History of CFBL and World of Speedcubing

[Deleted member 27249]

Recently, I’ve been reflecting on why no one else in the world, apart from me, has invented an advanced method different from CFOP—I'm talking about CFBL or Platform. When I first watched a tutorial online, I didn’t understand anything except one thing: solving the cube layer by layer.


At first, within a month, I figured out how to solve the first layer, and I understood that the centers acted as color coordinates for the pieces—that much I had grasped. Then it took me three months to solve the second layer, where I developed an algorithm on my own at the time (keeping white on the bottom with the white cross already solved). Here’s the algorithm: F' L F L' F U F' and its opposite: F R' F' R F' U' F. I had essentially understood the concept of pairing a second-layer edge with a first-layer corner by connecting the pieces.


Then, over the next 9 months, I used another algorithm (similar to the one I had invented for the second layer): F' L F L' U' L' U L and its opposite: F R' F' R U R U' R'. As you can see, I was using a similar structure while preserving the first two layers. This all happened between 2008 and 2009.


With this algorithm and its opposite, I tried to navigate the “maze” of the third layer, and one day I ended up reaching the base case that solved the cube using that algorithm. It happened by chance—I didn’t understand it immediately. Later, with this primitive method, I discovered what I call an “algorithm path,” meaning a sequence of transitions from one configuration to another until reaching the base case.


Between 2009 and 2014, I handcrafted new algorithms, and while in 2009 I was solving the cube in 1 minute and 20 seconds, by 2014 I had reached 30 seconds. Now average about 19 sometimes 16-18 rarely sub 15.


Later, I discovered the speedcubing community and finally understood tutorials and notation. Between 2014 and 2017, I built the first-layer cross and three first-layer corners, then solved three second-layer edges, and performed F2L using different colors with the last corner-edge pair. But in 2017, I switched to building the cross on the bottom and learned how to do intuitive F2L without tutorials—it came naturally to me.


The only thing I needed help with was understanding the misaligned cross—that was the hardest step for me, something I couldn’t figure out on my own.


Between 2017 and 2023, I replaced some algorithms in CFBL for the third layer, and in 2023 I officially presented the method you can find on the wiki.


Now that you know my story, it’s natural to ask: why has no one ever thought of inventing this method?


I’ve come to the conclusion that people approaching the Rubik’s Cube either didn’t understand it and gave up after trying randomly, or—like most—learned from tutorials, starting with the beginner layer-by-layer method and then moving on to CFOP.


Since CFOP dominated the scene, most people focused on learning rather than inventing. That’s why, between 2014 and 2023, no one ever proposed or attempted to invent this method.


What do you think?

 

[CrossPetrus]

This is very interesting. I, as an amateur method developer, do sort of have a reason for not investigating methods like this. For starters, CFOP algs are already very advanced and people have explored other last layer methods, but between recognition and how good the algs are, oll and pll has been shown to be the method for 2lll. Not to say that your method is bad, there is just a consensus and not much effort because of how developed and how good CFOP algs are. Secondly, and partly due to the previous reason, people more commonly look into completely different ways to solve a cube than CFOP. These result in different last layers (and maybe not an ll at all, like in Roux). These are the main reasons I can think of right now, but there are plenty more, of course. Platform seems really interesting, and I might experiment with the algs later.

 

[Swagrid]

We've invented hundreds of methods for all sorts of cube, not just the 3x3. but the 3x3 has dozens of methods on its own. The cube has 43 quintillion combinations, and a method is a way of procedurally reducing the amount of available states by solving (varyingly abstract) shapes on, and properties of, the cube. Just because nobody has invented the exact approach that you did, doesn't mean nobody else cared.

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

why has no one ever thought of inventing this method?

because
1. not every cuber wants to be a method designer/developer
2. there’s literally 43 quintillion combinations for the 3x3 alone. You with your own mind invented the method. Why would you expect other people to have the exact same approach as you? Everybody is different. That’s basically the same as asking: “why has no one ever thought of inventing ZB in the 1980s?”

 

[Deleted member 27249]

because
1. not every cuber wants to be a method designer/developer
2. there’s literally 43 quintillion combinations for the 3x3 alone. You with your own mind invented the method. Why would you expect other people to have the exact same approach as you? Everybody is different. That’s basically the same as asking: “why has no one ever thought of inventing ZB in the 1980s?”

I dont say all people have this approach...I find Strange nothing think my Method in all years only this.