|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
While it's tempting to assume that others' brains work more or less the same way ours do, this simply isn't true. People have profoundly different ways of both understanding and learning. And when you cross cultures (esp. languages), those differences become even more pronounced.
For many, classical mnemonics are an effective way to remember something. For others, not. Some find it more effective to begin their learning of a memorized stack by using a rule-based system. Others prefer to start with a stack that has an algorithmic derivation. And still others have more success with rote memory than all else, finding it easier to learn that the 46th card is the Eight of Hearts than that four is an "R" and six is a soft "J", "SH", "CH", or "G", which suggest a "roach", causing them to remember a hive filled with roaches, and leading to a decomposition of the "hive" to an "H" (suggesting "Heart") and a "V" (suggesting "Eight"). Much of the advice given on topics such as this, while well-intended, is appropriate for only a limited number of people. I am not suggesting that people stop giving advice, but that the recipients of such advice realize that their mileage may be completely different!
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2014, ddyment wrote: I absolutely agree with Doug here. What's easy for me may not be what's easy for you. That doesn't mean I'm smarter than you, but it does mean we're different. The first stack I tried to memorize was the Nikola stack (by using verbal mnemonics), but I didn't get very far with it at all. (The Nikola stack has a nice section devoted to it in Jean Hugard's "Encyclopedia of Card Tricks.") Eventually I discovered the Joyal stack and its mathematical mnemonics, and they made a lot more sense to me than the Nikola stack's verbal mnemonics. Something about the Joyal stack just clicked for me. Eventually I decided to create my own stack, and I liked the results. And along the way I learned Doug Dyment's "QuickerStack." Although it's not my primary stack, I was impressed how quickly I could learn and use it, even without being intimately familiar with it (and even being more familiar with other stacks). Remember, the attitudes I have towards the stacks I've used came to be from learning and using them. Your brain is certainly wired differently from mine, and you necessarily have a complete different set of likes and dislikes, so what I like and what works for me is likely to be different than what appeals and works for you. You might want to read up on a few and hopefully see some characteristics that make the stack appealing to learn. Here are a few points I'd like to make: * The most popular memdeck stack in the United States is probably Simon Aronson's stack. * The most popular memdeck stack in Europe is probably Juan Tamariz's Mnemonica stack. * Some people think a memdeck's popularity is a good thing; others think it is a bad thing (the reason being that it's to a performer's benefit when the stack in use is relatively unknown). In my opinion, a stack's popularity isn't such a big deal: memdecks in general are fairly obscure, and even then the magician is supposed to perform in a way that the use of a stack isn't obvious. * Your choice of memorized stack won't matter that much in the end. Yes, there are some tricks that require a certain stack, but the majority of memdeck tricks will not. There is no one memdeck that can do it all (wouldn't it be nice if there were?), so accept the fact that some stack-dependent tricks won't be in your repertoire. * The Si Stebbins stack is a good, tried-and-true stack, but many magicians generally don't let spectators handle a deck in Si Stebbins order for fear that the spectators will notice a pattern. You may not share this concern, but if you do, you'll probably appreciate memorizing another stack instead. (This is not to say that the Si Stebbins stack is bad; it's absolutely wonderful for some tricks, but not ideal for others. The same thing can be said for many other stacks as well.) I personally believe that the memdeck community should support and encourage each other to memorize a stack, no matter which stack is chosen. There's no need for conformity in which stack is to become your own personal memdeck. (And definitely read Doug Dyment's excellent "Introduction to Full-Deck Stacks" and Simon Aronson's excellent PDF document "Memories are Made of This" if you haven't already read them. They are both free to read.) So welcome to this wonderful branch of card magic that is memorized deck magic! I'm sure you'll enjoy it! -- Jean-Luc |
|||||||||
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2014, ddyment wrote: This thread has triggered a few random thoughts that have been swirling around in my brain for many years and, in no particular order, I offer them for discussion and hoped for resolution. 1. What is the difference between "rule-based" and "algorithmic"? And is it appropriate to say that all algorithmic systems are rule-based but not all rule-based systems are algorithmic-based? When I first experimented with Osterlind's BCS about 15 years ago, I always thought that rule-based mathematical formulas and algorithmic were one and the same. 2. That said, after briefly studying and playing around with the BCS (around 15 years ago), I never gained the confidence that the BCS' calculations would become second nature and the conscious calculations required would eventually drop away. I also was not thrilled that, at the time of my studying the BCS, I could "go forward" (and know the next card) but I could not "go backwards" (and know the prior adjacent card). So, I switched to the Aronson system and learned the Aronson system by rote memory (including using flash cards). And now, upon reflection, I can see that I could have just done the same thing (i.e., rote memorization) with the BCS deck as stacked, or, for that matter, with any randomly-shuffled created deck). 3. However, my main motivation for switching from BCS to Aronson (or Tamariz for Tamariz aficionados) was my then understanding that with Aronson, I could do everything that I could do with the BCS, but, with BCS, I could not do everything that I could do with Aronson. That understanding might or might not have been correct, but it was the motivation for my switch away from BCS and over to Aronson. 4. In posts I have recently been reading about the BCS, I am understanding that Osterlind's BCS now has a methodology to allows you to know both the card before and after each card. Is that a correct understanding? 5. And finally, with the current BCS system, if just using the BCS system (and not an independent stack memorization), are you able to know the stack position for every card (or even how many cards away one card is from another), or, are you limited in knowing only the card immediately before and the card immediately after each card? (As I say, I haven't played with the BCS for about 15 years so the current BCS methodology might now allow for more and have more features.) Thanks for any information and clarification on any of these ramblings.
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, Turk wrote: Hi, Turk, It's easy to think that "rule-based" and "algorithmic" are similar, but there are differences. You know BCS (and probably Si Stebbins), so you know that one (relatively) simple algorithm will take you from one card to the next, going through all 52 cards without ever repeating one. That's what we call "algorithmic," as it simply dictates what the next card is, and magically all 52 cards get covered. As for "rule-based," I see it more as a mnemonic system for recalling which cards are in which positions. For example, a stack might use the rule "all 9s are in positions that are multiples of 9s, which are 9, 18, 27, and 36." This might seem like an algorithm on the surface, but it really isn't, as that rule only applies to a subset of cards (unlike "algorithmic," which is a calculation that applies to every single card, without exception). It would be nice if the rule "all cards are in positions that are multiples of itself," but that would cause a collision with certain positions, like 18 (would that have a 6 or a 9?). Quote:
3. However, my main motivation for switching from BCS to Aronson (or Tamariz for Tamariz aficionados) was my then understanding that with Aronson, I could do everything that I could do with the BCS, but, with BCS, I could not do everything that I could do with Aronson. That understanding might or might not have been correct, but it was the motivation for my switch away from BCS and over to Aronson. For the most part, yes, what you can do with the BCS can be done with the Aronson stack. That's not strictly true, as there are a few tricks that can be done with the BCS that can't be done with Aronson, but as of the time of this writing those tricks are few and fairly uncommon. On the other hand, tricks that can be done only with the Aronson stack are quite prolific, many having been engineered by the brilliant mind of Simon Aronson himself. Quote:
4. In posts I have recently been reading about the BCS, I am understanding that Osterlind's BCS now has a methodology to allows you to know both the card before and after each card. Is that a correct understanding? A methodology? Er... it depends what you mean by that. Let me clarify: As you said before, there was nothing stopping you from memorizing the BCS. And that's pretty much what happened with the BCS; Richard Osterlind came out with the MBCS (Memorized BCS) that is basically the BCS stack, but memorized, enabling the performer to know the exact card at every position, just like any other memorized stack. Quote:
5. And finally, with the current BCS system, if just using the BCS system (and not an independent stack memorization), are you able to know the stack position for every card (or even how many cards away one card is from another), or, are you limited in knowing only the card immediately before and the card immediately after each card? If not using the BCS as a MBCS (Memorized BCS), then no, most of us cannot know the exact stack position of every card. We'd only know the card immediately after and (if we can do the necessary calculations in our head) the card immediately before. Quote:
Thanks for any information and clarification on any of these ramblings. You're welcome! Basically, the MBCS is just a Memorized BCS. You still have to put in the effort to memorize the order and card positions, just like any other stack. However, if you have trouble recalling the card after a certain card, you have a nice backup plan to help you (you can use the BCS's algorithmic nature to help you out). -- Jean-Luc |
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
The differences among (and pros/cons associated with) rote memory, classical mnemonics, rule-based, and algorithmic approaches to memorized stacks are covered in some detail in my aforementioned essay.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
lcwright1964 Special user Toronto 569 Posts |
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2014, ddyment wrote: I found that essay very helpful. I am presently working on the Aronson stack with a mishmash of most of those approaches, so far with good results. I really don't like the classical mnemonic stuff very much, as it is another layer of translation that I would do without. I have posted a separate thread on my recent adventures for any who care to see what mischief I have been up to. Les |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Aronson or Osterlind or Stebbins (4 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |