# Rubik's Remember



## d4m4s74 (Dec 28, 2008)

*Rubik's Remembered*

Sup guys, ever heard of "Rubik's Remembered by Mark Elsdon"?
seriously, is this just a BLD explaination dvd?

If so, is it even morally right to sell something one can legally get for free online?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 28, 2008)

Sure, it's morally right to sell something that's free online. Plenty of books do that. It's just that buying it (for the information only) would mean you're really bad at Googling.

$30 is a bit steep for a BLD tutorial, though. I'm also interested by the fact that he claims you can solve it in under 2 minutes (normally) and then under 2 minutes (while blindfold) - is this a speed BLD tutorial, or does he expect you to be really good at commutators?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 28, 2008)

I might buy it just to find out. If it's fake I can recognize it if I see it
If it's real It can help me study

It does say "Apparently" from memory, so, yeh.


also: 7 steps, how many steps does beginner method have? cross, corners first layer, second layer, cross oll, corner oll, edge pll, corner pll.
7


----------



## Escher (Dec 28, 2008)

> effect of solving the Cube _apparently_ from memory, whilst blind-folded



maybe he just expects you to cheat.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Dec 28, 2008)

> His brilliant* 7-step *solution is quickly learnt and was designed to offer ease of long-term recall.



Most 7 step solutions are beginner methods.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 28, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> > His brilliant* 7-step *solution is quickly learnt and was designed to offer ease of long-term recall.
> 
> 
> 
> Most 7 step solutions are beginner methods.



Yeah but don't forget his is "brilliant".

I'm willing to donate $5 (by paypal) in the pursuit of one of us buying it and summarizing it for us others.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 28, 2008)

I'm a magician, So if I'm ordering anything there I'll get the dvd too (I was looking for enchanted/insta cube anyway for the performing rights. I'm making an enchanted 5x5x5(though 35 bucks for the gimmic is a lot, dude, you need 1 cube and 5 or 6 extra stickers to make it))


----------



## Stefan (Dec 28, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> I'm willing to donate $5 (by paypal) in the pursuit of one of us buying it and summarizing it for us others.


Actually, scratch that. Another magic store mentions the fake blindfold used (German, beware!), so it's not interesting at all.
http://www.stemaro-magic.de/rubik-remembered.html


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 28, 2008)

fake blindfold?
HA HA!

In other words, I'll learn BLD and if I see a magician do it I'll whip out a real blindfold


----------



## KevinK (Dec 28, 2008)

This was made for magicians, by magicians. It is a beginner's solution and it teaches how to peak from a blindfold. Magicians sell their tricks on DVDs a lot. Richard Osterlind, a well known mentalist in the world of magic, has a 2-DVD set that he released a while ago that has solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded as a second-sight demonstration. He is blindfolded before the cube is scrambled. On themagiccafe.com, a magic forum, people were discussing this trick. John George, the magician on the "You Can Solve The Cube" DVD, stepped in and said that there are ways to solve the cube blindfolded without trickery, and everyone was amazed. I can assure you that "Rubik Remembered" is just a magic trick that teaches how to solve a Rubik's Cube and how to use a nose peak.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 28, 2008)

Check this demonstration (and yes, that's the guy himself):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_6FiXcDWqE&feature=related


----------



## Stefan (Dec 28, 2008)

KevinK said:


> On themagiccafe.com, a magic forum, people were discussing this trick. John George, the magician on the "You Can Solve The Cube" DVD, stepped in and ...


Link for us others: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=280568&forum=109&37


----------



## bamman1108 (Dec 28, 2008)

It gives you a crappy beginner's method and tells you how to peek through the small gaps around his nose.

Not only is it easily possible to perform a legit BLD solve in under two minutes, but his "trick" can be done in seconds, since it's basically just a regular speedsolve.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 28, 2008)

Kuti read this book.


----------



## Dene (Dec 28, 2008)

If he's going to peek, he could at least learn off a master.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 28, 2008)

what was there first, matyas' reputation or this vid

O I C, matyas was first


----------



## KevinK (Dec 28, 2008)

Because no one thinks that this is worth the money, I'm going to challenge anyone with a youtube account to post a video of a BLD, but put in the title and tags that it is the "Rubik Remembered" magic trick. Watch all of the magicians commenting asking if the trick is good, if it can be performed surrounded, if it's impromptu, etc. To a magician, a 2 minute blindfold solve is amazing. On top of that, you can do it with 100% accuracy, surrounded, impromptu, no gimmicks, minimal skill, no misdirection, and it's virtually self working. If you make money from doing tricks, this may seem well worth the money.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 28, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> what was there first, matyas' reputation or this vid
> 
> O I C, matyas was first



This DVD came out a few months after Matyas was caught, but Richard Osterlind's "No Camera Tricks" DVD was released before years before Matyas was caught. A popular magic book called The Royal Road To Card Magic contains peaking from a blindfold (not for a cube solve, for a card trick), and it was released well before the Rubik's Cube was invented.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 28, 2008)

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?)


----------



## KevinK (Dec 28, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> 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?)



Barry and Stuart have a nice routine including the cube. You could probably do their vanish at the end using a pull.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 28, 2008)

Blindfold solving is impressive, but anyone can solve (and even blindfold solve) a cube if they just learn how and practice a bit, and cheating to make it look like you have a skill that you don't seems wrong to me. If you pretend to blindfold solve, and someone finds out you were looking through the blindfold, they will probably begin to think that ALL blindfold solves are fake. So this trick could actually cause damage to cubing...

On the other hand, I really respect John George (and Stryker) for having legitimately put some time in and learned to solve the cube relatively quickly without using tricks or gimmicks.


I would like to see the "Rubik Remembered" guy doing his trick to a bunch of cubers. Why? Because I want to see his face after someone puts paper between his head and the cube


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Blindfold solving is impressive, but anyone can solve (and even blindfold solve) a cube if they just learn how and practice a bit, and cheating to make it look like you have a skill that you don't seems wrong to me. If you pretend to blindfold solve, and someone finds out you were looking through the blindfold, they will probably begin to think that ALL blindfold solves are fake. So this trick could actually cause damage to cubing...
> 
> On the other hand, I really respect John George (and Stryker) for having legitimately put some time in and learned to solve the cube relatively quickly without using tricks or gimmicks.
> 
> ...



Magic is all about pretending that you have a skill that you truly don't have. David Blaine can't really levitate, but is it wrong for him to pretend that he can? David practiced very hard to make it look like he could levitate, and he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill. Because Mark Elsdon practiced very hard to make it look like he can do something that most people (maybe him, too) think is impossible, he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill. Mark has practiced enough that no lay person can detect the trickery that he is using. The people in the preview that saw Mark solve the cube blindfolded know in the back of their minds that Mark used trickery. They think that it is probably possible to solve a cube blindfolded, but they know that Mark does magic. When Mark leaves, they aren't questioning how it's possible to memorize a Rubik's Cube, but how it's possible to know where each of the colors are when you can't see them. Instead of thinking that Mark peeks from the blindfold, they might think that there is brail on the cube, though all of their theories are proven wrong when they examine the cube, leaving them with no explanation for what happened.

I found your last comment very rude. Mark probably has no idea that it's possible to truly solve a cube blindfolded. He probably thinks that everyone thinks that BLD is impossible, and he wants to entertain someone by doing something that he thinks that you think is impossible. If he was performing Houdini's famous milk can escape, would you walk on stage and pull open the curtain so that everyone can see how it's done? Mark Elsdon would never and has never peeked from a blindfold at a competition. If you don't find his talent impressive, you don't have to let him know that. If non-cubers are watching him pretend to BLD in an effort to entertain, they would be more entertained by seeing him successfully solve it than seeing someone showing that he can't truly do it. Mark tries fake the impossible, not fake the possible. If everyone knew that with a little practice, anyone can do a BLD, Mark wouldn't be doing this trick.

The difference between Mark Elsdon and Matyas Kuti is that Mark says upfront by saying that he is a magician that nothing he does is real. Matyas says that everything he does is real. Mark lies to entertain; Matyas lies to win.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 29, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Blindfold solving is impressive, but anyone can solve (and even blindfold solve) a cube if they just learn how and practice a bit,


Yeah, I mean, even qq can solve the cube blindfolded and he hates it.



> I would like to see the "Rubik Remembered" guy doing his trick to a bunch of cubers. Why? Because I want to see his face after someone puts paper between his head and the cube


Hehehehehe.


----------



## pjk (Dec 29, 2008)

Great, a book on how to "cheat" at blindfold cubing. 



KevinK said:


> Magic is all about pretending that you have a skill that you truly don't have. David Blaine can't really levitate, but is it wrong for him to pretend that he can? David practiced very hard to make it look like he could levitate, and he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill.


There is a big difference. Solving the cube blindfolded is something that is definitely possible, and we know that for sure. Levitating is something that is most likely not possible, hence why magic comes in. Magic is deceiving the mind to make you believe something else. However, when people start using "magic" to do a cube BLD, many of us will take it as an insult, since many people spend countless hours practicing how to legitimately do it. By posting videos and publishing books on how to essentially fake something like that tends to convince the general public that it isn't true, while it all reality the world record legitimately is under 60 seconds (faster than this guy can do it with "magic"!).



> I found your last comment very rude. Mark probably has no idea that it's possible to truly solve a cube blindfolded.


That isn't our problem. If he did the research, he would find that you can solve it blindfolded. As I mentioned above, many of us will find it offensive that he is playing something off as a "magic" trick and essentially faking it, when many of us here spend countless hours practicing solving the cube blindfolded, legitimately. I see him (and all others who fake it) ruining the reputation of blindfold cubing, and I don't like that.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

pjk said:


> Great, a book on how to "cheat" at blindfold cubing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, although it's not important, it's a DVD, not a book. Secondly, the pupose of the DVD isn't to substitute memory skill. It's just a way of doing something that seems impossible. The purpose of competitive BLD is to genuinely do something as fast as possible. The purpose of "Rubik Remembered" is to teach magicians a trick so that they can entertain an audience. You also seem to say that passing a fake BLD off as magic is bad. In the middle of a mind-reading act, I could do a legit BLD, pass it off as more of my magic, and have my spectators more amazed than if I did my BLD separately. With good showmanship, I can make it look like I can just barely remember something but succeed in the end. From just doing a normal BLD, I can make a lay person say "Wow," but that's about it. By interacting with the spectator, I can make a spectator do what the spectators did in the "Rubik Remembered" trailer. Teaching how to do a basic solve and how to peek from a blindfold is just a way of keeping it easy so that magicians can have enough time to practice false deals, riffle passes, and other sleights.

Mark Elsdon never claimed that he can solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. He knows how to pretend to, and he has said that. I've spent many hours practicing to be able to legitimately solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded since I was 11. I know that the reward of opening your eyes to see a solved cube is amazing. I also know the reward of seeing someone's reaction to seeing something that they think is impossible, even when you use trickery. That is something that very few people on this forum can relate to. 

Whenever I tell a magician who uses or has used trickery to solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded that I can do it for real, he or she automatically respect my ability. He or she never changed his or her opinion on whether or not it's ethical to pretend that you can do something that is possible. This is because he or she always knows that the spectator still thinks that the skill is nearly impossible. It's not about pretending that you can do something and hoping that the spectator buys it, but making the spectator question what is possible, even if that means faking what is possible.


----------



## Jai (Dec 29, 2008)

MistArts said:


> Kuti read this book.



Yeah, but Yish's brother gave him the book


----------



## Ellis (Dec 29, 2008)

I wish I saw this guy do this in person, maybe while he was filming or something... when he started the solve id just be like "Hey what the... thats just LBL, and you can see through that blindfold." and then hold my hand out in front of him.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> Magic is all about pretending that you have a skill that you truly don't have. David Blaine can't really levitate, but is it wrong for him to pretend that he can? David practiced very hard to make it look like he could levitate, and he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill. Because Mark Elsdon practiced very hard to make it look like he can do something that most people (maybe him, too) think is impossible, he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill. Mark has practiced enough that no lay person can detect the trickery that he is using.



Levitating is an extraordinary skill, that's exactly the point. Nobody can actually levitate, so it must be magic. When you pretend to do a skill that people actually have, on the other hand, you are demeaning the skill by making it appear you've put a huge amount of time into something you actually have no clue about, and by making it appear that anyone who actually has that skill is just using trickery. Blindfold cubing is already something that looks impossible and we don't need magicians making that perception stronger.

Besides, I really don't think this trick requires a huge amount of practice. Adam Zamora has showed me a very similar trick, where he put on a standard competition blindfold and then solved a cube with a normal method. I couldn't tell that he could see - and he is NOT a trained magician, he did not take a lot of time to practice this stunt, he just noticed that it's not actually that hard to look under a blindfold. So no, I'm not really impressed by the practice Mark put in. There's a big difference between cool stuff like slight of hand or card manipulation, and easy tricks like looking under a blindfold. Any cube solver could do a pretend BLD solve within a couple of minutes if you showed them how... so I'm much more impressed by the basic LBL solve than the fake BLD solve.



KevinK said:


> Mark tries fake the impossible, not fake the possible. If everyone knew that with a little practice, anyone can do a BLD, Mark wouldn't be doing this trick.



I think it'd be better that way. (Someone should, like, tell him it's possible.) You have to realize that, as someone who actually can do a BLD solve [even though, as SK points out, I don't like doing it much], I'm really worried that people might honestly begin to believe that it really is impossible and only possible with trickery. The annoying thing is that Mark can do a LOT of damage. Think about it, he's a professional magician and he gives shows, and he's selling the trick to other magicians who give shows... I'm sure a lot more non-cubers will see this trick in a show (and come out thinking BLD is as impossible as, say, making the Statue of Liberty vanish) than ANY of us could show a live BLD solve to.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> Mark Elsdon never claimed that he can solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. He knows how to pretend to, and he has said that.


Please watch his promotion video again and tell me how it doesn't claim that and where it says he only pretends.

Btw, didn't anyone notice that they wrote "Rubix" and said and wrote "73 trillion combinations"?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 29, 2008)

I noticed the 73 trillion, but not the misspelled rubik's

what would happen if anyone did "enchanted cube" at a competition (as a speedsolve)?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> what would happen if anyone did "enchanted cube" at a competition (as a speedsolve)?


DNF?


----------



## Escher (Dec 29, 2008)

DNS - surely when it came to scrambling having one side stickered totally wrong would mean it would be rejected?


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > Mark Elsdon never claimed that he can solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. He knows how to pretend to, and he has said that.
> ...



Because he says that he's a magician, his spectators know that what he does isn't real. During a mind-reading trick, a magician might pretend that he or she figures out what card was selected by the spectators blinking patterns. The spectators like to play along and try to trick him or her by blinking at different times, but they do know that the blinking is just a way of disguising whatever the clever trickery is. In "Rubik Remembered", Mark's spectators have a good feeling that he didn't actually do the cube by memory, but they like to play along. Because he labels himself as a magician, he says that everything he does is a lie, but if you forgive the lie, you'll leave entertained. 

Btw I was surprised that they made the mistakes. this DVD is distributed by Murphy's Magic Supplies, and they've made grammatical errors before.


----------



## jcuber (Dec 29, 2008)

Can someone tell me how insta-cubes work/how to make and operate one?


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

qqwref said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > Magic is all about pretending that you have a skill that you truly don't have. David Blaine can't really levitate, but is it wrong for him to pretend that he can? David practiced very hard to make it look like he could levitate, and he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill. Because Mark Elsdon practiced very hard to make it look like he can do something that most people (maybe him, too) think is impossible, he convinced people that he has an extraordinary skill. Mark has practiced enough that no lay person can detect the trickery that he is using.
> ...



Most people think that BLD is impossible. When I tell magicians who perform or have performed Richard Osterlind's version of Rubik Remembered (he's blindfolded before the cube is scrambled), they are always more impressed than if I tell people who haven't seen the trick. When a spectator sees a magician perform this, if the magician uses proper showmanship,the magician should be able to convince the spectator that BLD is impossible. If one of the spectators turns on the TV and hears about a local Rubik's Cube tournament that has BLD, he or she will think that BLD is much harder than it really is if the magician has to cheat. He or she will then think more highly of cubing, while still wondering how the magician was able to get past the obstacle of the blindfold. 

While faking a BLD is easy, making the spectator react how you want want them to is very difficult. The only difficult part about David Blaine's levitation is positioning yourself at the correct angle. the rest of the method is very easy. In Rubik Remembered, the only difficult part is making it look impossible. The first time I saw Macky do a BLD on youtube, i wasn't too impressed. he made it look very easy. Mark Elsdon came up with a script that convinces the spectators that BLD is impossible, which impresses them even more. Faking the skill is what is required to be able to solve it blindfolded without forgetting what comes next. 

If I were doing a BLD as a cuber for some people to watch, I would rather DNF than cheat. If I were to do a BLD during a mind-reading act for people that don't know that I can solve a Rubik's Cube, I would peek to ensure that I finished the solve-_for entertainment purposes only._ You may hate me for that fact, but in the context of a mind-reading act a DNF would look horrible. It would also save time, allowing people to not get bored after a while. I would say that although most everything in the show is a lie, I can truly solve a Rubik's Cube blindfolded. I wouldn't say anything about the legitimacy of the solve in the performance, though. I can't tell you how cool it is to have people amazed because they saw something that looks impossible. It's something that you have to experience yourself. Faking a skill that you don't have (although the spectators know that you don't have it) is worth it.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

jcuber said:


> Can someone tell me how insta-cubes work/how to make and operate one?



Buy one from an online store. People come up with great ideas of how to mystify audiences, and they decide to let other people do the same-if they're truly interested. If you really want to do this trick, you'll spend the money on one. If you decide to try and learn it for free, we know that you aren't interested enough. 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. I hope that this post doesn't sound too rude, because I know that cubing is a world where information is free, and magic a world where information costs money. So if you're really interested, buy one.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 29, 2008)

you probably prefer enchanted cube over insta cube, It´s cheaper to buy, and if it breaks it´s easier to make a new one


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> you probably prefer enchanted cube over insta cube, It´s cheaper to buy, and if it breaks it´s easier to make a new one



I've heard that the Enchanted Cube can't be handed out for inspection, but Insta-cube can. I've also heard that if people scramble the Insta-Cube, the gimmick requires you to take apart the cube. Still, examinable props are good.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 29, 2008)

back to rubik´s remembered, yes, it´s a real cube solve with a fake blindfold solve, I mailed the local magic shop. The dvd by John George and tyson mao does contain a real blindsolve

also, Insta cube doesn´t have to be be taken apart when scrambled, you can solve it like a normal cube.
enchanted cube is a bit more difficult because one side is always scrambled, but still solvable. personally I just solve the F2l and take appart the LL (because of doubles you sometimes get parity)


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> back to rubik´s remembered, yes, it´s a real cube solve with a fake blindfold solve, I mailed the local magic shop. The dvd by John George and tyson mao does contain a real blindsolve
> 
> also, Insta cube doesn´t have to be be taken apart when scrambled, you can solve it like a normal cube.
> enchanted cube is a bit more difficult because one side is always scrambled, but still solvable. personally I just solve the F2l and take appart the LL (because of doubles you sometimes get parity)



I guess I heard this from someone that doesn't know how to solve a Rubik's Cube. But still, you can only show 5 sides of the Enchanted Cube, but all six sides of Insta-cube.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > back to rubik´s remembered, yes, it´s a real cube solve with a fake blindfold solve, I mailed the local magic shop. The dvd by John George and tyson mao does contain a real blindsolve
> ...


true


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> When a spectator sees a magician perform this, if the magician uses proper showmanship,the magician should be able to convince the spectator that BLD is impossible.


Right, and that's what I have a problem with. I don't want someone to assume I'm cheating or doing a magic trick if I try to show them a BLD solve. I'm completely fine with a magician claiming that something like pushing one solid metal ring into another, making objects vanish, and so on, are impossible - because they are. But I'm not fine with magicians convincing the public that things which are very possible albeit difficult (and which people have spent many hundreds of hours getting good at!) are impossible. And, you know, it's not like this is the only trick in magic (or even the only Rubik's Cube trick in magic). I don't think all magic is wrong (not at ALL), I just think that this particular trick is damaging to the cube community.



KevinK said:


> If I were to do a BLD during a mind-reading act for people that don't know that I can solve a Rubik's Cube, I would peek to ensure that I finished the solve-_for entertainment purposes only._


Good thing you have those italicized things there *cough kuti cough*.
But yeah, it's not as impressive to get a DNF, although it can be to your benefit if you get close (3 pieces off, for instance) and act like you don't know whether it's solved or not (which you don't).



KevinK said:


> I can't tell you how cool it is to have people amazed because they saw something that looks impossible. It's something that you have to experience yourself.


I've seen it (and it's also the same look people get when they see you do something that looks insanely difficult, like doing a cube OH in ~30 seconds). I guess as a matter of personal preference I'd rather get it from doing something which is impressive even if you know how to do it, but that's just me.



KevinK said:


> 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.


What if you figure a trick out yourself? I think, as a cuber, the "Enchanted Cube" trick is simple enough to be able to figure out yourself after seeing it a couple of times. Is that stealing?



d4m4s74 said:


> what would happen if anyone did "enchanted cube" at a competition (as a speedsolve)?


You... couldn't? Either you'd have to somehow give the scramblers the gimmicked cube and *then* convince them to give you a scramble that did nothing (and also convince the judge to let you solve it)... or you'd have to somehow switch out the cube they gave you with another, gimmicked one. In the first case you are God, and in the second case you'd probably be disqualified for obvious cheating.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK,
How is QQ rude?

I don't care if people think BLD is impossible, it is possible and people train very hard to get fast at it. If everyone sees you pull a Kuti, BLD will be seen by everyone as just a trick. Plenty of people already think it's fake. This product just makes things worse. We don't want more cheaters at cubing competitions. BLD is possible and people should be honest! And defending a liar somehow makes you noble?\

Edit: 

People are impressed when I do a sub-20 solve or sub-30 OH, or sub-3 min BLD. Respect comes with hard work, not cheap tricks.


----------



## Rabid (Dec 29, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> I'm working on a magic act around the cube, ..
> Any other trick ideas?)



I think this threadjack has merit. I do a bit of magic myself, and wouldn't mind introducing a cube. Cards _do _fit in the slots..


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Please watch his promotion video again and tell me how it doesn't claim that and where it says he only pretends.
> ...



You misunderstand. You're right about the audience *in* that promotion video. He's kinda "honest" to them in the sense you described. But to the audience *watching that promotion video*, he isn't. Please recall that magiccafe thread where even the magicians were discussing whether his technique uses trickery or whether he's teaching to do it for real. They did *not* know what he does isn't real, *and* they *knew* he's a magician.

And the only statement I see in the video is this:
"NOW YOU TOO CAN SOLVE THE RUBIK CUBE - BLINDFOLDED!"
Um, sorry, no, with this technique I can *not*.

Here's a guy showing this trick, btw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1GhT1qU_p4
I dislike how he introduces it saying "I'm not even sure whether this is magic".


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 29, 2008)

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


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 29, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> 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!


----------



## Dene (Dec 29, 2008)

Wow, whatever method he was using it took a lot of moves.


----------



## shelley (Dec 29, 2008)

If it's comfortable for you, just do it behind your back. People won't be able to accuse you of peeking (just stay away from mirrors), and they always think it's harder to solve behind your back, even though your hands are doing the moves exactly the same.


----------



## Rabid (Dec 29, 2008)

shelley said:


> If it's comfortable for you, just do it behind your back. .



Under a table seems easier. A bit weird though.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 29, 2008)

there might be a camera under the table and a mini screen inside the blindfold

people come up with the weirdest things when watching things that seem impossible


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

qqwref said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > When a spectator sees a magician perform this, if the magician uses proper showmanship,the magician should be able to convince the spectator that BLD is impossible.
> ...



If you do a BLD for someone that thinks that it's impossible, you can convince them that it's possible. After you've finished the BLD, tell them about how you memorize where each piece goes with letters and numbers. This will ultimately make them think less about the magician, but higher of you. You can make a lay person think anything you want them to.

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.

Figuring out a trick is fine. It's the creator's fault if he or she puts up a crappy demonstration. If you're going to use the trick, you should pay for the trick so that you have the performance rights. Jcuber didn't figure it out, he was asking for information that he didn't have the right to. I do understand that it's because he isn't familiar with magic ethics, so I can easily forgive him.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2008)

qqwref said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > what would happen if anyone did "enchanted cube" at a competition (as a speedsolve)?
> ...


More to the point: If someone can pull that off, he could instead use the exact same way to fake a real solve.



Dene said:


> Wow, whatever method he was using it took a lot of moves.


Must be part of the mentioned brilliance.


----------



## Rabid (Dec 29, 2008)

Some of you seem to have an overprotective defensive stance for the cubing community. Maybe I’m an island, but it’s a fractured alliance at best. No “outsiders” care a diddle about what any cuber achieves; every feat is impressive to some degree. If anything it’s even _more _remarkable to achieve a result that was believed to be impossible without trickery.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> KevinK,
> How is QQ rude?



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. People like not knowing.


----------



## Rabid (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> making a magician screw up would take away the wonder and mystery from the minds of others. People like not knowing.



Any magician will tell you people HATE not knowing. They will beg you for the answer and do everything in their power to screw you up. It's actually quite hard to maintain control sometimes.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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.


----------



## joey (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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..


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



Murphy's Magic Supplies dose mislead the customers a little bit. The user "Double_Lift" seemed the most confused, and this is because he was looking at it from the viewpoint of a cuber, not a magician, and he admitted it. John George then began to mislead others.

While the statement in the video isn't technically true, it's fine with me. With their other products, they claim that you can make any object disappear at any time.

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.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

Rabid said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > making a magician screw up would take away the wonder and mystery from the minds of others. People like not knowing.
> ...



Any magician-including me-will tell you that people _say_ that they hate not knowing. Deep down, they really don't want to know. Having someone tell you how it's done is like having someone tell you that there isn't a Santa Claus when you're 6 years old.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 29, 2008)

joey said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > 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 people don't usually know that.


----------



## F1Z2L3 (Dec 29, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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?



KevinK said:


> 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.



KevinK said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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.



KevinK said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > John George then began to mislead others.
> ...



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 (Dec 29, 2008)

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 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


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



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. _Not_he 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

Rabid said:


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



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 (Dec 29, 2008)

pjk said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

pjk said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

Rabid said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 29, 2008)

pjk said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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 (Dec 29, 2008)

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.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 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".


I don't remember people getting confused about that and just reread his message, it's absolutely clear he's talking about a different DVD. But ok, maybe some readers were still misled because of their own failure to read.



KevinK said:


> With your second comment most magicians with very rare exceptions would consider solving a Rubik's Cube blindfolded only possible with trickery.


Even if this is true, don't you think it's just because they believe it's "too hard" to do for real? It's not like it's something supernatural. Osterlind's way is (solving without having seen the cube at all, claiming to see through the eyes of his assistants).



KevinK said:


> When you first saw a BLD, did you think that he or she was peaking?


First time I saw one was after I had done it myself already. And I don't remember. But that wasn't the point anyway. point was whether people are aware it's possible, not whether they believe it's actually being done. The possibility was known to cubers way before the famous incident. We had just been relying on honesty, hoping for the best.



KevinK said:


> Also, the youtube commenters say that you're peeking, but there is no guarantee that they *know how to peek*.


Wait, is that supposed to be difficult?


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I'm only 12, and I learned when I was 11. I learned during spring of this year. Because you're suspicious of my attempt, ask some people that were there. Mike Hughey was there, though I don't know if he saw it. I have on video Phil Thomas and Shaden Smith seeing it. They can verify that it was legit.

I might appear biased towards magicians because because I started performing magic before I learned to solve a cube.

My comment about taking food off of someone's table by performing a trick that he or she invented without paying for it was relating just to the Enchanted Cube trick. Craig Nichols makes money by selling his ideas for other magicians to use. When uses his idea without his permission, it's stealing. And I don't think that you make money from BLD.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> When uses his idea without his permission, it's stealing.



It's only stealing if the idea is patented.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

Escher said:


> 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.



They were actually both around six minutes. I DNFed them partially because I did edges before corners and didn't know how to fix parity like that, and partially because I screwed up.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > When uses his idea without his permission, it's stealing.
> ...



Where are your ethics? That may be the legal case, but I morally equate it to stealing because it's taking someone else's intellectual property without permission.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > KevinK said:
> ...



Wrong. Shakespeare's idea's were all borrowed from previous stories. Was he stealing?
A patent is simply an incentive for innovation. 

Which is the greater evil? Cheating or stealing?
Actually, it's not even stealing because you made the trick yourself from just looking at it. It's not a real product.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> I'm only 12, and I learned when I was 11. I learned during spring of this year. Because you're suspicious of my attempt, ask some people that were there. Mike Hughey was there, though I don't know if he saw it. I have on video Phil Thomas and Shaden Smith seeing it. They can verify that it was legit.



Yes, I do remember the solve. I remember because I saw the time on it and figured you were a new BLD cuber. I love seeing new BLD cubers get a success


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > 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".
> ...



1. I know from two years experience that magicians usually skim forum posts. I don't know why, but some of us are careless.

2. Magicians fake things that are too hard all of the time. When magicians perform escapes, they often say that they pick the locks. The truth is that lock picking takes way too much time. We bypass locks as much as possible. Lock picking is possible, but too hard. With countless hours of practice, we could probably pick locks faster than we bypass them. As I've stated before, spectators know that when a magician does something, it's a lie. When a non-magician does something, it's easy to convince them that it is genuine.

3+4. When cubers do BLD, they often move their heads around when they have difficulty remembering something. To make it very easy to see everything out of a blindfold, tilt your head back a bit. This subconscious action can make it look like you cheat. Think about it; you stop moving, tilt your head back, and start moving again. If you don't know that BLD is possible, it can look like you cheat.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > KevinK said:
> ...



Well, seeing as this guy is selling a beginners method that he did not invent on DVD at a rip off price, I think he is the one in the moral wrong here.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


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


A lot of people on this forum don't know about Kuti... but that's not the point. Before him it wasn't that cubers didn't know it was possible to look under a blindfold (because it is, if you put on a typical cubing blindfold with your eyes open you'll often notice some light), it was actually that cubers trusted each other not to cheat. If you tell a layperson who just saw a blindfold solve "that guy looked under the blindfold", the layperson isn't going to say "how?" but rather "oh, that's much less impressive now."



KevinK said:


> I might appear biased towards magicians because because I started performing magic before I learned to solve a cube.


No offense, but... you *are* biased.



KevinK said:


> I'm only 12, and I learned when I was 11.


Incidentally, you should go tell Ron. Because if you're telling the truth you belong on the 'youngest BLD solvers' list.



Dene said:


> Well, seeing as this guy is selling a beginners method that he did not invent on DVD at a rip off price, I think he is the one in the moral wrong here.


He may have invented the beginner method himself, but they're available for free online, and a cursory search will reveal plenty of tutorials. And we already knew about looking under the blindfold. But to be fair, it seems that most of what he is selling is the experience: how to perform the trick properly so that it will appear convincing. But if this is what he's selling, how could we possibly steal the trick?


Also. Wait a minute. The DVD shop page calls Rubik Remembered a "reputation-making effect". Why hasn't the cubing community heard about this trick before?


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

Dene said:


> KevinK said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



It was (sort of) his idea to combine the blindfold technique with a Rubik's Cube solve. I think that he is ripping off Richard Osterlind, but Osterlind says that it's fine for Mark Elsdon to sell it because the presentation is different. Remember that when you buy the DVD, you buy the explanation of the blindfold technique, his showmanship tips, and someone else's Rubik's Cube method. I know that the copyrights with Seven Towns was sorted out, which probably cost them a lot of money. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) David Singmaster invented the beginner's method taught on the DVD. It became public knowledge after the method was taught in a booklet that comes with the cube, and was made famous by Dan Brown's youtube tutorial. With a quick google search, you can easily (~20 min.) learn the beginner's method. What a google search can't give you is advice on getting the best audience reaction possible. This (along with the blindfold secrets) is what you pay $30 (yes, it's over-priced) for.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

qqwref said:


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



1. I guess that the statement was a little too bold. I meant that if it weren't for Kuti, you guys wouldn't be mad that someone is teaching how to cheat at BLD.

2. I know that I'm biased, but I'm the only one that sees this from the magician's perspective, because I was a magician before I became a cuber.

3. I did message Jim Mertens, who was the delegate for the tournament, but he didn't reply. Anyone know how to contact Ron?

4. You got this from the magician's perspective. This is really why magicians buy it.

5. I've known about this since the week it was released, but I'm a magician.


----------



## pjk (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...


I disagree.

anyway, I've laid out my points, and if you don't agree, there is nothing more that I can say. But I absolutely hate seeing people "fake" blindfold solves; it does convince the general public that we all "fake" them.



Mike Hughey said:


> pjk said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...


I do it for my own amusement as well, but I do hate people faking it and playing it off as real.



> 1. I guess that the statement was a little too bold. I meant that if it weren't for Kuti, you guys wouldn't be mad that someone is teaching how to cheat at BLD.
> 
> 2. I know that I'm biased, but I'm the only one that sees this from the magician's perspective, because I was a magician before I became a cuber.
> 
> ...


I see it from a magicians prospective, and that doesn't change my view at all. I used to practice magic way before I cubed, and that still doesn't change my thoughts about this.


----------



## mrbiggs (Dec 30, 2008)

KevinK said:


> 1. I guess that the statement was a little too bold. I meant that if it weren't for Kuti, you guys wouldn't be mad that someone is teaching how to cheat at BLD.



Not true. Or, at least, not true for me. I'm mad because it cheapens what I work for. If I used a couple of video effects and paid a couple of "spectators" to replicate some of David Blaine's tricks, he'd be pretty mad. His tricks would look stupid and cheap because my trick was stupid and cheap. He practiced sleight of hand and thought about the tricks for years and years, and I'm using a couple of effects to get the same result. Meanwhile, I'm losing the trust of the audience. When someone sees me do a BLD solve, there's always a certain amount of trust that I'm not gaming the system somehow. They don't know how a rubik's cube works, or whether or not I'm truly blindfolded, or how scrambled the cube is. When I do a demonstration, it's based on them trusting me to solve it legitimately. This guy is not solving it legitimately, taking credit for actually accomplishing something other people spend a lot of time working for, and is doing it using cheating methods which I am trusted to abstain from.

In other words, he's making what I do less worthwhile by cheating and I'm not a fan.


----------



## KevinK (Dec 30, 2008)

@PJK:

People don't always play it off as real. I do hate it when "psychics" claim that what they do is real. If someone is ever less impressed by one of your BLD solves because a magician did the same trick, then you can complain. So far, no damage has been done, and I doubt that damage will be done.

@mrbiggs:

I don't think that David would care. He performs magic because he loves the look of astonishment on his spectators' faces. Magic just happens to be a way that he can make money. If you did the cheap tricks, it's not the same result. When Mark Elsdon performs "Rubik Remembered," he doesn't have the same feeling of self accomplishment that you do when you have a successful BLD. The reasons for both of your BLDs are very different. This trick won't make people think that your BLDs are fake. If anything, it'll make them think that you have a skill that's very hard to aquire; a magician cheated to do the same thing, so BLD must be hard!


----------

