# Void Cube PLL's



## Derrick Eide17 (Sep 20, 2008)

of course with the advantage of Void Cube you can have much shorter PLL and probably even OLL algs because you are allowed to mess up the centers.

I found this Z perm and its pretty nice.

M2 U M2 U' M2

Any other cool or nice ones?


----------



## ConnorCuber (Sep 20, 2008)

Hm, i've never really thought of this, but it's very clever, im gonna go work on finding some.


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 20, 2008)

good point
I thought that they would be harder because you can have 2 edges switched at the end which you can't on a normal 3x3x3 :\


----------



## yurivish (Sep 20, 2008)

I think that the only PLL's that can possibly be substantially shortened are the edge cycles, since those are done with M moves which usually disrupt the centers as well as edges.

Other PLL's don't use M moves much, or at all, so there's probably not much room for improvement.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 20, 2008)

Between the slightly easier cross and possibilities for easier extended crosses, and then possibilities for improved OLLs and PLLs, I would think that overall, someone who was an expert at it might be faster with the void cube than with a regular cube. For a Fridrich-style solution, that would probably require learning all the parity PLLs, though.

Nice find, Derrick.


----------



## yurivish (Sep 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Between the slightly easier cross and possibilities for easier extended crosses, and then possibilities for improved OLLs and PLLs, I would think that overall, someone who was an expert at it might be faster with the void cube than with a regular cube. For a Fridrich-style solution, that would probably require learning all the parity PLLs, though.
> 
> Nice find, Derrick.



There might be a way of determining parity problems during preinspection. You could just do an M at the outset, then solve the rest as they would have otherwise.


----------



## MistArts (Sep 20, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > Between the slightly easier cross and possibilities for easier extended crosses, and then possibilities for improved OLLs and PLLs, I would think that overall, someone who was an expert at it might be faster with the void cube than with a regular cube. For a Fridrich-style solution, that would probably require learning all the parity PLLs, though.
> ...



You don't even have to do a move to fix parity, just a cube rotation is good.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 20, 2008)

A trained BLD solver should be able to check parity during inspection. Forget about these silly cube rotations and M turns, just do a u turn after the cross if you need to swap parity. So it probably is possible to solve a Void Cube faster than a normal 3x3. I don't think there are a lot of PLLs which can be shortened (and definitely not many OLLs), but it would be interesting to see which ones.

Someone make a ksolve file for the void cube


----------



## mrCage (Sep 20, 2008)

Hi 

The ACube or Cube Explorer could easily (?) be rewritten to solve void cube cases. ACube would be the better candidate as it works with slice turns already

Per


----------



## Vulosity (Sep 20, 2008)

To switch 2 adacent edges, you have to switch centers also.

But I don't know the alg. 

How do you switch two opposite edges?


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 21, 2008)

I found that alg before Derrick, look in the void parity thread 

That is the only PLL alg that can be shorter than before, at least much shorter, to swap tow adjacent corners are still at least 10 tirns, same as 2x2x2 and two opposite corners are at least 11 turns for 2x2x2.

But you can create algs for the new PLL's that occures when you got parity after OLL or extra EPLL's for COLL.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Sep 21, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> That is the only PLL alg that can be shorter than before, at least much shorter, to swap tow adjacent corners are still at least 10 tirns, same as 2x2x2 and two opposite corners are at least 11 turns for 2x2x2.



For adjacent corners, it's really a 9-turn PLL + AUF. (Think A-Perm.)


----------



## not_kevin (Oct 5, 2008)

So, maybe, Roux gets much better for Voids?


----------



## Kenneth (Oct 5, 2008)

not_kevin said:


> So, maybe, Roux gets much better for Voids?



Yes, but you must know how to recognise the paritys before you do the edge orientation in the last step, then you can fix it using a single M turn. (I did not think of that at first but later I tried it, the style needs practice =)


----------

