# [Proposal] Rename the Ortega 2x2 Method to Varasano



## Rubiks560 (Aug 23, 2015)

TL;DW:

Jeff Varasano the 1981 US champion invented and published the Ortega method in 1981 (but for 3x3) long before Ortega even thought about cubing.
Ortega was even inspired by Jeffs book "Jeff Conquers the cube in 45 seconds". I think it should be renamed to give proper credit.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 23, 2015)

varasano sounds cool so sure


----------



## GirlMeetsCubing (Aug 23, 2015)

I never even knew about this... of course Jeff Varasano deserves credit for it. I'm going to start calling it the Varasano method as well.

But I feel like Ortega should at least get some credit for spreading the word around about the method. If the method was never well-known, what use does that have? Maybe change the name to something like Varasano-Ortega or something?


----------



## noodlez (Aug 23, 2015)

I agree.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 23, 2015)

varasano method sound pretty cool, i don't think there will be much trouble with the community switching over.


----------



## cashis (Aug 23, 2015)

this will be the first time a "name switch" has happened though, if we pull this off. But I'm all for it.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 23, 2015)

cashis said:


> this will be the first time a "name switch" has happened though, if we pull this off. But I'm all for it.



well fridrich went to mostly cfop in a couple of years and i don't think there was any said movement like this.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Aug 23, 2015)

GuRoux said:


> well fridrich went to mostly cfop in a couple of years and i don't think there was any said movement like this.



Yeah, the community alternates between those names 
I'm all for the Varasano method name switch


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 23, 2015)

The Ortega method:
Step 1: Use the Varasano method to solve the cube.


----------



## OrigamiCuber1 (Aug 23, 2015)

You should ask a mod to add a poll.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 23, 2015)

What - why?

I doubt Fridrich was the first person to create the Fridrich method.
I doubt Petrus was the first person to create the Petrus method.
I doubt Roux was the first person to create the Roux method.
I doubt Zbigniew was the first person to create the ZZ method.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 23, 2015)

Face OLL PBL

'tis FOP, ye hypocrites.

in my opinion.


----------



## kcl (Aug 23, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> What - why?
> 
> I doubt Fridrich was the first person to create the Fridrich method.
> I doubt Petrus was the first person to create the Petrus method.
> ...



Would you mind telling me who WAS the first person to create all those?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 23, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> What - why?
> 
> I doubt Fridrich was the first person to create the Fridrich method.
> I doubt Petrus was the first person to create the Petrus method.
> ...



The difference here is we DO know who created this method. 
You don't know who created all of those.


----------



## Jokerman5656 (Aug 23, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> What - why?
> 
> I doubt Fridrich was the first person to create the Fridrich method.
> I doubt Petrus was the first person to create the Petrus method.
> ...



Well, maybe he is working on finding the real first users of those methods too and this is just the start of a thing?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 23, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> I doubt Fridrich was the first person to create the Fridrich method.



Isn't this the reason why we call it CFOP rather than Fridrich?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 23, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> Would you mind telling me who WAS the first person to create all those?



No idea.
That said, you should never assume an idea you have is original.
There are many cubers in the world, and most of them aren't here on SpeedSolving ready to report the year the created some method.


One example, though: I 'created' ZZ in early 2008, before it was brought into the English-speaking world later that year.
CFOP is a very natural progression from the 'beginners' method.
Roux in various forms has been around long before 2003, in the form of Waterman-like methods.
The only interesting part of Petrus' progress is the EO step in the middle of the solve. Beyond that, the method is "make a thing, and expand it a few times."

I don't mean to discredit anyone for their work, but making a method popular by documenting it well takes possibly *more* effort than inventing a method.
I invented tons of methods, but they don't matter at all unless you document them and prove their worth.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 23, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> I don't mean to discredit anyone for their work, but making a method popular by documenting it well takes possibly *more* effort than inventing a method.
> I invented tons of methods, but they don't matter at all unless you document them and prove their worth.



To be fair, he did document it in his 1981 book, which I believe was before the release of any 2x2x2.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 23, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> No idea.



Well, I said that because I remember a few years ago there being a movement on this forum about that. I feel like Cubecast might have had a hand in that (as in, the idea started there, and another user went through with a poll or something). It's hard to remember, so I don't want to point fingers, but I feel like that's how it happened. Either way - I think the gist of it is that Fridrich is now referred to as CFOP because it was found out the idea was *not* original.



StachuK1992 said:


> That said, you should never assume an idea you have is original.



At some point, an idea is certainly original. Really though, that's not the point here. The point is that Varasano had the first documented source of this method, and it appears that Chris wants the name to be appropriate.



StachuK1992 said:


> There are many cubers in the world, and most of them aren't here on SpeedSolving ready to report the year the created some method.



Including Jeff Varasano. While he *does* have a Speedsolving username, he didn't lobby for this name change on here. I believe he has posted just a few times, mainly in his thread looking for cubers in his area. To my knowledge, he doesn't visit the forum anymore. This actually happened incidentally while he was explaining his 3x3 method to a group of us. We realized "Wow, that is the Ortega method!"


----------



## rybaby (Aug 23, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Jeff Varasano the 1981 US champion invented and published the Ortega method in 1981 (but for 3x3) long before Ortega even thought about cubing.



Actually, Jeff was not the 1981 US champion; Minh Thai was (which sent him to WC 1982). He did have the fastest time out of anyone in the qualifying competitions, however, at 24.67 seconds (technically the NR of the day).

Totally for the name change; I used to use Varasano's method for 3x3, before I even knew other people called it "Ortega."


----------



## uyneb2000 (Aug 23, 2015)

I don't really care about what I call a method, it's kind of like arguing over alternative country names.

We'll get it if you say Burma or Myanmar, it's the same thing to most people. Although, we still should be careful about Macedonia...

But Varasano makes a mean pizza.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 23, 2015)

uyneb2000 said:


> But Varasano makes a mean pizza.



I hope with that statement that means you've had it. If you *have* had it, then you know you vastly understated his ability


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 23, 2015)

If you are gonna change the name then you should imo change it to something that actually describes the method. FOP is actually a good option (face orient permute). But it's just a name so who really honestly cares what it's called? Same stuff in different package...


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> If you are gonna change the name then you should imo change it to something that actually describes the method. FOP is actually a good option (face orient permute). But it's just a name so who really honestly cares what it's called? Same stuff in different package...



but acronyms are lame


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Aug 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> If you are gonna change the name then you should imo change it to something that actually describes the method. FOP is actually a good option (face orient permute). But it's just a name so who really honestly cares what it's called? Same stuff in different package...



Give a name such as Ortega which credits the wrong person?
If most people are indifferent about the subject then just let's give the right credit to the creator


----------



## DanpHan (Aug 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> But it's just a name so who really honestly cares what it's called?



Maybe the people who care about giving proper credit where credit is due?


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> If you are gonna change the name then you should imo change it to something that actually describes the method. FOP is actually a good option (face orient permute). But it's just a name so who really honestly cares what it's called? Same stuff in different package...



Imagine creating some amazing product and then having someone take it and put their name on it.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty pissed.


----------



## IAmEpic2004 (Aug 23, 2015)

I vote yeah


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 23, 2015)

best method name: (a 4x4 direct solving method by ross)

kennith ****ed up while naming his big cube method, so i will not call this kbcm. instead, i'll call it wolfies collar because im pretty much the only person who solves with this so i can call it what i want.


----------



## YouCubing (Aug 23, 2015)

I'm down with this. Also, I live near Atlanta so I'll be sure to try to go to his pizza place 
Who doesn't love some pizza? Besides lactose intolerant people.


----------



## Coolster01 (Aug 23, 2015)

Cool! But don't forget to change this and this to Varasano.

E: And also this.

E2: And this too.


----------



## cubizh (Aug 23, 2015)

After watching the video, what jumps to me first is the strange oversight (I assume) of only speaking about Ortega and not mentioning Josef Jelinek, which was another developer of this method, even more because the messages you quote seem to actually be from him (Josef) and not from Victor as you seem to be implying in the video, which was confusing. I think Josef is probably the main reason this method is so popular in the first place. People back then didn't really care about naming methods or who developed what first, they just wanted to get things solved.

It would have been interesting if you could have gotten in contact with Victor and get his thoughts as well to support some of the statements you make in the video regarding the authors.

If for nothing more, it's nice that you made this video to raise awareness for Jeff's work and to let people know that this method was already known in the 1980s and there was some published material on it. I have not read the book, but regardless, the method name branding is a minor issue.

Even though I can absolutely agree credit should be given to Jeff for developing it as a 3x3 method before anyone else (which unfortunately can't ever be proven for sure), by either giving his name to the method or have the reference as method author, I also think it's not entirely fair to disregard the work Victor/Josef had in popularizing it, particularly the 2x2 aspect of it, and completely discard that reference: you mention in the video Jeff did "all the work", and that Victor/Josef "basically just made it popular" as if to say that that has no work involved. I am not sure if that's what you meant, but if it was, it's a bit unfair. It's not the same type of work, but it's also not nothing. Would it be a known and much used method otherwise? Who knows...

I think the sanest route if you want to change it, could be to start using both naming references, so that people can start acknowledging the name of the author and also know what others are talking about when they are speaking about the Ortega method, but it should not be a big issue.


----------



## molarmanful (Aug 23, 2015)

Why don't we name it VO? Like how ZB is Zborowski-Bruchem, this could be the Varasano-Ortega Method. Nice compromise, shorter to say, and arguably catchier.


----------



## youSurname (Aug 24, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=054bInnL8YY
> 
> TL;DW:
> 
> ...



But that would violate Stigler's Law 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy


----------



## G2013 (Aug 24, 2015)

By the way, "Ortega" sounds bad. (lol)


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 24, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> I'm down with this. Also, I live near Atlanta so I'll be sure to try to go to his pizza place
> Who doesn't love some pizza? Besides lactose intolerant people.



I'm lactose intolerant and I love pizza. It just loves me less than I love it.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 24, 2015)

you should order some of his pizza the next Atlanta comp


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 24, 2015)

YouCubing said:


> I'm down with this. Also, I live near Atlanta so I'll be sure to try to go to his pizza place
> Who doesn't love some pizza? Besides lactose intolerant people.



I'm lactose intolerant and I probably ate 8 slices of his pizza. 



cubizh said:


> After watching the video, what jumps to me first is the strange oversight (I assume) of only speaking about Ortega and not mentioning Josef Jelinek, which was another developer of this method, even more because the messages you quote seem to actually be from him (Josef) and not from Victor as you seem to be implying in the video, which was confusing. I think Josef is probably the main reason this method is so popular in the first place. People back then didn't really care about naming methods or who developed what first, they just wanted to get things solved.
> 
> It would have been interesting if you could have gotten in contact with Victor and get his thoughts as well to support some of the statements you make in the video regarding the authors.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I did kind of skip over Josef. Not intentionally though, I just got used to referring to Ortega as the soul creator and it ended up being habit to say that. 
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why it was called Ortega if Josef played a significant role in creating it?

Would people *actually* settle on calling it VO? I'd be all for it as it credits both people. But if people are going to refuse to call it VO, I'm just going to continue calling it Varasano.


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Aug 24, 2015)

VarasanOrtega.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 24, 2015)

I wonder if in a couple of years' time, someone else will show up claiming to be the guy who gave Varasano the idea, and we'll have this same debate again...


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 24, 2015)

You know what, it largely doesn't actually matter.


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Aug 24, 2015)

Kirjava said:


> You know what, it largely doesn't actually matter.



Agreed


----------



## Scruggsy13 (Aug 24, 2015)

Kir has spoken. But in all seriousness, I wouldn't mind calling it VO, Varasano, or Ortega.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 24, 2015)

Where did Ortega popularize it as a 2x2 method? I don't even see 2x2 mentioned at all on http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php, which is probably *the* page for the Ortega method.

I showed you an Amazon review apparently written by Ortega, where he wrote _"[The Simple Solution to Rubik's Cube by James G. Nourse] is what I used to learn to solve the cube in 1981 (I was 7 at the time)"_. So why do you say _"long before Ortega even thought about cubing"_? Also, in that review he mentions five other people+methods, and Varasano and his book aren't among them.

_"he even says that he based the Ortega method off of Jeff's book"_? Wasn't Ortega who wrote that, didn't say Jeff, didn't say it was based off of that book (says "inspired" and only is the second book mentioned (if it really is that book), and apparently only recalled from memory, and http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php says _"This solution method is based on Minh Thai's Winning Solution. Ideas and sequences are borrowed from other solution methods, and appropriate attributions are made in those sections."_ and I couldn't find "Varasano" mentioned anywhere on the site).

Rather disappointed. Wasn't the purpose of this video/thread to *correct* something?


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm down for the Varasanortega method.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 24, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Where did Ortega popularize it as a 2x2 method? I don't even see 2x2 mentioned at all on http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php, which is probably *the* page for the Ortega method.
> 
> I showed you an Amazon review apparently written by Ortega, where he wrote _"[The Simple Solution to Rubik's Cube by James G. Nourse] is what I used to learn to solve the cube in 1981 (I was 7 at the time)"_. So why do you say _"long before Ortega even thought about cubing"_? Also, in that review he mentions five other people+methods, and Varasano and his book aren't among them.
> 
> ...



Clearly I was misinformed. I went based off of information given to me by people who met Jeff before I did.
My apologies for messing up so badly.


----------



## Carrot (Aug 24, 2015)

cashis said:


> this will be the first time a "name switch" has happened though, if we pull this off. But I'm all for it.



It has been done before. (if you look up Oka tutorials for pyraminx you will most likely find keyhole tutorials instead)


----------



## Praetorian (Aug 24, 2015)

is a name change really necessary? all we can probably do is simply acknowledge the work he's put into this method, but changing a name that's already ingrained can be a bit difficult, don't you think? and beginners who want to learn 'ortega' will probably search for ortega. a popular video for teaching this method is by crazy bad cuber whose probably not gonna change that name, and it'll probably be a tutorial who most people that are interested in it will turn to, and ortega will grow on them


----------



## Artic (Aug 24, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Clearly I was misinformed. I went based off of information given to me by people who met Jeff before I did.
> My apologies for messing up so badly.



So you messed up and want people to call it Varasano based on incomplete wrong information!?!? Seems like a bunch of hooey to me. 

I'm calling it Ortega.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Aug 24, 2015)

VO sounds the coolest of all the names, I'll call it that from now on. 
You could however call the 3x3 method Varasano and the 2x2 method Ortega.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 24, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> VO sounds the coolest of all the names, I'll call it that from now on.
> You could however call the 3x3 method Varasano and the 2x2 method Ortega.



Considering that both their main intentions were to make 3x3 methods, this makes little sense.


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 24, 2015)

Would you say you use EG, or advanced Varasano Chris? I think this is unnecessary.


----------



## ottozing (Aug 24, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> EG, or advanced Varasano



Why not advanced Ortega? 

I really don't get your point lol


----------



## Sajwo (Aug 24, 2015)

I can only imagine that pitiful smile when someone ask what method do you use and you answer with "Varasano!" and they are like wtf?

.. just stick with ortega name


----------



## Berd (Aug 24, 2015)

VO sounds cool!


----------



## kcl (Aug 24, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Where did Ortega popularize it as a 2x2 method? I don't even see 2x2 mentioned at all on http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php, which is probably *the* page for the Ortega method.
> 
> I showed you an Amazon review apparently written by Ortega, where he wrote _"[The Simple Solution to Rubik's Cube by James G. Nourse] is what I used to learn to solve the cube in 1981 (I was 7 at the time)"_. So why do you say _"long before Ortega even thought about cubing"_? Also, in that review he mentions five other people+methods, and Varasano and his book aren't among them.
> 
> ...



1. The claim that Varasano's book was published before Ortega started cubing is invalid. Who cares? It has no effect on the rest of this. 
2. Whether he based it off of Varasano's book or not, it was still the first published source of the method, and I believe that's worth noting. Jeff's book was published in 1981, a year before Minh Thai's "Winning Solution". 
Granted there are some claims here which are not properly fact checked, but the main point remains the same. Varasano was, as far as we know, the first person to create and publish this method.



Artic said:


> So you messed up and want people to call it Varasano based on incomplete wrong information!?!? Seems like a bunch of hooey to me.
> 
> I'm calling it Ortega.



Seems to me like the facts that matter are still valid.


----------



## noodlez (Aug 24, 2015)

Berd said:


> VO sounds cool!



Yeah, why not?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 24, 2015)

Stefan said:


> I showed you an Amazon review apparently written by Ortega



I feel like if anybody would have used an Amazon review as evidence to back up their claim to you, you wouldn't accept it. 



Stefan said:


> _"he even says that he based the Ortega method off of Jeff's book"_? Wasn't Ortega who wrote that, didn't say Jeff, didn't say it was based off of that book (says "inspired" and only is the second book mentioned (if it really is that book), and apparently only recalled from memory



Josef, who helped developed the method, mentioned "solve cube in 45 seconds (or st. like that)". The only first page results when I google "solve cube in 45 seconds" that relate to a book all point to Jeff Varasano's book. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Josef was talking about that book in the conversation we saw a screenshot of in the video.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 24, 2015)

FatBoyXPC said:


> I feel like if anybody would have used an Amazon review as evidence to back up their claim to you, you wouldn't accept it.



I don't see why I wouldn't. Unless I have good reason to doubt it. Which I'd then say. I'm certain I wouldn't just ignore it and claim, without evidence, pretty much the opposite of what it says. Though I suspect Chris didn't ignore it but rather missed it. Which is a bit sloppy. Which, like I said, disappoints me particularly in a thread like this where setting things straight is pretty much the entire purpose. And I'm really wondering why he said _"long before Ortega even thought about cubing"_. How does he know when Ortega started cubing or even "thinking about cubing"? That Amazon review is the only piece of information I have seen regarding that, and I think it says the opposite.


----------



## kcl (Aug 24, 2015)

Stefan said:


> I don't see why I wouldn't. Unless I have good reason to doubt it. Which I'd then say. I'm certain I wouldn't just ignore it and claim, without evidence, pretty much the opposite of what it says. Though I suspect Chris didn't ignore it but rather missed it. Which is a bit sloppy. Which, like I said, disappoints me particularly in a thread like this where setting things straight is pretty much the entire purpose. And I'm really wondering why he said _"long before Ortega even thought about cubing"_. How does he know when Ortega started cubing or even "thinking about cubing"? That Amazon review is the only piece of information I have seen regarding that, and I think it says the opposite.



What makes you care so much? You're missing the entire point.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm also wondering how _"The Varasano 2x2 method, I'm sure none of you have ever heard about this method_ and _"There's many other people who are now referring to it as the Varasano method"_ can both be true.



kclejeune said:


> What makes you care so much? You're missing the entire point.



What point am I missing? I think *you* are missing *my* point.


----------



## kcl (Aug 24, 2015)

Stefan said:


> I'm also wondering how _"The Varasano 2x2 method, I'm sure none of you have ever heard about this method_ and _"There's many other people who are now referring to it as the Varasano method"_ can both be true.
> 
> 
> 
> What point am I missing? I think *you* are missing *my* point.



The fact that Varasano's book is still the first published source we have of this method. 

And really, you choose to nitpick over something as small as that? He's referring to mutual friends, Atlanta cubers, and people who have already started using the new name. The vast majority of his viewers will not have heard of this.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 24, 2015)

kclejeune said:


> The fact that Varasano's book is still the first published source we have of this method.



Don't know why you think I missed that. I didn't.


----------



## G2013 (Aug 24, 2015)

What's unavoidable to happen is to create 2 groups of cubers, the "I want ortega to remain like this" and the "I want it renamed". And also numerous discussions and arguments.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 24, 2015)

Stefan said:


> I don't see why I wouldn't. Unless I have good reason to doubt it. Which I'd then say. I'm certain I wouldn't just ignore it and claim, without evidence, pretty much the opposite of what it says. Though I suspect Chris didn't ignore it but rather missed it. Which is a bit sloppy. Which, like I said, disappoints me particularly in a thread like this where setting things straight is pretty much the entire purpose. And I'm really wondering why he said _"long before Ortega even thought about cubing"_. How does he know when Ortega started cubing or even "thinking about cubing"? That Amazon review is the only piece of information I have seen regarding that, and I think it says the opposite.



I went based off of peoples information that had already met and talked to him. 
I actually did want to do more fact checking, but was told that wasn't necessary and we had all the needed information. I really should have just stuck to my gut and kept checking. And the fact that I missed the review is pretty pathetic. What I should have said instead of "Long before Ortega was cubing" was that Jeff published it long before Ortega did. I really do apologize for the sloppiness of my facts.

But, on the other hand I also feel like the things that are being nit picked are not exactly relevant information.
The fact that Ortega was cubing when he was a 7 isn't exactly important. Sure, he was cubing at age 7. That doesn't effect the fact that Jeff published this book before anyone else. 

The important fact here is that Jeff's book was published (as far as I'm aware) before anyone else and I feel like that's worth *something*. Whether it warrants a full name change or not.


----------



## Skullush (Aug 24, 2015)

Why not just call it SOP (Side Orient Permute)?


----------



## Sebastien (Aug 24, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> I went based off of peoples information that had already met and talked to him.
> I actually did want to do more fact checking, but was told that wasn't necessary and we had all the needed information. I really should have just stuck to my gut and kept checking. And the fact that I missed the review is pretty pathetic. What I should have said instead of "Long before Ortega was cubing" was that Jeff published it long before Ortega did. I really do apologize for the sloppiness of my facts.
> 
> *But, on the other hand I also feel like the things that are being nit picked are not exactly relevant information.*
> ...



For an educated viewer, that's not the case though. All I see is that you tell things about Varasano and Ortega. But you don't provide means to check what you are telling. You linked to jeff's book, but as one can't see the content, it could basically contain everything. Especially there is no way for someone that only watched your video to verify if this book really contains exactly the method that we call the "Ortega method". Hence, everything relies on believing the information that you provide, and when Stefan points out misinformation among it, that weakens the rest of the information as well. Exaggerated comparison: A person proclaiming vegetarianism while eating a hamburger.

In particular, your video submits the message that "Ortega just pubslihed the method" while Varasano created it. But from what I've seen from Stefan, it is possible that Ortega created the same method as well, not knowing about Varasano. After all, calling it "Ortega" might be just as justified as calling it "Varasano".



kclejeune said:


> What makes you care so much? You're missing the entire point.



Everyone else seems to have understood Stefan's point. Especially Chris himself acknowledged it right away, even before you started to complain. 

Reading your replies makes me think that you are mainly driven by dislike against him. If I'm right, that's not a nice way to act. In case I'm wrong, please try a little harder to understand his legitimate disapointment (my reply to Chris above might be helpful for this).


----------



## CHJ (Aug 24, 2015)

i vote we should call it the CHJ method, just as pointless as every other name, just solve the cube


----------



## YouCubing (Aug 24, 2015)

CHJ said:


> i vote we should call it the CHJ method, just as pointless as every other name, just solve the cube



Deal. CHJ method everyone.


----------



## Chree (Aug 24, 2015)

Didn't Erno Rubik use a corners first method to solve the cube after inventing it? He was arguably the first.

Let's call it the Rubik's Method.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 24, 2015)

Sebastien said:


> In particular, your video submits the message that "Ortega just pubslihed the method" while Varasano created it. But from what I've seen from Stefan, it is possible that Ortega created the same method as well, not knowing about Varasano. After all, calling it "Ortega" might be just as justified as calling it "Varasano".



While this could be true, the video Chris made does show a screenshot of a conversation with who is believed to be Josef, saying which books Victor took inspiration from. As stated in a previous message (though, in a reply directly to Stefan), Josef said "solve cube in 45 sec (or st. like that)". I googled "solve cube in 45 seconds", and the only results on the first page that pointed to a book, all pointed to Jeff Varasano's book. I think this makes it clear that Victor Ortega *did* take inspiration from Jeff, thus not creating the method himself.

Even at that - say Ortega also invented this himself, same algorithms and everything. I believe this is the same reason why "Fridrich Method" got renamed to "CFOP". There have been reports of other people creating similar methods, and somehow Fridrich got the credit, thus the name change.


----------



## Chree (Aug 24, 2015)

FatBoyXPC said:


> While this could be true, the video Chris made does show a screenshot of a conversation with who is believed to be Josef, saying which books Victor took inspiration from. As stated in a previous message (though, in a reply directly to Stefan), Josef said "solve cube in 45 sec (or st. like that)". I googled "solve cube in 45 seconds", and the only results on the first page that pointed to a book, all pointed to Jeff Varasano's book. I think this makes it clear that Victor Ortega *did* take inspiration from Jeff, thus not creating the method himself.
> 
> Even at that - say Ortega also invented this himself, same algorithms and everything. I believe this is the same reason why "Fridrich Method" got renamed to "CFOP". *There have been reports of other people creating similar methods, and somehow Fridrich got the credit, thus the name change*.



That's what I think will come out of this. Some people will still keep calling it Ortega, the same way some people still call it Fridrich. Those that successfully popularized it (thanks to the internet-age) will still get some level of credit. Meanwhile, the a subset of the community will give credit where it's due. Everyone will still know what everyone else means. So Varasano, VO, FOP, Ortega, whatever. I think it's all good.


----------



## DizzypheasantZZ (Aug 24, 2015)

Fridrich also came up with the algs, so I think she should be given credit.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 25, 2015)

FatBoyXPC said:


> conversation with who is believed to be Josef, *saying which books Victor took inspiration from*



He didn't say that. He said "it" (the method) was inspired by those books. Maybe only Josef was inspired by that book. Or maybe he misremembers now. After all, he didn't mention that book back when the page was created and memories were fresher. And it's not clear what "inspired" means. Maybe it was just a little. Josef did say it is a blend of *many* methods. Or maybe it only inspired the edges part. Finally, with all the errors made, especially going on and on about how Ortega made a 2x2 method when apparently in reality it was a 3x3 method, I'm not convinced it's actually the same method. I'd compare it myself, but I couldn't find Jeff's method anywhere except in expensive book form.

Maybe I should point out that I said nothing against Jeff or the renaming. If it really is the same method, I'm somewhat in favor of calling it Varasano or so (not that I care or matter much) and I appreciate that Chris is bringing it to our attention. I just don't like what I consider bad/wrong arguments, especially if they're somewhat against someone (Ortega in this case), especially if that someone isn't around. That's all.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Aug 25, 2015)

Sebastien said:


> Especially there is no way for someone that only watched your video to verify if this book really contains exactly the method that we call the "Ortega method". Hence, everything relies on believing the information that you provide, ...





Stefan said:


> Finally, with all the errors made, especially going on and on about how Ortega made a 2x2 method when apparently in reality it was a 3x3 method, I'm not convinced it's actually the same method. I'd compare it myself, but I couldn't find Jeff's method anywhere except in expensive book form.



I personally learned the "Ortega method" (the corners/2x2x2 part) from Jeff's book in 1982. I can assure you that it is essentially the same method described by Victor Ortega in so far as solving the corners are concered. (Jeff and Vicktor might align corners with centers at different times, but that is moot as far as viewing it as a 2x2x2 method.)

Jeff's and Victor's methods do differ a bit in terms of how the edges are solved, but again this is moot as far as using them as 2x2x2 methods.



Chree said:


> Didn't Erno Rubik use a corners first method to solve the cube after inventing it? He was arguably the first.
> 
> Let's call it the Rubik's Method.



Even though he may have used a corners first method, that does not mean he necessarily used Varasano/Ortega for the corners.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 25, 2015)

Honestly, I'm down for VO. Varasano came up with the concept and Ortega applied it to 2x2. Why not give both of them credit?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Aug 25, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> and Ortega applied it to 2x2.



Did he?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Aug 25, 2015)

Stefan said:


> If it really is the same method



I assure you the method is very similar (ie: almost, if not, identical) when looking at it from a pure 2x2 perspective. While cuberBruce did already agree with this - I have personally seen Varasano's solution, and he uses the same algs we still use *to this day* to orient and permute his corners. To be completely fair/honest, though, he doesn't know some of the same insertion tricks that more experienced 2x2'ers know (though I think this is the puzzle's fault, as it's harder to see on a 3x3 than 2x2 - and insertions aren't the heart of the method anyway).

We were blown away when Jeff showed us his method. We told him this method already exists and he goes "I know, I published it in 1981" - hence, what sparked this whole "Which came first?" post/video/etc.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 25, 2015)

IAmAPerson said:


> Ortega applied it to 2x2.



I'm not sure why this misconception keeps coming up, his method was intended for the 3x3, and there is no record of him actually advising it be used as a 2x2 method. Both Jeff and Victor created 3x3x3 methods that had the same corners first step, one of which was created much earlier.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 25, 2015)

Okay, my bad. I made a mistake. However, I still think that both Varasano and Ortega deserve credit.


----------



## Cubeologist (Aug 25, 2015)

Varatega?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 25, 2015)

FatBoyXPC said:


> I assure you the method is very similar (ie: almost, if not, identical) when looking at it from a pure 2x2 perspective. While cuberBruce did already agree with this - I have personally seen Varasano's solution, and he uses the same algs we still use *to this day* to orient and permute his corners. To be completely fair/honest, though, he doesn't know some of the same insertion tricks that more experienced 2x2'ers know (though I think this is the puzzle's fault, as it's harder to see on a 3x3 than 2x2 - and insertions aren't the heart of the method anyway).
> 
> We were blown away when Jeff showed us his method. We told him this method already exists and he goes "I know, I published it in 1981" - hence, what sparked this whole "Which came first?" post/video/etc.



I think this would've been the better story to tell - just focus on Varasano and what's actually known. And maybe ask Josef more directly, i.e., whether Ortega possibly made up his corner method in 1981 because we want to know whether Varasano did it first. Or even better, ask Ortega himself. I did point out that he just recently used that Amazon account so he might be reachable through that.

As for the history of how it became a 2x2 method, I did some digging into the old yahoo group. Earliest relevant posts I found:

June 24, 2004: Josef points out his Ortega page after Brent asked about a 2x2 orient+permute method. Apparently Brent had seen one before, but that might as well have been Guimond.

January 18, 2005: After getting the first 2x2 sub6 average (of 12), Katsu says he used Ortega (Why I think it was avg-of-12: That record was 6.15 just a few days earlier and 5.79 just a little later, both by Katsu). Katsu's 2x2x2 page also still exists.

Edit: Nice, you can still get Katsu's 5.79 average video from his videos page and someone also posted it on youtube. That, kids, is how the world's best 2x2 solving looked like 10.6 years ago.


----------



## bcube (Aug 25, 2015)

Out of curiosity, does anyone remeber what was on http://members.aye.net/~dmbell/cube.html? Doesn´t ring a bell to me... Taken from Josef´s older page, stage 1, section 3.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 25, 2015)

bcube said:


> Out of curiosity, does anyone remeber what was on http://members.aye.net/~dmbell/cube.html? Doesn´t ring a bell to me... Taken from Josef´s older page, stage 1, section 3.



I used to use the method on Josef's page it seems, got stuck at sub 20 lol.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 26, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> Face OLL PBL
> 
> 'tis FOP, ye hypocrites.
> 
> in my opinion.



FOP is already used for the CFOP 2x2 version.

I would either call it Varasano, Ortega or VO.
Either way it doesn't matter.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 26, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> FOP is already used for the CFOP 2x2 version.
> 
> I would either call it Varasano, Ortega or VO.
> Either way it doesn't matter.



then SOP

the other 1 shud prob b LOP


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Aug 26, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> then SOP
> 
> the other 1 shud prob b LOP



LCLL*
Layer den corners of the last layer


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 26, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> LCLL*
> Layer den corners of the last layer



actually by CFOP standards, u cud just call it LC


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 31, 2015)

double post 4 bump:

i have a compromise:

*OR*ient a face
*T*op *E*nsuing (or *E*qually)
*G*o *A*djust


----------



## Coolster01 (Aug 31, 2015)

*The Real Name For This 2x2 Method*



mDiPalma said:


> double post 4 bump:
> 
> i have a compromise:
> 
> ...



Or:

*V*ery *A*wesome face 
*R*esolve the top face (don't be an *AS*(s))
*AN*y *O*ther stuff left


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 31, 2015)

I think the discussion is over; some people will call the method one thing, and most won't.
There's no reason to get nasty towards each other.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 31, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> I think the discussion is over; some people will call the method one thing, and most won't.
> There's no reason to get nasty towards each other.



Yeah I agree, it's getting BJ.
I'm sure it would be the same thing as it happened with CFOP where some (speed)cubers call it CFOP and others Fridrich.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Aug 31, 2015)

I personally will say the Varasano-Ortega method, or VO. Both Varasano and Ortega contributed toward the creation and popularization of the side, OLL, PBL method.


----------

