Mike stevenson said:
[
BTW, something tells me that the chess players knew about the technique Derren was using.
]

Anyone else have an views on that?

Certainly, I was surprised that DB seemed to get away with this effect on a group of strong chess players. I would have assumed that the method would be well known to them as part of "chess lore".


Mike, did you perhaps see something to suggest that they had twigged but were playing along to some extent?

They *do* sound genuinely impressed in the post-match interviews, I feel.

The chess players MUST have known this effect and even what was happening (instant stooges, anyone?) - it's very well-known in the chess-playing community with whom I'm very familiar, these guys are no fools, and it's because of this technique that simultaneous displays always have to have the master with the white pieces. It's clearly a case of DB 'invisible compromise'. As usual, the interviews are VERY carefully edited.

BB

I could immediately see that there probably was *some* tricksy editing going on here --- in particular, they create the impression that DB won two games on the trot before losing one (which is unlikely to be the true chronology for a pair-play setup!)

However, before making my previous post, I looked again at the interviews with the players for any signs that they might have understood the method from the outset...

For example, I wondered whether their after-the-fact comments, in which they sounded quite impressed, perhaps related to the prediction element of the effect (or even to some other effect, unseen by us at home!).

The comment, "what he's done today is extremely impressive" may fall into that category.


Nevertheless, I was a bit thrown by remarks such as "I was beaten by the better man... I thought I was playing OK, but he just came out with some really good moves."

That appears to be quite clearly about the chess-game part of the item, and it also seems to imply non-detection of the method by the player!

I have since twigged that these remarks can be explained away if the players have been asked, after the fact, to talk about their *actual* opponent, and *not* DB. Cunning!


However, the comment
[
"I was quite surprised, yeah, by his standard..."
]
..does seem a bit more specific to Derren --- because I think it would be rather patronising to say that of another top-rated player. So, I'm not sure about that bit.


All in all, I find this piece of work really fascinating --- mainly because so much effort has gone into the finer points of presenting a "simple" (and, I think, rather obvious) effect to a group of people who are *particularly* likely to know it (or figure it out).

I would never have *dared* to try this on a group of knowledgeable chess players! Shows what I know

The thinking behind their decision to then explain the core effect is also intriguing. The idea that the impact of a trick can somehow be *amplified* by explaining it (or, in some cases, by appearing to explain it) is wonderful --- and is something that DB and Penn and Teller seem to be especially aware of.

In this case, I'm assuming it was more a matter of necessity (due to the transparency of the method). It also stops the chess guys from going public about being apparently "hoodwinked" by the editing, I guess. Defensive self-exposure?

Then, of course, they add they part about the allegedly honest game, and the cute prediction element to round it off.

Clever stuff.

I think it was a case of Derren telling the chess players that he would try and influence where the game ended, thus making his prediction correct. That was the effect to the them (i'm sure they knew about what Derren was going to do, but Derren had briefed them on how he would manipulate the finish). All the talk about studying their games for the past year was probably interpreted by them as Derren studying how they played, and so he would have consequently known when would be the best time to influence their finish in order to make his prediction correct. To the audience the effect was Derren beating the grandmasters without them knowing his method, as well as the prediction. I personally think this makes more sense, as I simply cannot understand how these professional players would not have come across mirror-chess.

...but, if they knew that he was mirroring, surely it follows that he has absolutely *no* influence on the outcome of the games, AND THEY WOULD KNOW THAT. (!?)

At most, you could suggest that he was *predicting* the outcome of each paired match --- but I don't think the chess experts would find that very plausible either.

Also, Derren says to them:
[
"The results of that, I guess, were that I won at 4 tables, lost at 3, and then drew against the other 2.

So that technically would be a win for me against you as a group, and that's beating two grand masters. I'm delighted.
]
...and they seemed to accept that summary without complaint.

OK, there is some equivocation there ("I guess" and "techincally"), but not much.

Do you think this is just a dual-reality ploy, with the chess guys understanding that he is speaking hypothetically?

If so, I imagine that they would have to edit out the inevitable laughter after the "I'm delighted" line!

Does anyone know how DB made Stephen Fry choose the King of Diamonds? I've seen the trick somehwere else and it was also the king of diamonds, anywya I know how he does the rest of the trick, I just dowt understand how he forces the K of Diamonds on him.
Does anyone know how?
Thanks,
-Niko

Niko,

Yes.

In order to fully appreciate how you probably need to get a bit deeper into the roots of mentalism. The basis of this "force" is pretty fundamental to many mentalist effects. (I'm not a mentalist by the way, so any real mentalists please speak up if I'm complete wrong).

The actual mechanics of how he did this is simple. The presentation and confidence in the follow-through are where the meat is. It is because of this that I don't do mentalism - I haven't got the right character.

The standard texts (e.g. Corinda's 13 Steps to Mentalism) should help your appreciation.

A vague answer, but I hope it has some relevant pointers.

Cheers,

Beetroot

Hello there,

Niko, obtain a copy of 'The Devils Picture Book.' It is a great resource in so many ways and you will find what you are looking for there.

I enjoyed the episode a great deal. I loved 'Smoke', and got a great deal of enjoyment from seeing Stephen Fry's reaction. Two minds that I respect in so many ways, the trick was almost...poetic?

As for the rest, I liked Derren's people handling and I sat hooked to the TV, watching his every move with great respect. I wasn't blown away by anything I saw, but as magical entertainment it is the finest on our screens without doubt.

Best regards,

Carlo

Niko,he didn't MAKE him make choose King of Diamonds!Derren got a little lucky there.Do a search for mind power deck and all will be clearer>

Yes Derren got very lucky there.
I was surprised that he performed 'Smoke' as it is so well known by magicians and mentalists and it is also more of a magic trick.

Well all in all I enjoyed the show.

Really? It was luck? Where can I get a 'mindpower' deck? - I know the King of diamonds was the king of hearts on the otehr side - is that in the mindpower deck too?

thanks,
-Niko

Buy Pure Effect if you want to know how it's done properly.

I really enjoyed the show and thought the new look was truly delightful.
It is interesting to see that Derren does not appear to be taking himself quite as seriously as he did in the 'Mind Control' series; his sense of humour appears to have been given more room to shine in this series.
I laughed out loud in many places, in particular when he claimed he "genuinely [couldn't] remember" how he predicted the number of pieces left in each game of chess.

I agree with others who have said that this is perhaps a reaction to the big 'hoo hah' over the Russian Roulette stunt.
I also agree that it was very interesting to see 'Smoke' performed...
But what a beautiful effect.

I'm surprised that no one has considered the possibility that the chess players dismissed the 'mirror chess' method since Derren was playing an odd number of players.
(I certainly wondered what was going on when I saw him playing an odd number of players.)

I found both effects on the street extremely intriguing, as well.
(What must Derren be saying to that lady when he 'teaches' her how to read minds...?)

All in all, very entertaining television.
Thumbs up.

I thought Smoke effect was made by Stephen Fry's exclamation. The actual card as cigarette revelation didn't look "right" to me. It just looked like editing. I'm sure the effect played live is much more wonderous - I know when I first read it in PE it shone.

The chess players' responses would seem to indicate they were answering questions slightly different to those the audience perceived.

On the humour side of the show, the best bit was his admission that his chess playing was "s**t". Can't help liking the guy.

I'm undeceided about the new style, I really loved his old style, but I recognise it has to change to stay fresh and popular. I can't help get the feeling that was really just the introductory episode to the series. The graphics were in overload and there were lots of short effects, and only one big effect. Lots of talking points, and he covered a wide range of genres. He really conveyed a lot in that one episode, especially about the style, and apart from the chess he didn't really develop any of the effects past the first stage. Hopefully, now he has got people talking, in the coming episdoes he can really get deeper into a few more routines, rather than just one trick then some more funky graphics then another little trick.

*little trick is really the wrong choice of words, but I mean it compared to, for example, the whole casino routine.

As for the style, it seemed too fake. Why not compare the use of the taxidermy-ied (?) cat(in the 'Ad Agency' piece) to the umbrella. The stuffed cat is genuinely him, and that came across sincerly, but that silly looking brolly seemed thrust upon him by some wacko image consultant following the retro trend. I would have prefered more personality in addition to the 'ultra-coolness'. Like the guy in the phone booth, unless that is explained later(which it probably will be) there was nothing to attribute that occurence directly to him, it appeared to have occured more because of how cool this 'sureal' place is, rather than his abilities.

A fine show, but I fear DB won't sustain a third series without the rot of repetition setting in...

Tom

A very entertaining show, all in all. Perhaps not quite as stunning as the original series, but still better than almost anything else on the television at the moment. Light years ahead of any other magic show that's EVER been on.

Those of you who thought the performance of 'Smoke' was edited - I urge you to watch it again (if possible - I believe it's repeated on E4 on Tues...) The way it's been edited is actually rather careless, and reveals more than it takes out. In fact, if you watch closely you can clearly see the disposal of the cigarette AND some of the Mindpower deck's.... um...dubiousness. That's not to say it didn't look very nice -- I don't think Derren COULD do a bad performance of that effect!

Also, with reference to peoples' speculation of 'dual reality' on the chess effect (which I'm quite sure is correct), does anyone else suspect its use in the 'Be A Mindreader for 10p' effect? (the one where the girl guessed the name that that guy was thinking of). Watch it again - she seems to ONLY be describing the image. I suspect that she was given the name 'ward' and told to describe the image in his mind. She describes a hospital ward (unsurprisingly) and the guy takes it to be a direct hit that she's guessed the name. I'm NOT entirely sure, but it certainly seems plausible. What do you all reckon?

I thought his show was quite nice, some nice new ideas and some well presented 'old ones'. However as for sitting discussing methods of how he could have achieved such miracles (and I think I have mentioned this before), I find that very unprofessional, and unfair to the creator.

Looking forward to the coming weeks as we all know, Derren does put on a heck of a show.

Best Wishes,
Colin

I thought it was great - I loved the new direction.

I'm sure some of the purists will scoff at this gushing, but compare that to the tripe which has been on offer in recent months (Monkey Magic anyone?)

I feel a little sorry for DB - for ages people have been moaning that he doesn't do 'card tricks' anymore, so he does Smoke and people still don't like.

No pleasing some people

The day before I re-watched the Top50 tricks of all time (with Adam and Joe special) and to me, the DB stuff was still head and shoulders above a lot of the top 50.

Still, whaddoino

Hi Withnail,

If you read some of the posts again, I don't think people have a problem with Derren's performance style. It is more to do with his production team and the way that the program has been put together.

I, too, noticed the bad editing on some of the routines and the camerawork was rather too shaky at times, too.

Having now seen him perform live, I have the utmost respect for Derren. I'm just not sure that his production team are showing due care at the moment.

Having said that this was, of course, only the first show of the series. It will be interesting to see how the others match up.