg.garron

```
Step	2x2x3	2x3x3	F2L	LL	Total
HTM	12	19	31	21	52
```



Spoiler



(y') R' U' R U' R' U2 R U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R // RULL 
alg.garron

(y2 U') z U' R D R' U R D2 R U R' D R U' // ZBLL 
alg.garron







```
Average (5/5)
Step	2x2x3	2x3x3	F2L	LL	Total
HTM	17	23	40	25	65
```


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 13, 2012)

Eek. Is my move count really high? Relative to averaging 15 seconds? Relative to a sub 10 solver? You really enjoy reconstructions don't you =P.


----------



## 5BLD (Feb 13, 2012)

IMO one should keep low movecount right from say sub-40, improving on that slowly but in an ideal world only having to work on TPS/lookahead right down to sub-8 and beyond; the base efficiency is there from the beginning.


----------



## Owen (Feb 14, 2012)

60 moves seems fine to me.


----------



## teller (Feb 14, 2012)

@JLarsen: THANK YOU! This was exactly what I was looking for. Very interesting to see your thought process. I owe you one!


----------



## irontwig (Feb 14, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> Eek. Is my move count really high?


 
Tbh, yes; it's about the same as CFOP with 3LLL.


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 18, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> Eek. Is my move count really high?


 
Ao12 counting moves:

Solve 2x2x3 EO F2L LL Total
1 18 3 6 25 52
2 14 4 17 22 57
3 14 5 15 28 62
4 17 3 18 21 59
5 13 7 14 20 54
6 9 4 21 21 55
7 19 4 22 19 64
8 13 5 13 22 53
9 16 5 16 21 58
10 11 3 17 26 57
11 15 8 26 22 71
12 16 5 18 20 59
mean 14.6 4.7 16.9 22.3 58.4
ao12 14.7 4.5 17.1 22.0 57.8

I was trying to replicate my actual solves, but I could use some serious work too.


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 18, 2012)

Just reading Brest's epic reconstructions, your 2x2x2 seems great every solve, but from there it just goes downhill. I think it's a bad thing that my CFOP is more efficient than your petrus.
Props for doing these though.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 18, 2012)

Tim Major said:


> Just reading Brest's epic reconstructions, your 2x2x2 seems great every solve, but from there it just goes downhill. I think it's a bad thing that my CFOP is more efficient than your petrus.
> Props for doing these though.


 I think it's largely in part because after 2x2 you have to start doing something for 2x2x3 even if you don't know where all 3 pieces are. Maybe I need to start obsessing over trying to track 2x2x3 during 2x2 again?

Edit: Not going to lie it's pretty discouraging hearing that my solve are less efficient than a CFOP...but I'm not sure that there's really much I can do to fix that. 2x2x3 has a lot of freedom, but it's not practical to take advantage of any of it in a speedsolve.

Double post but definitely worth it. After reading everything in this discussion and others, I decided to try an average using X cross and 2 look OLL. Here's the results

Average of 12: 17.10



Spoiler



1. 15.74 R2 F2 D2 B' R2 D2 B' F' D2 U2 F' L D R' D B' L B D' B' U2 
2. 22.06 D2 R2 F L2 U2 F2 R2 F' D2 L2 R2 U F D2 L' F2 R B F2 U' 
3. 14.69 F D2 R2 B L2 B' D2 L2 F' U2 B2 R D L B2 U' R' F2 U2 F' D 
4. 18.38 D2 B2 L2 F2 R2 D2 B2 D2 R B2 R B' D2 R' D B2 D F' R' 
5. 15.18 D2 B' D2 R2 U2 B' L2 D2 F' R' B U' B F' L' B2 R2 B' U' 
6. 19.68 U2 L' F2 L D2 L U2 B2 R D2 F2 D F' D2 L' R2 U2 B2 F' L F 
7. 16.12 L2 R2 B2 D B2 L2 U2 R2 U' B2 U2 R' D2 U B' R2 U2 L' U' 
8. 15.66 D' L2 B2 D2 R2 F2 D R2 F2 D' B2 F L F2 L2 B L2 R B' U' L 
9. 15.51 U' L2 D R2 U F2 U' B2 L2 B2 U2 R' B U' L R2 B R' B L 
10. (14.17) R2 B2 D2 F2 D' F2 L2 D R2 B2 U B R' D L' F2 R U F' L U 
11. (22.38) F2 R2 F2 U2 R2 U2 L D2 L' U2 F2 U' B' L2 U R' B' L D F' L 
12. 17.93 L B2 F2 L' D2 L B2 R U2 B2 U2 B' L' F U' R' B' D' L' U F2



I haven't done any movecounting yet, but something tells me that the solutions are more efficient than my usual ones. The ridiculous thing is that I don't even practice fridrich. I'm reallllly considering taking up X Cross full time, and learning full OLL, and smashing all of the barriers that I couldn't before. The solves were still pretty fun too! The 20s were me trying to remember my dot case OLL that I use....lmao


----------



## Noahaha (Feb 18, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> Double post but definitely worth it. After reading everything in this discussion and others, I decided to try an average using X cross and 2 look OLL. Here's the results
> 
> Average of 12: 17.10
> 
> ...


 
=(


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 18, 2012)

Average number 2 

Average of 12: 17.00



Spoiler



1. (13.91) B2 L2 U B2 D2 B2 L2 D' R2 D2 B2 R U' L' F L2 U' L' B D F 
2. 15.39 R2 D R2 B2 U2 F2 U L2 U R2 D L' F2 U' B2 R B' L' R2 D2 
3. 16.76 F' B' U D' L F' U2 L2 U B' R' U2 F2 R L' D2 R' U2 F2 D2 R' 
4. 17.75 U2 L' B2 F2 U2 R' U2 L' B2 F2 D2 B' D' L' U' L' B F D' 
5. 18.21 L' F2 D R' F D R B' D R' F2 B2 L D2 F2 R' B2 L' U2 B2 
6. 17.07 B2 R2 B2 F2 U' F2 L2 D B2 U2 B L D2 B' D' B2 L2 U R U 
7. 16.36 U2 L2 D2 L2 B R2 F U2 B F' U2 R B F2 L' D2 F2 D F2 D' B 
8. 19.63 U B' L2 F R D F D B' L U2 F2 D' B2 U2 F2 R2 U' B2 L2 B2 
9. 15.59 R2 U2 R2 D' B2 R2 F2 R2 U B2 R2 B D2 F L' F' R' D2 L2 F2 
10. 16.04 U2 L' D2 F2 R2 F2 L' R2 D2 R U2 F L U L F U' L' F' 
11. (19.77) F' B' R' U2 L' B' D' R2 U B' U2 F' U2 D2 B U2 D2 R2 B2 U2 
12. 17.21 R' B2 L B2 D2 F2 D2 R' F2 U2 L2 B U F2 D' L2 U B' L F' D2



I've dumped years into this method and I think it's time that I acknowledge it's flaws and move on. I'm still making a 2x2 every single solve. Very worst case scenario, the same thing happens that happened the last time I switched to Fridrich. I get bored, I do a Petrus average, and I get the best average I've ever done. I really want to get this idea out to other people that might be trying to speedsolve with Petrus.


----------



## Rpotts (Feb 18, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> I really want to get this idea out to other people that might be trying to speedsolve with Petrus.



freeeeeefaawwwp.


----------



## 5BLD (Feb 18, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> I think it's largely in part because after 2x2 you have to start doing something for 2x2x3 even if you don't know where all 3 pieces are. Maybe I need to start obsessing over trying to track 2x2x3 during 2x2 again?
> 
> Edit: Not going to lie it's pretty discouraging hearing that my solve are less efficient than a CFOP...but I'm not sure that there's really much I can do to fix that. 2x2x3 has a lot of freedom, but it's not practical to take advantage of any of it in a speedsolve.


 
What? Well even I can take advantage of 2 of the 3 options (fixed D white or yellow) by looking through both of the three pieces through 2x2x2 and seeing which *looks* (may not necessarily but usually is) nicer.

Then since I planned out the 2x2x2 during inspection I can just not look at that and track the three pieces.

An alternative would be to simply find all six pieces (or for me just the edges; I do this because I can locate corners very fast anyway) and track although maybe six is a little too much. I can't do all six, haha. 

But tracking two pairs for me is best if I can't do it in inspection.

Sorry if I'm completely missing the point of your post- tell me if I am.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 18, 2012)

You're not missing the point - I was just saying that I can't do that. I can't plan an entire 2x2 and then do it from memory without looking it at while tracking other pieces. But even if I was good at doing so, then I would be devoting myself to a particular 2x2x3 expansion before I even knew for sure how it would turn out. F2L slotting is great because you can pick whatever slot you want, and take advantage of easy cases. With 2x2x3 expansion, it's much more difficult to recognize, execute, and take advantage of any easy cases that come up because they're in awkward spots, require awkward rotations, and the ability to put together 3 pieces efficiently without having major pauses. With X cross, all I have to track and put into place are 2 edges, which is a piece of cake. All I'm saying is that 2x2x3 is a difficult step to do right.


----------



## 5BLD (Feb 18, 2012)

Although with 2x2x3 you've got so much damn freedom. You say its hard to get done right, sure but it can be done right. And it's blockbuilding so you can be that much more efficient.
F2L slotting is ok but I prefer more freedom.

As for awkward turns wide turns free stuff up for me to execute straight-up awkward solutions.

Maybe the middle ground to this is to use FreeFOP alongside CFOP?

Anyway well if you're convinced you can't be good at the first two steps of Petrus and much prefer CFOP go ahead. I personally think you should give FreeFOP a look over first however.


----------



## JLarsen (Feb 18, 2012)

That's the plan, man. More or less doing a 2x2 and then solving the cube with whatever I like. Mainly X crosses though.


----------



## teller (Feb 18, 2012)

JLarsen said:


> That's the plan, man. More or less doing a 2x2 and then solving the cube with whatever I like. Mainly X crosses though.


 
I did this for awhile...I was never able to plan 2x2x2 as well as I could crosses, though...I look forward to your reports.


----------

