Sudo Nimh - Skeletons From the Closet - Issue Two

Skeletons From the Closet

Issue Two

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.













Skeletons From the Closet

Issue Two When asked about his music, the late Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead once commented "Our music is like black licorice - those who like it, like it a lot". And so it seems to be with my work as well. As a Mystery Performer, I am one who doesn't like to categorize myself as a 'Mentalist' or 'Magician', but have always preferred to simply "do what I do" and let audiences draw their own conclusions instead. Labels are things for boxes and I refuse to be boxed in by such things. After reviewing this routine, I think t hink it will be difficult for anyone to argue that I don't have a firm f irm grasp of the required mindset for good Mentalism - I just prefer not to engage in silly labels or dogmatic beliefs. With that said, I am pleased with the reception that Skeletons has has received so far and want to thank those readers who made a donation or took the time to actually post their thoughts at the Magic Cafe in an effort to help bring attention to my work - some of you did both. I am truly honoured and humbled that others find value in my flavour of 'licorice' - regardless of how many or how few of you there may be.















And though this routine is not based on any pre-existing effects - new or old, it brings into the the spotlight a virtually unknown unknown principle principle of the the great Max Max Maven called The Bonsai Principle . Another feature which I believe will be of great interest to readers is a second procedure of my own devising used within the routine - The En Passant Procedure . This method is very counter-intuitive when one to tries to understand why it it works even when one knows how it it works. I've been told by numerous folks - even engineers, engineers, that this is certainly the case but I'll leave that to your own judgement and reason. The other wonderful thing about this procedure is that it gives you a great tool which you can use "anytime and anywhere" when when you have absolutely nothing on you - and unlike most propless methods, this is one that I feel will find a home with many readers. It can even be performed over the phone! Given the fact that Chess is a game of intellect, it naturally lends itself to Mentalism presentations - yet there are only a small handful of Chess-themed routines in the literature aside from the Knight's Tour . Being able to inject personal interests (like Chess) into my performances is something I strive to do as much as possible to help give the audience an opportunity to get to know a little about me while also making the routine fun for me to perform as well. I am therefore pleased that this piece not only accomplishes accomplishes that goal, but that it also adds yet another entry to the small list of Chess-related effects and routines. And now it is yours to play with too. Let's play. Sudo March, 2018















En Passant (Sudo)

In an effort to make the written explanation of this routine easier to manage, I have chosen to explain the methods and principles at play in 'real time' while detailing the presentation. Therefore, Therefore, all text t ext appearing in boxes is to be considered 'technical 'technical notes' and not a part of the actual presentation. presentation.

Opening The performer talks about his passion for the game of Chess, and how a deep understanding of the psychological aspects of the game can allow one to develop an uncanny ability to be able to determine much about their opponent's personality and thought processes. Offering a demonstration, he opens a small box and removes a drawstring bag from which he removes five chess pieces: a Pawn, Rook, Knight, Bishop, and Queen. The bag is set aside.















A participant agrees to participate in the demonstration and informed informed that they won't actually be playing a real game of Chess - that would require too much time. A short series of 'tests' will be conducted instead. instead. Here I am providing the audience with a very rational reason for why I am using these 'tests' - which differ from an actual game game of Chess. The rationale behind the the statement statement "We won't be playing a real game of Chess as that would require too much time" makes makes perfect sense. It is best to try to find a participant who knows how to play the game - even if only a little, though this isn't strictly necessary. I also noticeably 'study' the person a few moments before finally selecting them, as though I am trying to ascertain something - the reasons for which, will be made clear later.

Phase One The performer starts by relating how experienced Chess players can determine enough information information about their opponent within the first few moves of the game that they are reasonably reasonably able to anticipate that player's future moves and reactions. This is actually somewhat somewhat true… For example: Some players are highly offensive while others are much more defensive. Others tend to favour certain pieces, bring their Queen out too early, or play a flurry of attrition tactics. Some may play a game more dependent on gambits and risk-taking and rush in foolishly without fully preparing their longterm strategy, or are extremely cautious and take an overly long time in their decision-making processes. Some are very good in the opening phase and getting things started, but weak in the end-game and just can't seem to get things finished. While with others, the opposite is true. Overall, the game wonderfully wonderfully mimics real-life.















The performer now explains that the first test will help him to determine aspects of the participant's personality and thought processes processes by simulating the first few captures of the game. So saying, he picks up two of the pieces - one in each hand - and asks the participant which of the two pieces they would take if they were able to capture either piece during their turn in an actual game. The participant 'captures' the piece he or she wishes, which the performer sets aside and places the 'surviving' piece back among the others. He then briefly discusses the participant's choice. Astute readers will likely recognize the use of Roy Baker's PATEO force with this set of actions. Typically, the procedure is used to force an object. In this routine it serves an entirely different function. For the second phase of this routine, I need to have only the four major pieces pieces in play - no Pawn. For this reason, I am using the PATEO force to isolate the Pawn in preparation for phase two, but under the guise of a 'test'. You might think "Then why not start with only the four major pieces and skip this step?" The answer is simple: believability. This 'test' demonstrates a 'mental process' happening - and one which has a good supporting premise to go along with it. And that premise, once again, is simply: "…experienced Chess players can determine enough i nformation nformation about their opponent within the first few moves of the game that they are reasonably able to anticipate that player's future moves and reactions". reactions".

Emphasis on the words "future moves and reactions" . And so, this 'test' simply appears as though you are gathering information about the participant's personality and thought processes by observing not only which pieces they choose to capture, but also which pieces they offer you for capture!

















It would be detrimental to the believability we are trying to establish to immediately jump into a 'test' that finishes with a revelation (which (which is what occurs in phase two) when the routine has only just begun and no apparent 'connection' 'connection' has yet been established with the participant. In short, it comes down to the golden rule: If we communicate and believe that something is 'important' 'important' through our words and/or and/or actions or body language, then the audience will believe it to be 'important' as well.

Of course, this depends entirely on how believable we are - which brings us full circle to why phase one is important. In the very rare case that there are readers who are unfamiliar with Roy Baker's PATEO force, it simply means: Pick Any Two Eliminate One. It works like this: whichever piece you wish to force, you never choose choose that piece when offering two pieces to the t he participant to 'capture'. This ensures that they can never get rid of it. If they should choose the force piece as one of the two pieces they offer you, you 'capture' the other piece There is a small, but valuable touch that I've added to this force. I've seen many performers (and even 'names') that do this in the usual way - meaning that both the performer and the participant 'point out' or touch t ouch the objects each round. I strongly feel that this is not the ideal way to go about this. Why? Because it brings all the attention and focus downwards to to the pieces on















At this point in the presentation, I've just begun the PATEO procedure by picking up two of the pieces. One of these is always the the Queen, the other is irrelevant - as long long it isn't the Pawn. The participant is now now asked to choose choose which piece they'd like to capture. Human nature nature being what it is, they will almost always select the Queen due to the fact that it is the most powerful piece in the game. If this is the case, I make a point of bringing this fact up to the participant and ask if this is the reason for their choice. If for some strange reason they don't 'capture' the Queen, this is most unusual. I now explain why this this is an odd choice to the participant, and then inquire about the reasoning behind their decision. In either case, I've given them sensible comment regarding their decision which furthers the notion that I am learning about their thought processes in an effort to be able to prediction their future actions. The performer now states that it is his turn to 'capture' a piece and asks the participant to pick up two of the pieces for him to choose from - one in each hand, and explains that by observing the pieces they choose choose to offer offer him and which pieces they don't , he can gain even further insight into their thought processes. This game of 'capture' alternates back and forth between the performer and the participant until only one piece remains the Pawn.















With the Pawn set aside for the time being, I now place the four 'captured' pieces in front of me.

Phase Two Claiming that he has gathered a good deal of information about the participant as a result of the previous test, the performer proposes proposes another. For this test to be effective, he he states that it must must be conducted conducted 'blind' - meaning meaning that the the participant won't be told the significance significance of why they they are being asked to make the choices they are required to make during the test until after the the test is complete. He now places the Rook on the table in front of the participant. Picking up the Knight, he hands this to the participant and tells them that they are going to form a straight line with the pieces. They are asked to place the Knight beside the Rook, but are given a choice - they can choose to place it on the left side side or the right side side of the Rook. Once they've made their choice, the performer passes them the Bishop and gives them another choice - they can either choose to place it on the left end end of the row of two pieces (the Rook and the Knight), or they can place it on the right end end of the row. Having made their choice, the performer hands them the final piece - the Queen. Once again, the participant is given the choice of placing it at either end of the row of pieces.















I have mentally ordered the four major pieces pieces exactly as they occupy the Chessboard when a new game is started. Rook = 1, Knight = 2, Bishop = 3, and Queen = 4. Principle gives Max's Bonsai Principle gives the illusion of being able to freely arrange arrange the pieces, yet cleverly brings the outcomes down to eight - though half of those outcomes are mirrors mirrors of the other half. So in actuality, it is really only four outcomes!

If you follow the presentation exactly as given, these are the only possible combinations: 1 2 3 4 or 4 3 2 1 2 1 3 4 or 4 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 or 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 or 3 2 1 4 Don't worry about trying to memorize these arrangements - I have worked out a tidy way to deal with them instantly which I'll discuss when we reach that point in the routine. Principle lies The main obstacle in using the Bonsai Principle lies in finding acceptable justification for for the mildly odd odd procedure. procedure. I believe believe that this this is part of the reason why you may have never seen it in use or even heard of it before.















People described as 'left-brain' thinkers thinkers are seen as having strong math and logic skills. Those described as 'right-brain' thinkers thinkers are seen as having talents that are more on the creative side of things. For example, a person who is 'left-brained' is is often said to be more logical, analytical, and objective, while a person who is 'right-brained' is is said to be more intuitive, thoughtful, and subjective. This theory is exactly that: a theory - and one that has never actually been been proven…much proven…much like many theories that people commonly accept as 'fact' ' fact' that Theory suffers have also never been proven. Darwin's Theory suffers from this same problem. But the 'fact' here, is that this is a theory which many people are vaguely familiar with and one which many believe to be true. At the very least, it certainly sounds perfectly reasonable - which is why I feel this makes the theory an ideal rationale for justifying the procedure used in Max's Bonsai Principle . After discussing the theory and its implications, I now openly analyze the row of pieces to note whether there is a left or or right dominance dominance - which there always is. Either they placed all of of the pieces to the left of of the Rook, or they have placed them all to its right .

















After revealing these 'facts', I comment appropriately regarding the dominance dominance the participant has displayed as a result of their choices and what that might indicate about their thought processes. Having summarized the results of the test, the performer tells the participant that he had a strong sense regarding the type of thinker he felt they were when he first chose them and that they were deliberately chosen for that very reason. This is the reason for the 'studied' look when choosing the participant that I mentioned earlier. After letting that thought sink in for a brief moment, the performer claims that if he was correct in his assessment, the participant should have have arranged the pieces precisely in the exact order he has anticipated. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" , he asks the Saying that "Extraordinary participant to pick up the bag that contained the Chess pieces, reach inside, and the hand him the contents.















As mentioned before, there are actually only eight outcomes, but because half of them are mirrors of the other half, only four predictions are actually required. Here are the exact predictions: (Prediction #1): "ROOK, KNIGHT, BISHOP, QUEEN" This covers 1 2 3 4 or its mirror: 4 3 2 1. (Prediction #2): "KNIGHT, ROOK, BISHOP, QUEEN" This covers 2 1 3 4 or its mirror: 4 3 1 2. (Prediction #3): "BISHOP, ROOK, KNIGHT, QUEEN" This covers 3 1 2 4 or its mirror: 4 2 1 3. (Prediction #4): "QUEEN, ROOK, KNIGHT, BISHOP" This covers 4 1 2 3 or its mirror: 3 2 1 4.















The closest end-piece to the Rook is the Bishop, which has a value of 3. Therefore, you need prediction #3. That's all there is to it. Once again: If the Rook is on either end - prediction #1. If not, the value of the closest end end piece (beside the Rook) tells you which prediction is required. Nice and simple. I use two double-envelopes to cover these predictions. Prediction 1 and 2 go in one envelope, 3 and 4 in the other. I use coin envelopes that are of a size slightly larger than a playing card and which open at the top. The construction is such that by folding the flap to either side (depending on which side needs opening) the other side becomes 'locked' which allows the participant to remove the prediction slip without any worry of them finding anything amiss. Hopefully you are ahead of me by now and have figured out where the other envelope is concealed…















You could use a Himber wallet, with one of the envelopes contained on each side. Personally, I don't care for this method as I am not one who carries this sort of wallet - if I even carry a wallet at all. Additionally, I think it is a waste of the Himber wallet's potential. That said, it is a perfectly acceptable and good alternative and may appeal to some readers. I simply prefer inexpensive and 'easy to replace' self-contained methods, methods, that's all. Another truly great option is to use the wooden box that comes with the Psychic Sword effect effect from Collector's Workshop. It is an attractive wooden box that is perfectly sized to hold the five Chess pieces and envelope. What is really nice with this method, is that at the beginning of the effect you can open the box and remove remove the pieces (no bag required) required) and draw draw attention attention to the envelope remaining remaining inside, commenting that it will be important later. Also, the participant is still sti ll the one who removes the envelope from the box. Owners of this item will immediately see the value in this method and how that would work with En Passant . As it is a commercially marketed effect, effect, I'm not at liberty to disclose its workings - though I imagine most readers will















But if you are a casual performer who performs for friends and family etc., The Gift is is an excellent choice. *Thanks go out to Mentalist friend Andreu from Colombia (creator of the 'name divination' effect Legion) for bringing The Gift to my attention. Having covered other options, the method I am using is the 'box and bag'. It is low-tech, works great, inexpensive, and easy to replace should there be a need. The final detail to cover here is the prediction itself. I write the predictions as shown earlier with the names of the pieces written in a horizontal row across the paper. Once the participant hands me the paper, I toss the envelope aside and open the prediction. Reading from left-to-right, either the prediction is an exact match for the arrangement arrangement they've made with the pieces, or it is mirror opposite. If it matches exactly, I have them read out the order on the prediction and knock over each piece in turn, as they name them.

















Phase Three After accepting his applause, the performer tells the audience that he will attempt a final demonstration demonstration that will test his mental prowess and abilities of insight to the limits. Returning the Pawn with the rest of the pieces, the performer relates how the Chess pieces can be seen as















"Generally speaking, with these people things are typically 'black and white' and there is little room for grey areas, if at all. These people are generally very dependable with a strong work ethic and typically typically have a very clear sense of purpose. purpose. If this describes describes you, then you might view yourself as being represented by the Rook".

Replacing the Rook, he picks up the Knight and continues: "The Knight is the very epitome of chivalry, courage, honour, and sacrifice. Perhaps you are the kind of person who thinks of others before themselves and can be relied upon to be dependable - even to the point of detriment to yourself. You may fancy yourself as being extremely courageous or dedicated to a 'higher purpose'. Or, you may instead see yourself as a person who can often o ften catch people in unpredictable and surprising ways. Knights















'appear' to hold all the power and control when it is really you that is the one that is silently in command of things things behind the scenes scenes and holds the real power. power. The Queen represents true power and those who achieve power by realizing that it is achieved by simply relinquishing relinquishing control instead of trying trying to subjugate every little thing. And for this reason, you may be the kind of person who identifies more closely with this piece regardless of your gender. I'm sure that if I asked asked right now, many of you have have already chosen in your mind which piece you identify with most, most, haven't you?"

The audience nods.















"Would you please pick up the first piece - the leftmost piece of the t he row, and place it on the right end of the row so that it becomes the last piece?"

The participant does so. "Let's call that a 'move' since we have no board, ok? Can you now make two 'moves' for me, moving one at a time?"

They do so. "Great! Pretty simple, right? Does that make sense?"

The participant agrees.















They also don't have time to consider the first statement after hearing that there are now 120 possibilities. The sentence "Any mathematicians among you knows this is true" implies implies credibility and subconsciously leads them to the false conclusion that both statements are true. Finally, there is one other deception going on here: it does not matter how they arrange the pieces - it is a one in five chance, that's it. However, the fact of the matter here is that there really are 120 120 possible ways the participant can arrange those pieces. The audience simply never realizes that I don't actually reveal the order of all the the pieces. But based on what has come before in the previous test, and because the presentation uses a logic that strongly implies implies that I knew the

















"There are five pieces. With that in mind, would somebody please call out any number from 1 to 5?"

An audience member calls out "Four!" for example.















"Agreed? Here we go…. go…. "Ok…now I think I followed this through correctly…yes…"















"Now there are some of you who may be sceptical and believe that perhaps I simply got lucky - and maybe I did get lucky. You can't be too sure now, can you? But if I really did know how she'd arranged those pieces, logic dictates that I should therefore know the piece she chose since since I knew where it was located? located? Are you with me so far? far?















And what is really wonderful about this procedure, is that even when you understand how it it works, you'll likely not understand why it it works - unless you're a Mathematician, of course.















When they've finished, the chosen object is now located in the very middle! That is to say, it is the third object. You can now turn back around and reveal which object they are thinking of or













































































Sudo Nimh - Skeletons From the Closet - Issue Two

Recommend Documents