# Void Parity Lookahead?



## JTW2007 (Jul 8, 2009)

Is there any way to analyze whether or not the void parity will occur during inspection? My alg isn't that bad, but I was just wondering if (theoretically and given unlimited inspection) there is a way to predict it without just tracing the solve out mentally.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 8, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> The alg isn't that bad


Is that because "the" alg doesn't exist?

And yes, of course you can determine it beforehand.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 8, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > The alg isn't that bad
> ...


Okay, fine. My alg isn't that bad. Edited.


----------



## Ton (Jul 8, 2009)

Yes , same method like you do for blindfold , I check parity on the corners.
But now you need to check both corners+ edge cycles, could be done in the 12 sec during preinspection.... 12 since this is the time you put the cube done in order to start within 15 sec. I think now without training it will take me 20 sec or so


----------



## rahulkadukar (Jul 8, 2009)

Why do you need to do it


----------



## Ton (Jul 8, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> Why do you need to do it



I guess it would beneficial to know you have parity after the F2L. Saves regonition time. 

When parity is fixed at the beginning, you limit your moves to do the F2L. 

So yes why do you need know it?


----------



## Stefan (Jul 8, 2009)

Ton said:


> When parity is fixed at the beginning, you limit your moves to do the F2L.


I don't understand. Please explain.


----------



## AvGalen (Jul 8, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > When parity is fixed at the beginning, you limit your moves to do the F2L.
> ...


I think what Ton means is that if you would do parity last you can do cross without adjusting D-layer afterwards. If you had an easy pair that you could insert with RUR' you could just do that directly. If you would know you had parity you might do a D or D' after building the cross to solve parity which means you couldn't just insert that pair with RUR' (you could still insert it though)

I don't think Ton meant to say that you would be limiting any of the 18 possible face-turns or even restricting to an 3OP-blind-like restrictive set of moves.

Or maybe Ton was mistakenly thinking more about the Barrel/Octagon that has a similar parity, but can be easier to solve by taking advantage of the fact that edges and corners can be in multiple solved positions.


----------



## Ton (Jul 8, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Ton said:
> ...



Almost, if you fix parity in the beginning e.g. do a M S E move

You can do R U D L F etc , but not R L' e.g to make the cross. Any single move does not affect parity, only M S E or R L' etc 
So you must be careful when you make the cross, after the cross I see no limitations


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't really need to know, I was just curious if it was possible without foreseeing the entire solve beforehand. I doubt I'll use it, I just wanted to see if/how it was done.


----------



## Ton (Jul 8, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> I don't really need to know, I was just curious if it was possible without foreseeing the entire solve beforehand. I doubt I'll use it, I just wanted to see if/how it was done.



So yes, parity fix would take only 1 turn E M or S, you only have to make sure you not undo the parity fix while doing the cross.

So no R L moves or R L' same for D U etc any combination of R than U F D B is oke 

The best way is the check parity and check the cross moves at inspection, than parity fix will only take max 1 move extra


----------

