• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[Proposal] Rename the Ortega 2x2 Method to Varasano

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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 makes you care so much? You're missing the entire point.

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

kcl

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
4,485
Location
Minneapolis, MN
WCA
2013LEJE03
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 

G2013

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
831
Location
the planet
WCA
2013DIPI01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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

Nub
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
2,851
Location
Minnesota
WCA
2009OLSO01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 

Sebastien

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
800
WCA
2008AURO01
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.

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".

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).
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,796
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
Portland, OR, USA
WCA
2013BROT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 
Last edited:

cuBerBruce

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
914
Location
Malden, MA, USA
WCA
2006NORS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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, ...

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.

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.
 

FatBoyXPC

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
1,796
WCA
2010LACH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
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.
 
Top