Hi guys,

Derren did a magic square on his last tour.

Anybody knows the presentation he used?

Sincerly,

Mike

It was something along the lines of:

1. Spectator thinks of a number
2. Derren mentions that people in category x between them tend to think of four numbers (the top row); people in category y tend to pick another four, and so on.
3. He (wrongly) guesses the spectator's number a few times
4. He gives up and asks the spectator what the number was
5. Derren reveals the nature of the magic square, which adds to up the chosen number
6. Standing ovation

or something like that.

Thanks,

can anyone elaborate a bit?

Did he explain people's trait's before the choice of the number?

Did he guess the number via preshow working or impression board?

We can't tell you how he guessed the number. And I am unable to elaborate more as Lawboy's summary is pretty accurate, or as accurate as you should need. Plus I do not remember what happened specifically anymore.

Edited the original response to make it even clearer.

Yes he talks about traits after the spectator has picked their number. From what I recall it was something like "introverts pick...", "extroverts pick..." and one other pair. To be honest, I'm sure you can make up your own traits.

He either guessed the number through pre-show work, stooges, an impression board, a centre tear, a billet switch, true psychic powers or simply guessing. Quite sure it was one of those.

Definitely true psychic powers. That's how mentalism works.

I haven't seen the routine in question, but if I am correct in my understanding, Derren could have quite easily done this without any of the proposed methods. If I were wanting to perform the effect described above, I wouldn't want to divine the spec's answer in advance. Them just telling me at the end would be fine. Those who know the power of the 4x4 magic square will know what I mean.

That comes across as you not using any sort of "mind reading" techniques, yet still only having the spectator tell you their number after you've completed the magic square. I don't see how that works.

It becomes less of a demonstration of mind reading and more of a demonstration of skill (see Jermay's demo). Many people do either and its really up to personal preference.

No, think about it: you can't fill in the square until you know the chosen number, and so if the spectator tells you the number after you've built the square, but you didn't secretly obtain it earlier through "mind reading" techniques (as implies in the post), the only way it can work is if the spectator is a stooge, or through blind luck.

Maybe I misinterpreted chimpa's earlier post.

I personally perform the magic square on a regular basis. I fill out the square before the spectator has named their number.
Think about it. There are hundreds of ways to 'gain' information these days. Peeks, tears, imp pads. It becomes even stronger if you do that part before the show. This makes it appear to everyone else that the audience member is just randomly thinking of a number.

Yeah, I know, and I'm saying that I inferred from chimpa that he didn't want to use any such technique,


yet still have the spectator name the number at the end rather than the beginning.

I didn't read the rest of this thread, but I just wanted to show what was possibly the best presentation of the Magic Square I have ever seen. It's absolutely riveting, which says a lot for a routine based on math! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaTzZO8jTU.

Sorry all, I can see that I was unclear. What I meant to say (and I'm trying not to over-expose here) was that you don't need to know their number when you start. And if you wanted to, it is possible to complete the square without asking the spec to write down their
number. It just requires 5 secs of careful misdirection at the end.

To those who contrasted the mind reading style with the Rain Man maths genius style available through this effect, you are right. Pick your intended style before you select your method.

Bloody f*$king brilliant

I think Lorayne's performance was great, but not the best performance I've seen. But that's just my opinion. Just me. Again thought it was great, and learn some new spots to find the solution within the square, but still not the best. I prefer using it as a prediction with some before hand stuff coming up to it.