Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't this usually be called "exposure"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCaHXPFAgC0

I need not comment much on the total irresponsibility and lack of professionalism, in teaching this to a non-professional, on TV.

Personally I don't really consider it exposure,until someone,who is considered an authority on the subject - deems it exposures..

I've performed glass eating on stage for well over five years now,I'd safely say about 70% of audiences don't think its legit...so when people see magician\mentalist Derren Brown performing or teaching it on TV,You can guarantee 99% of reasonable people assume,expect and know theres something fishy going on..

Many people would consider me an authority on stunt performance. I call it exposure.

I know Harley,thats exactly what I meant...I watched this when It aired,and got a horrible feeling in my stomach the second I saw the light bulb hit the table...

I've lost a lot of respect for D.B as a performer over this,but I think the general public will know,it was just one of those gimmicky sugar lightbulbs they use on most tv shows,

heck he didn't even mention the importance of eating a banana beforehand

I'm not too sure what exactly was exposed here...

DB didn't explain on-camera what the exact technique was.

Nor would I consider the guy a "non-professional" once he appeared on the TV programme.

DB exposed the Corrinda Chess Game ruse... I wanted to use it with my daughter.

Hey Harley, I hope all is well my Brother... See you in Las Vegas... (Moved from NYC some 3 to 4 years ago)...

And he claimed he did it using things he’d learned and techniques HE developed even though it came right out of 13 steps.


Holly

What? A magician/mentalist LIED during a presentation?

The horror!

Point taken. My point however was on top of the fact that he exposed the trick. Since he was exposing it anyway, why lie about developing it? That was my point. I don’t care if a magician lies during his or her act.

I’m sorry to get away from the subject of this thread, which is whether or not Derren’s juvenile stunt of having a participant eat glass from a light bulb was exposure. He’s an immature one to be sure but it’s debatable about whether or not that would be considered exposure. The chess exposure however is a clear case of magic exposure and it seems that Derren is exempt from all criticism around here.

If it were someone else who exposed the chess trick, there would be much more criticism. I’ve been chastised in the past for even directing an inquirer to a marketed effect, yet Derren can blatantly expose magic and few have anything to say about it. I think that’s very telling.

Nonetheless, my point isn’t about lying during a performance. It’s about exposing magic. Or rather Slim’s was. My addition was only to point out the way he added insult to injury by claiming credit he didn’t deserve.


Holly

Most chess players already know about this trick.

And I doubt there's many mentalists/magicians who do this stunt as part of their act anymore...

A clear case of magic exposure? It's not even a magic trick, it's an old and known chess trick that can be found in chess books. So no magic was exposed.

How many magicians/mentalists have you seen do this chess routine, besides Derren? I'd really like to know.

To whom it may concern:

I looked in 13 Steps to see if I could find out more about the background of this trick. Following is and excerpt by Tony Corinda from 13 Steps:

*********************

“Aside from the “Knight’s Tour” there are other swindles concerning the game of chess that are of use to the Mentalist. The next two are extracts from my publication “Chess Trickery” which has been on sale for some years now. Neither of the items require any skilled knowledge of the game of chess.

The Foolproof System at Chess

The origin of this principle is somewhat remote and subject to argument. I know that the effect was used by a little girl playing against Dr. A. Alekhine (ex-World Champion) and another player of good strength - and the little girl forced a draw. However, having published the effect and used it as part material for my “Chess Trickery” it then appears that the effect is credited to a magician. I discussed the subject with Dai Vernon on one occasion and he told me that Martin Gardner had worked on it some time ago. Although magicians may have improved the presentation, I do not think they can claim the right of invention in this case.”

*********************

It appears this may have been a chess swindle - sort of the chess version of the 3 card monte. It is a trick although it’s debatable as to whether or not it is specifically a “magic” trick. Since the word magic seems to be a term of concern from my earlier post, I withdraw the notion that the chess trick is a magic trick and concede that it is a trick separate from a magic trick.

I cannot however find any information to substantiate the assertions that this trick was well known to chess players at the time magicians began using the principle; or that it was even a commonly known swindle among chess players at the time Corinda wrote 13 steps; or that it’s even a commonly known chess trick today. As far as I’ve been able to tell, there’s no foundation to those assertions. Especially since world renowned chess players have been beaten using this trick. It’s inconceivable that Derren Brown could have succeeded with this effect if it was a trick commonly known to chess players.

I suppose exposing it might be considered no different than exposing the 3 card monte. However I do wish to note that my main assertion was - and still is - and has always been - that Derren Brown not only exposed the effect, he claimed he did it using techniques he developed - which isn’t true. Even when magicians expose the 3 card monte - even for entertainment purposes - they don’t claim to have developed the effect. In that regard, I stand by what I said regarding Mr. Brown.


Holly

I like little known or little used effects, old or new. Just because he didn't reveal the CT, NW or something common doesn't mean he didn't expose anything.I had planned on doing this with my daughter at Universal with a bunch of folks who DID NOT know the system involved. DB sold that away. ( I would have said GAVE but HE got paid for it)

Slim,

I suspect you can go ahead and perform the simultaneous games of chess swindle and most of your audience will never have seen DB explain how it was done.

Probably less than a percent of those that will see you have ever even heard of Derren so go for it. Add another twist: your girl is blindfolded in the middle of the games and just sits there and calls out the moves. You are the one that makes the moves she calls out. How: Make up a simple code to let her know the moves she is copying. How hard could it be to come up with codes that pass info like: Queen to bishop three. And if I'm not mistaken, there is a simpler numbering for moves that are just single letters with a number attached to them and I don't think it goes pass ten. So it would be something like Q4 to K7. I think that would be an easy code to come up with as it doesn't have many variations.

greg

You're referring to the "algebraic notation" which just assigns the letters A-H to the columns, and the numbers 1-9 to the rows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation

That must be it. You can see where someone can come up with a very easy code that will send a letter and one number.

Greg

If you have a barrel of sewage and drop in a glass on fine wine, you still have a barrel of sewage.
If you have a barrel of fine wine and drop in a glass of sewage, you now have a barrel of sewage.

That's how I see performances.... If one person walks out blabbing the "I know how he did it" bragery... I'm sunk!
Ruins the whole thing.

You'll have folks do that regardless of whether or not the routine had been exposed recently.

Some folks aren't content to enjoy the mystery, and must believe that they know the solution.

Some of the 'solutions' I've overheard have been pretty ludicrous.

All you can focus on it's making a really good presentation, so folks care less about the trick and instead on the magic.

(I know I'm preaching to the choir on this one.)

In my current nightclub act, I do the chop cup, c&r rope and linking rings. All these effects have been exposed countless times, but I still manage to amaze and entertain the audiences night after night. Most folks don't have a clue how they're done, and those that do, are impressed when I do things that shouldn't be possible based on their knowledge.

Don't worry about the less than 1% of your audience that may actually know what you're doing. Concentrate on the 99.9% who will love what you're doing.