Has any one else read this article? It's an awesome 7-page article on a very flexible method of magic square construction.

I've posted a more detailed review over on Grey Matters.

I've been practicing the technique (using birthdays) described in the article, and it's very easy and straightforward once you get the hang of it.

One thing that isn't mentioned in the article (but is implied) is that you can actually have the volunteer place their numbers in any of the pattern arrangements to start, and you'll always be able to create a magic square.

Harry's article makes for interesting reading, but there's really nothing "breakthrough" about it. All he's doing is describing a common pattern set for the 4x4 magic square, and noting that you can build a square by simply working backward from a knowledge of the patterns. It's always been possible to do this; the problem is that it requires a lot of adding and subtracting (in order to calculate a value for a square, you must add up the other three numbers in the pattern, and subtract the total from the "magic" number). Some people will find this a lot more difficult than others; even Harry asks that the first four numbers be 12 or less, to make the math easier!

Chuck Hickok's Diagonal Magic Square is the same pattern as Harry's, but can be learned much more quickly (most people have it down solid after 15-20 minutes' practise). More important, the math (such as it is) is trivial, leaving the entertainer's energies free to concentrate on performance. One can argue that Harry's approach allows for a more flexible beginning, but Chuck's method can easily be extended to allow more opening options as well; he just chose not to delve into this because (1) it's not really necessary in performance, and (2) it would have complicated the explanation. But most people who have used Chuck's method for a bit will discover the alternative approaches.

Incidentally (for those exploring Harry's method), he missed one aspect of the ascending/descending number chain; in his initial example, square 15 is also part of this chain, and can be filled in just as easily as squares 6 and 9.

... Doug

Ddyment, PMed you

Doug,
While I had fun working through a few examples while reading Harry's article, I came to the same conclusion that you did.

I'm wondering, how many readers actually do a magic square in the real world? What methods and presentations do you prefer? I'm partial to the Card Square from Harry Lorayne's Personal Secrets. I made up a miniature set of cards to carry around and pre-printed some squares to work with. While it's not a "quickie" where you have time to do it, I think it really kills. A great party or bar stunt, perhaps, I do it in the teachers lounge in schools while I'm hanging around between assembly programs. It appears to be a memory stunt as well as a demonstration of great math skill, and I've given away the little cards to lots of teachers.

Dennis Loomis

Dennis - I use the Magic Square in my routines all the time. I base my performances on the information from Scott Cram (http://members.cox.net/beagenius/magsquare.html) and Doug Dyment (http://www.deceptionary.com/mindsights.html).

I found something that truely is a breakthrough. The problem was not solved until November 2003. That makes it pretty new.

The challenge. You have a six sided cube. Each side has a 6 x 6 grid. Total number of squares for the entire cube = 216. Use each number from 1 to 216 only once. Have the sum of any direction (vertical, horizontal or diaginal) equal the same value.

If you wanted to contruct one of these on your own, it could make for a fun element in your show where the spectator always wins.

Idea for patter:
You have a dice that has "6" sides.
Only "5" sides are viewable at one time.
You have "1" chance to find the row that equals "651".

Call it a "Crap Shoot" but it looks like the odds would be against them, especially if you make them think there is only one solution. But you know that it doesn't matter which side of the dice they pick, which row or column they pick, they will always equal "651".

PM me if you would like to work with this more.

To Scott and Doug,
Thanks for reminding me about Doug's great "rapid" magic square routine from Mindsights. I had intended to make this up and try it when I first got the book, but like a lot of things it got forgotten. Now I am working on it, and it's great! Thanks, Doug, the combination of Out to Lunch and the Magic Square is brilliant!

To Kipp,
I pm'd you.

Dennis Loomis

Hi;
Several years ago at Abbott's Get-together, Mel Stover showed me a magic square that was almost instantanious! He had the bland grid drawn on a note pad.I named a number, he wrote for about 3 seconds and it was done. All columns, rows, diagonals, corners added to my number. It uses the Allerton method plus a gimmicked pad.

Jim

Hi again;
Sorry!! Blank grid!!!

Jim

Dyment is so wrong it ain't worth discussing! HARRY LORAYNE.

Harry, I'm a big fan of yours... but I'm also on record as agreeing with Doug Dyment. What amazes me about your post is that Harry Lorayne is passing up an opportunity to talk? Hard to believe. You're one of the greatest talkers of all time. Your ability to ad lib and verbally seque is unbelievable. You can set up a full deck stack while you patter away and nobody knows a thing is happening! When you came up to Tahoe to make the "Greatest Teacher" Video's I was in the audience. It was an amazing day. And, I never tired of listening to you...

I've ordered your new card book, and anxiously awaiting it's arrival. Every card worker will need this in their library. All the best.

Dennis Loomis

Harry Lorayne claimed:
Hmm-m-m... I'd be interested to learn of even a single point of my posting that is incorrect, let alone why it "ain't worth discussing".

We all have our individual opinions of what is useful and what is not, but a claim of "wrong" generally requires some evidence if it is to be taken seriously.

... Doug

Doug,
You're right, of course. Even if it is Harry Lorayne.

There was one new pattern in the article that was new to me... but probably not new overall.

I had not seen in print, or noticed that the 1,4,5,8 squares and the corresponding 9,12,13,16 squares also produced the common total. This is a handy thing to know.

I'm working with your Flash Square and am having some business cards made up with the grid printed. Thanks for this great, quick, and easy routine. I hope to use it a lot in the real world.

Dennis Loomis

He also didn't mention that (when working with the situation in which the
spectator chooses the entries in the top row) three more squares can be very
quickly filled in:
If squares 4, 6, 9, 15 form an ascending/descending number chain, then squares
1, 7, 12, 14 form a descending/ascending number chain. There's no NEW pattern
to remember here: reflect the squares 4, 6, 9, 15 across the vertical bisector
of the entire magic square and you get squares 1, 7, 12, 14.

The remaining eight squares, two of which have been filled in by the spectator,
also form two more ascending/descending chains (one of each type). These two
chains are mirror images of each other and aren't that hard to see once the
first two chains have been filled in. Can you see the patterns?

Stan Alger

Let's not forget Sam Dalal's PATTERNS OF PERFECTION. Now THAT was
a real breakthrough as far as I'm concerned. And Dalal's book sold
for an unbelievably low price.

Does anyone know if it's still available for $4.00?

Stan Alger

I couldn't find it for $4, but Mr. E Enterprises has it for about $23.

I’ve been using one of the magic square effects from the stockholder booklet. It’s cool that it can be completed in about 3 seconds, but I sometimes drag it out a little to keep it realistic. The effect is about as easy as can be (no memorization), and people really love it. On the down side, you need to carry a Stockholder and the effect can’t be repeated. I’ve read a lot of positive comments about Mindsights and really like Mr. Dyment’s Sign Language booklet. The Magic Square effect works nicely for me, so I have been strongly considering upgrading to Doug’s version. This is the first I’ve read about the square from Mindsights using the OTL principal and requiring pre-printed cards. Therefore, I was wondering if someone could tell me how Doug’s square is superior to the version in the Stockholder booklet. Do you really need special cards, pre-printed cards, a stack of cards and a broccoli band? Can the square be easily done impromptu with just one business card?

Please note that the intent of this post is not to knock a product I know nothing about. On the contrary, I am seriously considering a purchase and am just trying to figure out if Doug’s Square will serve my needs better than the one I currently use.

Thanks,

Elliott

Wow. This board is pretty dead. It’s been about 6 days since my post. Between then and now, there hasn’t been a single post to “Magical Equations”. Yesterday, I finally gave up and ordered 10 ebooks from Mr. Cassidy instead of Mindsights. I’m still waiting for the ebooks, but that’s another story.

Elliott


Posted: Sep 28, 2005 10:46pm
-------------------------------------------------
Cool. I just got most of the files and an extra one. 3 of the download links didn't work, so I shot an email back to Mr. Cassidy. Hopefully, I'll get a response soon. I know this has nothing to do with magical equations, but it's a continuation of something I mentioned in the previous post. Besides, it seems that no one will ever read this anyways . . .

Elliott


Posted: Oct 30, 2005 11:04pm
-------------------------------------------------
I finally broke down and ordered Mindsights. Based on Sign Language, I am sure it will be good.

Elliott

It is. Check out "Bob's Your Uncle" especially--and be sure to check Doug's website for the new improved simpler handling.

Jack Shalom

I got the book.

"Bob's Your Uncle" is pretty neat. I performed it three times this weekend and it was very well received. There’s one part that may raise questions, but it’s definitely much cleaner than several other versions of the same trick. It’s also pretty easy to perform.

The Tarot prediction is also very nice. It uses a tarot deck and a semi-common prop. I don’t own either, so I tried the prop-free ESP Card version. I used it as an opener for "Bob's Your Uncle". It’s pretty strong and practically self-working.

The magic square stuff is really great. I own the stockholder booklet and was a little concerned that there would be nothing new here. I sure was wrong. You get 32 different squares that can be completed using the same method. Not only that, but the method is pretty darn easy. There’s also another 32 squares that can be used for years (2005 etc.)
Doug teaches you how to use a stack of business cards to facilitate the work, but I’ll probably use my stockholder for that part. There does seem to be a bit of a typo in this section. Some of the squares are supposed to have an upwards pointing marker in the bottom rows. The marker seemed to be missing in my copy of the book. It’s pretty obvious, so it’s not a big deal.

Quickstack looks pretty interesting. I noticed that I memorized the numerical positions of the cards without any actual work. On the other hand, I think getting the whole thing down pat will take a little bit more than a “half-hour”. Still, it can probably be learned just as quickly as a regular stacked deck (except for Stebbins and 8 Kings). Doug teaches an insanely good trick called “The Immoderate Deception”. It’s my motivator for learning Quickstack.

Finally, there’s another trick called “FourSight”. It doesn’t fit my style, but I’m sure others will like it.

I guess my only suggestion for improvement would be to include more patter ideas. Some tricks are fully scripted while others aren’t. I love reading routines with fully scripted patter. They sometimes give me good ideas and make reading a book feel like being at a live performance. I was especially hoping to see some new presentation angles for “Magic Squares”. Still, it is a superb book . . . and there’s always version 7.


Thanks,

Elliott


Posted: Nov 7, 2005 11:03pm
-------------------------------------------------
I just realized that, with a minor alteration, “The Immoderate Deception” can easily be performed without a traditional memorized deck. I’ll have to see if I can find some other uses for Quickstack.


Posted: Nov 23, 2005 8:32pm
-------------------------------------------------
I’ve been having a lot of fun with this stuff. It just gets better and better. This particular section doesn’t seem to get much traffic. I think I owe it to the author to post something in the review section . . . so that’s what I’ll do.