Rubik's Remember

[KevinK]

When someone sees a sub-20 solve, they are impressed. The difference from that and seeing something impossible is that the spectator knows that with practice, he or she could do a sub-20 solve, too. When someone sees something that is impossible, he or she has no idea how it was achieved. With no explanation, he or she doesn't think that he or she could do it. The reaction might look the same, but it doesn't feel the same to the spectator.

But BLD solving *is* possible..

But people don't usually know that.

 

[F1Z2L3]

I'm working on a magic act around the cube, which includes something I call "Semi Insta Cube" (a 4 or 5 second cubesolve (setup)), a prediction and a trick I call "Death by cubing" (A stackmat controlled electric head mover illusion, combined with a real blindsolve)
Any other trick ideas?)

Chriss Angel does a trick where he tosses a scrambled cube in the air and by the time it reaches his hands again the cube is solved. It would be cool if you could use that.

 

[KevinK]

QQ would do something to damage the reputation of Mark Elsdon. Assuming that other people are watching, because they always are, making a magician screw up would take away the wonder and mystery from the minds of others.

If Mark doesn't have an escape plan for that kind of thing, it's his own fault. If he can't see the cube anymore because someone holds something in between, he could simply fake being interrupted and screwing up the same way a real blindsolver can be interrupted and screw up.

First, if it weren't for Kuti, most people on this forum wouldn't know that it's possible to peek. Mark started performing this trick before Matyas was cuaght, so the original method doesn't require an out for this situation. Lay people didn't know about the nose peek.

Secondly, him pretending to interrupted would obviously result in a DNF, which we already decided is not imprssive.

 

[Stefan]

John George then began to mislead others.

Mmh, I think I would've noticed that, as I would've felt disappointed by him. What do you mean?

With their other products, they claim that you can make any object disappear at any time.

That's different. I doubt anyone would consider that not using trickery.

When the guy in the video said "I'm not even sure whether this is magic," it is true to some extent, it's mentalism.

Is that mentalism? I agree it is when it's done the Osterlind way, but when you look at the cube beforehand?
And I think average people don't even know the term "mentalism", let alone what it means. To average people, him saying "this is not magic" would be equal to him saying "this is not a trick".

 

[KevinK]

I think I'm going to practice BLD some more to get sub-2 minute and then do it at the magic club I'm in saying it's Rubik's remembered, and then ask them how it's done.
I can't do it at the new-year's meeting becaue it's 5 days away (too bad because there are some famous people/fake blindfold experts) but the next real meeting must be possible

If there are people there who don't know it's really possible without faking, it could be great. You could show them your "new" version of the Rubik's Remember illusion, and have an assistant put paper between you and the cube while you solve. Then you can enjoy while a bunch of magicians start begging you to sell them your improvement on the trick!

They'd probably think that the paper is used to cover a switch. Try doing it behind your back while blindfolded. They might think that you'll try to pull a Uri Geller and have a mirror in the blindfold. When you say that They're wrong, they'll be begging you for a secret to use in a blindfold drive. If you tell them that it's genuine, they'll be even more amazed.

 

[Stefan]

When the guy in the video said "I'm not even sure whether this is magic," it is true to some extent, it's mentalism. Don't be worried, it's the kind of line that will get replaced soon. And, he says that he's a magician.

When a magician in the middle of a show says "this is not a trick", then I expect that to be true. Ironically, when a non-magician says the same when showing me something that could be a trick, then I do expect it to be a trick.

 

[Rabid]

And I think average people don't even know the term "mentalism", let alone what it means. To average people, him saying "this is not magic" would be equal to him saying "this is not a trick".

I use an offshoot of mentalism to classify some tricks. It's actually more impressive than a sleight. For instance I will sometimes use a riffle and algorithm to deduce the missing card from a deck (that I already know).

It's just another for form of misdirection.

 

[Stefan]

if it weren't for Kuti, most people on this forum wouldn't know that it's possible to peek.

Are you serious? Last time I checked, our blindcubing videos on youtube got a lot of "he peeked, ****ing cheater" comments. And that's just the people who believe it was done and even say so. I think most people are aware that it's possible.

Secondly, him pretending to interrupted would obviously result in a DNF, which we already decided is not imprssive.

But would it damage his reputation?

 

[KevinK]

John George then began to mislead others.

Mmh, I think I would've noticed that, as I would've felt disappointed by him. What do you mean?

With their other products, they claim that you can make any object disappear at any time.

That's different. I doubt anyone would consider that not using trickery.

When the guy in the video said "I'm not even sure whether this is magic," it is true to some extent, it's mentalism.

Is that mentalism? I agree it is when it's done the Osterlind way, but when you look at the cube beforehand?
And I think average people don't even know the term "mentalism", let alone what it means. To average people, him saying "this is not magic" would be equal to him saying "this is not a trick".

When John George said that it's possible to to a legit BLD, other people got confused and thought that the DVD John was referring to was "Rubik Remembered".

With your second comment (I should learn how to put parts of quotes at different parts of the post), most magicians with very rare exceptions would consider solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded only possible with trickery.

Mentalism is like magic, but it is all about the mind. "I'm not sure if this is even magic" is a common line to switch from magic to mentalism. He doesn't say that he's doing it from memory. The way that he presents the trick needs some work because all he says about memorizing it is "Let me study it." I don't usually like it when someone claims that they're psychic. This guy admitted that it's a new routine and he even put his e-mail there so that we can give him suggestions. If you don't like the presentation, tell him.

BTW-the "It's mentalism" thing was my attempt at a joke.

 

[pjk]

KevinK: Perhaps you don't understand where we are all coming from. Can you solve a cube blindfolded, legitimately? It is easy. Getting fast is the hard part. Why not simply spend the time to legitimately do it, and then perform? As I said before, and as QQ mentioned, we don't appreciate anyone (including magicians) to fake something that we spend hours practicing. I'm surprised Mike Hughey didn't tell you what he thought about it (someone who has competed in pretty much every weekly competition here this year [52 of them], including many, many hours of 3x3-7x7 BLD).

 

[Rabid]

most magicians with very rare exceptions would consider solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded only possible with trickery.

That’s a very bold statement. You are arguing against the existence of cross-disciplines. I would hypothesize that any magician truly interested in cubing effects would do a little online research on the subject. Five minutes on Google would convince a skeptic of BLD’s authenticity.

 

[KevinK]

if it weren't for Kuti, most people on this forum wouldn't know that it's possible to peek.

Are you serious? Last time I checked, our blindcubing videos on youtube got a lot of "he peeked, ****ing cheater" comments. And that's just the people who believe it was done and even say so. I think most people are aware that it's possible.

Secondly, him pretending to interrupted would obviously result in a DNF, which we already decided is not imprssive.

But would it damage his reputation?

I remember a youtube video "BLD Cheating is Possible". He was trying to peek to see if it was possible. When you first saw a BLD, did you think that he or she was peaking? Also, the youtube commenters say that you're peeking, but there is no guarantee that they know how to peek.

DNFing would damage his repuation. He isn't able to do something that he says he can (to clarify, he can't pretend to BLD. Nothe can't BLD). People will assume that he DNFed because of object obscuring his view. They will have figured it out, and Mark will be known as a semi-okay magician because some of his tricks are easy to figure out.

 

[KevinK]

most magicians with very rare exceptions would consider solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded only possible with trickery.

That’s a very bold statement. You are arguing against the existence of cross-disciplines. I would hypothesize that any magician truly interested in cubing effects would do a little online research on the subject. Five minutes on Google would convince a skeptic of BLD’s authenticity.

Did you read the magiccafe thread? User Double_Lift claims to be a cuber, but was surprised that it's possible to BLD. There's also a guy that works at my local magic shop who uses Insta-Cube as the opening effect in his show. Once, we were talking about Osterlind effects. The Rubik's Cube one came up, and I told him that I can do it legitimately blindfolded, and he and no idea that it was possible. Sorry, but you're wrong.

 

[Rabid]

Why not simply spend the time to legitimately do it, and then perform? As I said before, and as QQ mentioned, we don't appreciate anyone (including magicians) to fake something that we spend hours practicing.

Somewhere there is a guy who can riffle a deck and tell me the missing card. I have no interest in spending the time to match his feat. I also have no interest in developing a memo system for BLD (although I respect the skill) but may try some peeking.

I will ruin your reputation!

 

[Rabid]

Did you read the magiccafe thread? User Double_Lift claims to be a cuber, but was surprised that it's possible to BLD. There's also a guy that works at my local magic shop who uses Insta-Cube as the opening effect in his show. Once, we were talking about Osterlind effects. The Rubik's Cube one came up, and I told him that I can do it legitimately blindfolded, and he and no idea that it was possible. Sorry, but you're wrong.

I’m having trouble registering (free e-mail accounts not allowed)..they are a close knit group. I would say they are not truly interested in cubing. Perhaps magicians are more myopic than I thought. I still say they should research the underlying concepts and tools of their craft.

 

[KevinK]

KevinK: Perhaps you don't understand where we are all coming from. Can you solve a cube blindfolded, legitimately? It is easy. Getting fast is the hard part. Why not simply spend the time to legitimately do it, and then perform? As I said before, and as QQ mentioned, we don't appreciate anyone (including magicians) to fake something that we spend hours practicing. I'm surprised Mike Hughey didn't tell you what he thought about it (someone who has competed in pretty much every weekly competition here this year [52 of them], including many, many hours of 3x3-7x7 BLD).

Yes, if you click on my WCA profile, you can see that I can legitimately BLD. It's much easier to solve a cube than to solve in blind, although anyone can BLD. We don't spend hours practicing BLD to impress other people. We practice to accomplish a difficult task. BLD does impress other people, though. Doing a fake BLD does entertain, even if you know that it's fake. Whenever a magician performs something, you know that it's fake without the magician having to say, "I want you to know that the next thing I'm going to do is fake, even though I'm going to try to convince you that it isn't." When someone says that they're a magician, they say that everything that they perform is a lie.

 

[KevinK]

Did you read the magiccafe thread? User Double_Lift claims to be a cuber, but was surprised that it's possible to BLD. There's also a guy that works at my local magic shop who uses Insta-Cube as the opening effect in his show. Once, we were talking about Osterlind effects. The Rubik's Cube one came up, and I told him that I can do it legitimately blindfolded, and he and no idea that it was possible. Sorry, but you're wrong.

I’m having trouble registering (free e-mail accounts not allowed)..they are a close knit group. I would say they are not truly interested in cubing. Perhaps magicians are more myopic than I thought. I still say they should research the underlying concepts and tools of their craft.

You don't need to register to read the thread. Stefan put the link on page 2. You also said "interested in cubing effects," not "interested in cubing." The first BLD trick was invented in the early '80s, before the internet made it easy to research the history. Richard Osterlind didn't say, "Hmmm..... how could I fake something very difficult...". He just decided to add a basic blindfold technique to a Rubik's Cube solve without any inspiration. Therefore, BLD is not the underlying concept, second sight is. Most magicians know a lot about the history of second sight.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I'm surprised Mike Hughey didn't tell you what he thought about it (someone who has competed in pretty much every weekly competition here this year [52 of them], including many, many hours of 3x3-7x7 BLD).

Thanks, pjk, but I guess I really don't mind all that much. I do this primarily for my own amusement, although it's nice to have other people amazed by it occasionally. I LOVE solving a 3x3x3 under a table at a restaurant while several of the servers gather and watch in utter amazement. But I figure the best solution to this is to continue to increase the popularity of cubing. As more and more people learn that BLD is possible (and even not that hard), this trick will be less and less impressive - eventually people will be totally unimpressed by the magicians' tricks.

I still rather like the idea of fooling the magicians (beating them at their own game, as it were). Can you imagine how befuddled Ville could make them if he suddenly sold his act as a magic act?

 

[fanwuq]

The magicians that invented these tricks make money from people buying their products. By learning for free, you are literally taking food off of their tables.

He is taking food off my table!!!!!

I'm poor and I do BLD for people and now he is cheating to devalue my unique abilities!
How I'm I supposed to shelter and feed my family now?

When the supply curve increases and demand stays the same, market price drops. Thanks to him I now get paid less for my BLDs, WTF2L!!!

Time to hire a ninja in pink pajamas to take him out.


KevinK,
I'm now suspicious about your Competition attempt. Did you make the solve so long that people wouldn't think that your were taking occasionally peeks during the solve?
It's BS that you've practiced BLD for years.
I learned BLD about 9 months ago, but never seriously tried until this month. Before this month, I was just doing one solve every week or so. One weekend of serious practice (maybe 60 solves) was enough to bring my times from 7min 5% accuracy to 3.5min 40% accuracy.

Edit:
Escher, I do not actually do BLD for a living, it's for the point of the argument. I'm not sure if I'm also accusing KevinK of cheating, but it is a very real possibility, he did suggest it himself first.
Defending peeking in a BLD cubing forum is not exactly how you make yourself trustworthy.

 

[Escher]

chill out fanwuq.

jude averages sub 3 at home when doing BLD, whereas he DNFed all of his attempts, which were all sup 5/6, in the UK open. kevin couldve had 2:30 DNFs for the first two, and gone really, really slow for the last.

edit, obviously not saying thats the truth, but its certainly possible.