# Ortega Method (3x3x3)



## Mik (Dec 17, 2007)

Hey, I was just checking out some other speedcubing methods besides Fridrich and found this neat one called the Ortega Method. Has anybody else checked this out at all? I'm having some trouble with putting the final edges in place myself...
I haven't been able to find much on it on any site through google (search terms: Ortega; Ortega method; Ortega cube; etc.)
anyway here's the link: http://rubikscube.info/ortega.php


----------



## Kemp_Drumsalot (Dec 17, 2007)

I can honestly say I've never personally  tried it, but I have heard of this method. Hopefully some of the other cubers can give some input for you.


----------



## mng1994 (Dec 17, 2007)

I don't really know either because it sayse that pink is correctly orientated but for some weird reason the Algorithms for the pictures don't really work for me.


----------



## 4GO57O (Dec 17, 2007)

well...the method looks ok to me...but I need to study it more probably


----------



## badmephisto (Dec 17, 2007)

the method looks pretty interesting, but the description of the method is quite terrible.


----------



## Mik (Dec 17, 2007)

Alright then, thanks. I'll guess I'll just try and do some trial and error.


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 17, 2007)

Ortega is OK for CF but there are better ways, look at the Waterman method at the same site: http://rubikscube.info/

That's the method I'm using for 2x2x2 = 1 layer + CLL


----------



## Mik (Dec 17, 2007)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by CF. And I've found the Waterman method to have just as much documentation while being much more complicated. I guess I'll try it out though, as well as the Ortega method.


----------



## 4GO57O (Dec 17, 2007)

when your better tell us if it's fun to do  and it being fast is a bonus ...well for me... I don't just suddenly change methods anyway lol


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 17, 2007)

Mik said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by CF.



CF = Corners First = you start the solve by doing all the corners, then edges and centres.

EF = Edges First.


----------



## soccerking813 (Feb 16, 2009)

I have recently been looking at Ortega, and it really seams pretty cool. It kinda fits me.
I just printed out some algorithms pages for it, so I am gonna practice it for a while.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 16, 2009)

and you plan on using this for the 3x3?


----------



## soccerking813 (Feb 16, 2009)

Yes, is there a reason not to?


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 16, 2009)

The only downside I see is that there are very few cubers who use Ortega as their primary 3x3 method. Even Waterman doesn't have that many supporters.


----------



## puzzlemaster (Feb 16, 2009)

wen u say ortega, u don't mean the method that is used for the 2x2 right? because if you do, you are being very optimistic...that will only solve the corners and you will still be left with the edges to do...very inefficient..


----------



## soccerking813 (Feb 16, 2009)

Ya, I couldn't find a really good site saying how to do it, but I think I get how to do it.
And I mean the method that includes the edges in it.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Feb 16, 2009)

there are corners first users on here, so you can get help if you need it... (oh, pick me!) Ortega is ok for speed, and uses a relatively low move count if you work on it for a while. I think it's a good method if you plan to move onto Waterman or Roux. It is an interesting method, but the algorithms on most the web pages available use too many E-slice turns. You should turn the cube so those E turns are M-slice turns instead.


----------



## soccerking813 (Feb 16, 2009)

Yea, I don't like the E-slice. Very clumsy.
But I am not so good at D turns either.
Wait, I can use Up.
Thanks.


----------



## TMOY (Feb 16, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> wen u say ortega, u don't mean the method that is used for the 2x2 right? because if you do, you are being very optimistic...that will only solve the corners and you will still be left with the edges to do...very inefficient..


Ortega and Guimond are, originally, corners first methods for the 3^3. The 2^3 methods are nothing else than the first steps of the 3^3 methods.


----------



## soccerking813 (Feb 17, 2009)

I am going to change all the algorithms from E/R to M/U, I think I will be able to remember them easier that way.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Sep 20, 2010)

I hope this is an appropriate bump.... Have you been trying much more of this? I've been playing with this for about a week, my best time so far is a 33.15.


Spoiler











I can't seem to get much faster than this, the move count is really high.


----------



## vcuber13 (Sep 20, 2010)

i dont think its considered ortega, its the normal corners first


----------



## Owen (Sep 20, 2010)

I use essentially an easier version of this method. I get 23 averages. Sub-20 is definitely in reach.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Sep 21, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> i dont think its considered ortega, its the normal corners first


 I'm pretty sure what I'm using is Ortega, unless I've terribly misunderstood the description.


----------



## Plaincow (Sep 21, 2010)

ortega is my 2x2 method ive tried for 3x3 but i couldnt get it.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 21, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> I'm pretty sure what I'm using is Ortega, unless I've terribly misunderstood the description.


 
If you have a really high move count with that method then you've definitely misunderstood it.
Ortega has a higher move count on average than some other CF methods like Guimond for example, though.


----------



## irontwig (Sep 21, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> I can't seem to get much faster than this, the move count is really high.


 
Lolwut? My guess is that it should be about 50-60 (STM), which is pretty standard for a speedsolve.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Sep 21, 2010)

Sorry, I meant looks, not move count. I'll be quiet now.

EDIT: Not exactly looks, it's just hard to recognize the edge and where it should go quickly.


----------



## maggot (Sep 21, 2010)

with the ortega method, im sure it has already been thought of, but using ortega like a roux method? solve corners like 2x2 with ortega, solve E edges (not too sure if there is a quick way to do this, it is unavoidable to use E to at LEAST position them in a M layer if you are working the edges with M. would be reallly awful to use E all the time, not to mention slow) then finish off with LSE with roux... i know LSE can be done very quickly (2-5 seconds) so im sure there might be some interest to roux users... maybe, in cases where F2B is not a good case on your "cross color" (even though i cant imagine what a bad case may be.) it is definately less algs than CMLL. seems slower, even though i find it interesting. 2-7 sec for corner (this is about what i take with ortega on the 2x2), 2-5 sec for LSE (experienced), so if you can get those E edges fast, this is potentially a sub 10 method, theoretically. 
let me know if you find anything more interesting ^^; i will see if there is a feasable way to orient and permute E slice edges.

also, with CLL, you could disregard the ortega and make potentially sub3 for corners consistantly.


----------



## TMOY (Sep 21, 2010)

Yes, you can always solve the last 6 edges in Roux style. It works fine if the missing edges on the L/R layers match or are of opposite colours, but if they are of adjacent colours recognition is a bit messy.


----------



## RCTACameron (Sep 22, 2010)

I really don't think CF would be that fast. I've tried it before, and it doesn't seem practical for a speedsolve.

Imagine this though: making a side on two opposite faces, solving the middle layer, permuting all the edges and permuting all the corners. Probably been done before, though.


----------



## maggot (Sep 22, 2010)

RCTACameron said:


> Imagine this though: making a side on two opposite faces, solving the middle layer, permuting all the edges and permuting all the corners. Probably been done before, though.


 
elaborate. this seems like what i suggested, only terribly wasted steps. i must be misunderstanding.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm pretty sure what RCTACameron is talking about is a belt method. I don't think it could get very fast....


----------



## RCTACameron (Sep 22, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> I'm pretty sure what RCTACameron is talking about is a belt method. I don't think it could get very fast....


 
I agree. It would just be something fun to try when you're bored and can't be bothered going fast.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 22, 2010)

Belt methods have the issue of having odd parity on the U face and odd parity on the D face. Recognition is difficult for this, and switching the parity involves destroying everything you've made already and then restoring it. Not to mention the issues with separating the pieces into layers. It's horrible in terms of move count and speed.


----------



## RCTACameron (Sep 22, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> Belt methods have the issue of having odd parity on the U face and odd parity on the D face. Recognition is difficult for this, and switching the parity involves destroying everything you've made already and then restoring it. Not to mention the issues with separating the pieces into layers. It's horrible in terms of move count and speed.



Okay, I wasn't seriously suggesting that as a speedsolving method, just something fun to try.  Also, couldn't you just fix the parity with M2 U2 M2 U2? Or is it a different parity I'm thinking of? :confused:


----------



## rachmaninovian (Sep 22, 2010)

i'm officially the fastest CF solver on average and single...i think. 17.60 avg and 14.xx single. at home i've gotten 18.0x avg12, 13.00 single...
if i actually practise i think i can has 16s average xD

EDIT: LOL 16.62, 16.80, 18.63, (15.09), 15.38[midges perm skip], 15.88, (21.00), 16.66[forced midges skip], 19.69, 16.73, 17.46, 19.17 =>17.30


----------



## TMOY (Sep 22, 2010)

If more people actually practised CF hard, we would definitiely see significantly faster averages than 16-17 seconds.
The problem is always the same: we don't know the full potential of the unpopular methods, precisely because they're unpopular.


----------



## irontwig (Sep 22, 2010)

RCTACameron said:


> I really don't think CF would be that fast.



Roux and Waterman are pretty damn fast methods.


----------



## bcube (Sep 22, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> i'm officially the fastest CF solver on average and single...i think. 17.60 avg and 14.xx single. at home i've gotten 18.0x avg12, 13.00 single...
> if i actually practise i think i can has 16s average xD
> 
> EDIT: LOL 16.62, 16.80, 18.63, (15.09), 15.38[midges perm skip], 15.88, (21.00), 16.66[forced midges skip], 19.69, 16.73, 17.46, 19.17 =>17.30


 
How many algorithms do you know/use for 3x3x3?


----------



## RCTACameron (Sep 22, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Roux and Waterman are pretty damn fast methods.



Oh yeah, I guess. Although I don't know much about these methods, I don't think they are _purely_ CF. I'm just saying that pure corners first wouldn't be as fast as Fridrich or other popular speedsolving methods. 

@TMOY: I agree, it's hard to tell how fast a method that nobody uses is. You could probably figure out some test to tell, though, like getting someone who doesn't know any of them to learn them all and practise them the same amount, and see which one got the best times. That would still be a bit inacurate, though. :confused:


----------



## KboyForeverB (Sep 22, 2010)

ortega?? on 3x3 and not 2x2, i've never heard of it but it sounds like a shorter version of Yusuke's stupid method


----------



## rachmaninovian (Sep 22, 2010)

bcube said:


> How many algorithms do you know/use for 3x3x3?


 
well, i know 40+ OLL and 21 PLL algorithms, but my main method for 2hands isn't CFOP anymore.
specifically for sandwich in 3x3, I know 42 CLL algorithms, 14 1-look-midges algorithms, a few ELLs, conjulated or not, for edge control..and other stuff. I would say I use 65ish algs approximately? heh. but on the other hand i think if i really put my mind to it i can sub 16 with more optimizations.
I was thinking of orienting midges whilst slotting in the last redge but after this 17.30 average i think 1 look midges is darn useful and important D:

here are the midges algs that I use anyway:
E2 M' E2 M
M' U2 M U2 or M U2 M' U2
M2 U2 M2 U2

U' M U M U2 M' U M' U M' U2 M U2
M U M U M U2 M' U M' U M' U2

M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U' M
M' U M' U' M' U2 M U' M U' M

U2 M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U' M U2
U2 M' U M' U' M' U2 M U' M U' M U2

U r' U M U' r2 R' U' R' U M U' R
U' r' U M U' r2 R' U' R' U M U' R U2

M' U M' U M' U2 M U M U M' U2 M2

M' U M' U M U2 M U' M' U' M U2 M2
U2 M' U M' U M U2 M U' M' U' M


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Sep 24, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> well, i know 40+ OLL and 21 PLL algorithms, but my main method for 2hands isn't CFOP anymore.
> specifically for sandwich in 3x3, I know 42 CLL algorithms, 14 1-look-midges algorithms, a few ELLs, conjulated or not, for edge control..and other stuff. I would say I use 65ish algs approximately? heh. but on the other hand i think if i really put my mind to it i can sub 16 with more optimizations.
> I was thinking of orienting midges whilst slotting in the last redge but after this 17.30 average i think 1 look midges is darn useful and important D:
> 
> ...


 
I don't even know all those algorithms yet. I was averaging 15 seconds (14.96), but now you're beating me. But yeah... I don't have great fingertricks, so I think it's pretty obvious that Corners-first can be pretty fast.


----------

