What's in a name? CFOP or Fridrich?

[The Bloody Talon]

Some people say "See-fop".

:tu
oh really?.. i see..
but some still don't, and maybe they wouldn't undertand me if i would say "see-fop"


oh well, just as others said, CFOP or fridrich, it doesn't matter to me.
but I think it matter to others who contributed to the method.

edit:
oh wait, Fridrich combined the techniques invented by the other people, so I think Fridrich still deserves the name.

 

[mdolszak]

I call it Fridrich Method, but I don't really care what other people call it.

Fridrich is much less confusing than CFOP, though, especially to beginners (as it's been said before).

Calling it Fridrich Method makes it more unique, as opposed to using another acronym. There are already enough acronyms (F2L, OLL, PLL, etc).

 

[uberCuber]

And who invented the name "CFOP" ?

I never liked it. FOP is fine, or CPOP (Cross/Pairs/OLL/PLL).
It's useless to make a cross if the first 2 layers are solved in the next step.

Hum, okay, "F" could mean "first 2 layers corner-edge pairs".
But still, "CF" sounds too much like "corners first" !

I have always looked at it like

Cross
Finish F2L
OLL
PLL

It does annoy me when people say something about F2L and assume you should know they aren't including the cross.

 

[DaveyCow]

@Godmil: Great digging on this one! This should enrich cubing history, even beyond Friedrich!

 

[teller]

Fridrich and Petrus were the only ones publishing anything detailed prior to 2000. I think that counts for something.

 

[spyr0th3dr4g0n]

I first thought the F in CFOP stood for Fridrich.
Also why do we have an acronym for acronyms?

"What does CFOP stand for?
Cross, F2L, OLL, PLL
What do they stand for?
Cross, first two layers, orientation of the last layer and permutation of the last layer."

 

[Godmil]

Also why do we have an acronym for acronyms?

Hahaha, never thought of that before. CF2LOLLPLL ("kif too lol pil"?)

 

[gogozerg]

Steps are even more difficult to understand when diagrams are wrong...
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/system.html
(Table/Result)

 

[Godmil]

Steps are even more difficult to understand when diagrams are wrong...
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/system.html
(Table/Result)

For some reason she thought it was easier to show the F2L if it was done with cross on top... even though the description says not to do that, some people who learned from this site did do cross on top F2L

<_< oh, you're Roux. I was just watching your videos (love the pink floyd one).

 

[gogozerg]

The problem is not with F2L. Look at the result of the orientation or permutation steps...

 

[Godmil]

Good point, first two diagrams show the results of the steps, and the next two show what it looks like before hand. But if you want confusing you should see the printable sheets for the F2L, I'm remembering why I ignored F2L the first time I tried to learn how to cube.

 

[SkateboardingCuber]

Hey, I know this is an old thread, but I was recently finding myself pretty annoyed about how the entire community has switched to CFOP despite all of the work to develop the algorithms in the last two steps that Jessica Fridrich put in, not to mention compiling the steps together.

Good research, this needs to be talked about. The reason I think it is so important is because if we dont credit the woman who both compiled the steps of the method and invented 90% of the algorithms for the last two steps of that method, the same method that the majority of the speedsolving community uses, how can anyone expect other women to want to be a part of and contribute to this community when EVERY OTHER METHOD is named for and referred to by its inventor???

My two cents in 2019.

 

[ZZ'er]

Do people usually pronounce it "See-fop" or just say the letters C-F-O-P?

 

[ProStar]

Do people usually pronounce it "See-fop" or just say the letters C-F-O-P?

Typically see-fop

 

[PetrusQuber]

Do people usually pronounce it "See-fop" or just say the letters C-F-O-P?

How do you pronounce ‘CFOP’?

I pronounce it with a long, soft C, then fop.

www.speedsolving.com

Hey, I know this is an old thread, but I was recently finding myself pretty annoyed about how the entire community has switched to CFOP despite all of the work to develop the algorithms in the last two steps that Jessica Fridrich put in, not to mention compiling the steps together.

Good research, this needs to be talked about. The reason I think it is so important is because if we dont credit the woman who both compiled the steps of the method and invented 90% of the algorithms for the last two steps of that method, the same method that the majority of the speedsolving community uses, how can anyone expect other women to want to be a part of and contribute to this community when EVERY OTHER METHOD is named for and referred to by its inventor???

My two cents in 2019.

I guess Fridrich was thought of as a method created by lots of people back in the 90s, so to not argue about who created this, that, invented F2L, etc, they called it by the steps.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

fried rice

I'll call this from now on

 

[GenTheSnail]

First, I guess, thank you so much for not having this be a pointless bump like 'yea we still call it cfop'. Real discussion is great!

Hey, I know this is an old thread, but I was recently finding myself pretty annoyed about how the entire community has switched to CFOP despite all of the work to develop the algorithms in the last two steps that Jessica Fridrich put in, not to mention compiling the steps together.

I think if she had actually developed each step, then it could make sense. But she didn't.

Good research, this needs to be talked about.

I don't know what this means. Is 'good research' functioning as an exclamation, such as 'dear me', in this sentence? Sorry for being nitpicky.

The reason I think it is so important is because if we dont credit the woman who both compiled the steps of the method and invented 90% of the algorithms for the last two steps of that method, the same method that the majority of the speedsolving community uses, how can anyone expect other women to want to be a part of and contribute to this community when EVERY OTHER METHOD is named for and referred to by its inventor???

I don't think that this has anything to do with her being a woman. Regarding that, I believe @Sue Doenim , who, given her name, is presumably female, has made consistent contributions to the new methods thread.
Also, I can think of a dozen or so methods and steps off the top of my head that are not named after their creators (although, yes, there are many):
zz-spike, PCMS, cardan reduction (and to quote @mDiPalma

I believe that only narcissists name things after themselves.

), fish and chips, SIMPLE, cross, x-cross (I actually really like the sound of Hardwick cross (or Snyder cross?)), to name a few.

So far it seems to me that your only point is that unless we acknowledge that a woman made a method, other women won't be inspired to make methods?


As far as I'm aware, it was commonly called Fridrich a long time ago, but people realized because she wasn't the one who actually developed the method, that it would be more respectful to the other many contributors/make more sense just to call it CFOP. There were a ton of people who helped develop F2L, and it would kinda be impossible to track down everyone and slap their names into the method name.

 

[xyzzy]

how can anyone expect other women to want to be a part of and contribute to this community when EVERY OTHER METHOD is named for and referred to by its inventor???

I don't think that this has anything to do with her being a woman. Regarding that, I believe @Sue Doenim , who, given her name, is presumably female, has made consistent contributions to the new methods thread.
Also, I can think of a dozen or so methods and steps off the top of my head that are not named after their creators (although, yes, there are many):
zz-spike, PCMS, cardan reduction (and to quote @mDiPalma, "I believe that only narcissists name things after themselves."), fish and chips, SIMPLE, cross, x-cross (I actually really like the sound of Hardwick cross (or Snyder cross?)), to name a few.

On one hand, gender is irrelevant here. On the other hand, of all other popular speedsolving methods are named after the inventors: Roux is named after… Gilles Roux (I don't know whether he called it the "Roux method" himself originally, but it's the name we all use now) and "ZZ" is the initials of its inventor. If you want to consider Petrus popular (sadly arguable), that's named after Lars Petrus too. Sure, you can point to many examples of methods that aren't named after the inventors, but none of them are anywhere as popular as the big three/four.

It's unfortunate that the only method of the big four to go from being named after a person to being named after its steps was also the only one that was named after a woman, but that's how it is. It's not because we were intentionally trying to erase women from cubing history or anything like that. (One would have a much stronger case for this if the erasure of women was a recurring phenomenon, as opposed to a one-off occurrence. It's not like we don't recognise women in cubing at all—the Yu Da Hyun method for megaminx S2L is named after, well, Yu Da Hyun, the second fastest megaminxer in the entire world.)

My two cents in 2019.

psst check the calendar

---

Also, skimming through the thread…

And who invented the name "CFOP" ?

I never liked it. FOP is fine, or CPOP (Cross/Pairs/OLL/PLL).

This is absolutely right and CPOP would indeed be a more accurate name!

 

[SenorJuan]

Add my name to the list of those who don't care for 'F2L' as a step.
C-cross
F- four slots
O-OLL
P-PLL
seems better. Just my two Zimbabwean cents...

 

[ImmolatedMarmoset]

Add my name to the list of those who don't care for 'F2L' as a step.
C-cross
F- four slots
O-OLL
P-PLL
seems better. Just my two Zimbabwean cents...

Your two heavily inflated Zimbabwean Cents