Cubeologist
Premium Member
Varatega?
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.
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.
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.
then SOP
the other 1 shud prob b LOP
LCLL*
Layer den corners of the last layer
double post 4 bump:
i have a compromise:
ORient a face
Top Ensuing (or Equally)
Go Adjust
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.