Examples of Skeptics Cold Reading?

[Clancie]

Posted by InterestingIan

So did you only make the one telephone call, the time when you actually obtained the reading?

Right.

Yes, Gemini is my "sun sign". (Get the birthday presents ready! )

 

[Interesting Ian]

Right.

Yes, Gemini is my "sun sign". (Get the birthday presents ready! )

Did you mention your telephone number in the email? Or any other information that she might use to find out who you are?

What precise date is your birthday if you don't mind me asking? Not to get you birthday presents though. I can't because I don't know your address

 

[glee]

But no-one is reading anything paranormal at all in this chess stunt At least not on this thread. I certainly haven't. TheBoyPaj certainly didn't. No-one has! As I said (and TheBoyPaj said originally), he could engineer the number of pieces left on the board by resigning at a certain point or suggesting a draw. Nothing paranormal about that!

This makes no sense at all.

Derren is not playing any moves in these mirror games.
He has stated he will win the contest, so cannot afford to 'resign at a certain point'.
He dare not risk offering a draw - what happens if one player accepts but the other refuses? Derren will promptly lose the remaining game!

So he has absolutely no control over the games, including when they finish.
Therefore the only 'engineering' he can do must be 'paranormal', and both you and TheBoyPaj said he was engineering the end of the games.

Are you sure you understand how the trick was done?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar.

No -- assuming this summary is accurate -- he would only be a liar if he cheated by having an "ear piece feeding him the moves."

If he cheated in any other manner, inlcuding having the moves fed to him through any other means at all, he is a cheat, but not a liar.

 

[Thomas]

There are only 3 ways to beat a bunch of international chess players: bribery / use Kasparov / play 'mirror' chess.

I myself is not much of a chess player, but I have won against the danish champion (at that time) of speedchess, in 1999. It's funny you should mention Kasparov. because this is how I did it:

We went to the same school, so there I asked him for a challenge at zone.com. By then I had already planned how to do it:

In Chessmaster, a pc chess program, you can play against the strategies of grandmasters, atleast thats what they claim, so I choose Kasparov. I encouraged Jesper, this champion, to play white in a 20 minutte game, he would then have to take the first move. I then played Jesper's move against 'Kasparovs', and used the move the computer would reply with, against Jesper - he resigned in both games we played. I actually had no idea what was going on in those games, although I'm do know my way around chess when I play against non-masters.

The next day he came to school and looked like he had been run over by a train, I of course had to tell him that he had been playing a computer when I saw how he looked.

I don't know if this trick was especially smart, but it surely worked.


/thomas

 

[voidx]

First off I refuse to make much of any judgement on Clancie's experience because I do not have a transcript. Its too hard to base it on snippets here and there provided by Clancie. Seeing the flow of hits and misses is important as well. Whether hits were dispersed across the reading, or if they snowballed from an intial hit.

Now, for the Snake hit. The mistake people are making is to keep relaying the Snake hit as it applies to Clancie and how she validates it. In my opinion you should concentrate on the medium. Now, in case A) medium is getting a snake impression from the "he" spirit. This impression is related only to an animal, there is no apparent impression that it is a person. Even the words of the medium seem to want to apply in the sense of, "are you sure you didn't see a snake on the trip?" This is obviously in relation to an animal from the mediums point of view. Calling it the difficulty of mediumship's process to clarify at times doesn't change the fact that its just as easily a vague semantic out of the cold reading process. So far as the medium can tell it applies to an animal. However "oh its a persons nickname? Ok I'll take that", seems fine. Both are just as likely a scenario, however one forces you to posit life after death, and also a currently undetectable, unknown form of communication. The other does not.

In case B) we have a medium that knows you and "he" took a trip and are in california, and so thinks, well lets take a calculated risk here. Something a little less common, but certainly not unheard of, lets see if they saw a snake during their trip. And lets be clear on this, all she's asking is if you saw a snake during the trip. That's basically the same as me asking Clancie, "how was the trip, heh see any snakes?". Thomas correctly pointed out how many potential scenarios could fit into this seeing the snake on the trip, now yes some of them were not related to the trip which I'll give you credit for. However, it wouldn't be hard to come up with several, that only one of them applied to you is irrelevant, the medium has no idea which apply to you, but it provides them with many potentials, and we've clearly seen from many examples of transcripts how misses are just sort of brushed aside or chalked up to communication difficulties.

The snake hit in itself is wholly unimpressive, its just pure guesswork, hinging on the hope that one of the potential snake scenario's would fit you. If it had missed, it would have been dismissed. It only seems relevant in your opinion because of a string of hits of which it was part. Since I have not seen these, and cannot see them in transcript format as to how the actual verbal exchange went, I refuse to give it much credence. Clancie has no obligation to do so, and I know she's not apparently trying to convince me of anything, but without doing either of those things, this being an example of evidential information is a complete failure in my opinion.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I remember first reading about this trick in the book "If Tomorrow Comes", by Sidney Sheldon. The trick is used as part of a con game on a cruise ship, the game is played with 2 grandmasters, each in another room.

This was actually done with two grandmasters through correspodence chess, though I am forgetting the names of the people challenged and am not at home to check my books -- I am sure it was mentioned is a Andy Soltis book that collected his chess articles over the years.

Another pair of players tried it against . . .Alekhine (I think). He recognized what was going on (via mail again) and made an intentional "blunder" in one of the games. the two player got together and decided to try and win both games, and were of course crushed.

N/A

 

[Thomas]

I myself is not much of a chess player, but I have won against the danish champion (at that time) of speedchess, in 1999. It's funny you should mention Kasparov. because this is how I did it:

We went to the same school, so there I asked him for a challenge at zone.com. By then I had already planned how to do it:

In Chessmaster, a pc chess program, you can play against the strategies of grandmasters, atleast thats what they claim, so I choose Kasparov. I encouraged Jesper, this champion, to play white in a 20 minutte game, he would then have to take the first move. I then played Jesper's move against 'Kasparovs', and used the move the computer would reply with, against Jesper - he resigned in both games we played. I actually had no idea what was going on in those games, although I'm do know my way around chess when I play against non-masters.

The next day he came to school and looked like he had been run over by a train, I of course had to tell him that he had been playing a computer when I saw how he looked.

I don't know if this trick was especially smart, but it surely worked.


/thomas

Oups, a mistake.

 

[Interesting Ian]

This makes no sense at all.

Derren is not playing any moves in these mirror games.
He has stated he will win the contest, so cannot afford to 'resign at a certain point'.

Why not? He simply has to recognise when the game has definitely been lost and then resign. He can resign one move before checkmate, 2 moves, 5 moves or whatever, providing he recognises that his defeat is a foregone conclusion. Nothing compels him to resign at the precise same juncture that his opponent does in the mirror game. It ain't gonna effect his overall score.

He dare not risk offering a draw - what happens if one player accepts but the other refuses? Derren will promptly lose the remaining game!

A position could very obviously clearly be seen that it will end up in a draw. On one board his opponent could offer a draw. He might accept. On the other board he could play on a move, or 2 moves before agreeing to the draw.

So he has absolutely no control over the games, including when they finish.

And as I have explained, you're wrong.

Therefore the only 'engineering' he can do must be 'paranormal', and both you and TheBoyPaj said he was engineering the end of the games.

Glee, your reasoning skills might be very good at chess, but certainly they don't appear to be in any general sense. Now I advise you not to embarrass yourself any further on here.

Are you sure you understand how the trick was done?

I never said I worked out how Derren got the number of pieces at the end on every board correct. I scarcely glanced at that bit when the programme was on. I simply thought about the issue when TheBoyPaj raised it.

 

[glee]

He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar. (which of course we know to be true anyway eg that gun stunt last year).

As Nozed Avenger says, he's not a liar. He's using skilful tricks (as all magicians do). Do you think sawing a woman in half is lying, or cheating?

I never saw that information being given out. Nor did I see any of the games. Didn't think it showed any of the games actually being played! Of course he wouldn't be able to beat a player of such a ranking. So if you are correct, he's lied yet again. OK, so what? We all know he does.

My sources of information are extremely good on this matter.
It makes an interesting comparison with reports of sittings, where we often struggle to get an accurate transcript.

Of couse people can psychologically influence other people, and this is not regarded as having anything to do with the paranormal! Anyway, him simply resigning at a particular point doesn't involve influencing his opponent at all.

As I said previously, Derren has no control over the moves of the game, nor when it finishes.
If he could 'psychologically influence' a chessplayer to resign, why not do that instead of spending over 3 hours patiently copying moves?

 

[Interesting Ian]

No -- assuming this summary is accurate -- he would only be a liar if he cheated by having an "ear piece feeding him the moves."

If he cheated in any other manner, inlcuding having the moves fed to him through any other means at all, he is a cheat, but not a liar.

The deliberate intent to convey a certain message by the use of appropriate language, which does not accurately depict a particular state of affairs, is a lie. That is to say there is no substantive or moral difference between this and a spoken falsehood.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I'm open for someone to explain how.

It is difficult, if you insist on giving us information about the reading in small bits. E.g. you show us the "Snake" part, but don't show us what was leading up to it.

After we point out that snakes are plenty in California, you then claim that you have never seen a snake at all.

It's like you are playing a game:

Clancie: "Hey, skeptics, explain this!"

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information..."

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information."

On and on it goes, until you can declare:

Clancie: "So, skeptics have not been able to explain this."

You move the goalposts, and it is a very intellectual dishonest approach.

I still maintain that you are not open to natural explanations at all. You are deliberately missing the point about the snake: The medium bases a guess on the many snakes around, together with the information about the "trip". It could be a camping trip, or at least somewhere in the wild.

It's far from the first time you have tried to ignore/explain away the natural explanations we have provided you with. Whatever explanation skeptics come up with, you counter by moving the goal posts, point to hidden/secret information, or simply ignore it. You even pretend that you acknowledge that skeptics could be right - you then boil everything down to opinion, so you can have your opinion in peace.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He said he hasn't got any ear piece in his ear feeding him the moves. Maybe he just blatantly cheated and someone played the game for him. But this was not the impression he gave. So if what you say is correct then he is a flat out liar. (which of course we know to be true anyway eg that gun stunt last year).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As Nozed Avenger says, he's not a liar. He's using skilful tricks (as all magicians do). Do you think sawing a woman in half is lying, or cheating?

Yes he is a liar, see my above post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I never saw that information being given out. Nor did I see any of the games. Didn't think it showed any of the games actually being played! Of course he wouldn't be able to beat a player of such a ranking. So if you are correct, he's lied yet again. OK, so what? We all know he does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My sources of information are extremely good on this matter.
It makes an interesting comparison with reports of sittings, where we often struggle to get an accurate transcript.

We're not talking about your sources, we're talking about what was shown on the TV programme. This alleged information you're spouting forth we do not know. Derren said he is the weakest player and that he beat him fairly. Of course I acknowledge he may have been lying, and indeed he must have been if one assumes your information is correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of couse people can psychologically influence other people, and this is not regarded as having anything to do with the paranormal! Anyway, him simply resigning at a particular point doesn't involve influencing his opponent at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As I said previously, Derren has no control over the moves of the game, nor when it finishes.

And as I have said previously, you're wrong.

If he could 'psychologically influence' a chessplayer to resign, why not do that instead of spending over 3 hours patiently copying moves?

I see no purpose in this conversation if you comprehensively fail to understand anything. You've come barging in here, accusing myself and TheBoyPaj of supposing that Derren Brown employed psychic powers, and then you proceed to write a load of other drivel. Why don't you read and comprehend the posts before contributing to this thread? And this whole subject has nothing to do with the topic of this thread anyway.

You've may a mistake and erroneously supposed that myself and TheBoyPaj believed that Derren employed psychic powers. This is the only reason why you started to contribute to this thread., Just admit your mistake and move on.

 

[Interesting Ian]

It is difficult, if you insist on giving us information about the reading in small bits. E.g. you show us the "Snake" part, but don't show us what was leading up to it.

After we point out that snakes are plenty in California, you then claim that you have never seen a snake at all.

It's like you are playing a game:

Clancie: "Hey, skeptics, explain this!"

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information..."

Skeptics: "Well, here are some suggestions..."

Clancie: "No, not possible, because you see, there is also this piece of information."

On and on it goes, until you can declare:

Clancie: "So, skeptics have not been able to explain this."

You move the goalposts, and it is a very intellectual dishonest approach.

I don't agree at all. Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting. I would have done the same as Clancie.

I still maintain that you are not open to natural explanations at all.

We are very open to natural explanations. Please provide one. A sensible one not a wildly implausible one. Thanks.

You are deliberately missing the point about the snake: The medium bases a guess on the many snakes around, together with the information about the "trip". It could be a camping trip, or at least somewhere in the wild.

It's far from the first time you have tried to ignore/explain away the natural explanations we have provided you with. Whatever explanation skeptics come up with, you counter by moving the goal posts, point to hidden/secret information, or simply ignore it. You even pretend that you acknowledge that skeptics could be right - you then boil everything down to opinion, so you can have your opinion in peace.

 

[Upchurch]

Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting.

I dunno, maybe intellectual honesty?

I would have done the same as Clancie.

Well, there ya go.

 

[glee]

Why not? He simply has to recognise when the game has definitely been lost and then resign. He can resign one move before checkmate, 2 moves, 5 moves or whatever, providing he recognises that his defeat is a foregone conclusion. Nothing compels him to resign at the precise same juncture that his opponent does in the mirror game. It ain't gonna effect his overall score.

Ian, Derren is practically a beginner at chess.
How on earth would he recognise that it's checkmate in 5 moves?!

And he's playing international players. These players are capable of giving beginners a queen start and still winning.
If Derren resigns early, he would risk losing the other mirror game where he's winning.
Grandmaster Emms resigned against Grandmaster Levitt when a bishop down. Between grandmasters, this is overwhelming. Against a beginner, it's just a minor inconvenience.

A position could very obviously clearly be seen that it will end up in a draw. On one board his opponent could offer a draw. He might accept. On the other board he could play on a move, or 2 moves before agreeing to the draw.

Look Ian, all the players knew it was 'mirror' chess as soon they saw the set. They saw how clumsily Derren moved the pieces during the display.
Grandmaster Ward's game started (Ward Black) 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 ...
Since Grandmaster Hodgson is the leading English exponent of this opening, Ward now knew who he was really playing... at move 2!
If Derren offers a draw, the players are going to want to see a few more moves. If Derren plays on by himself, he's going to blunder and get beaten.
That destroys any chance he has of winning overall.

And as I have explained, you're wrong.

Read the above, then just explain again how Derren can 'control when the games finish'.

Glee, your reasoning skills might be very good at chess, but certainly they don't appear to be in any general sense. Now I advise you not to embarrass yourself any further on here.

I'm not the one who got the number of players wrong.
I'm not the one who got the number of Grandmasters wrong.
I'm not the one who said it wasn't on terrestrial TV.
I'm not the one who agreed with TheBoyPaj who said "it was really a display of how he could influence the games, and encourage draws or resignations when HE wanted them to occur".

I am the one who knows about the international player who refused to be on the program because he knew it would be mirror chess.
I am the one who knows how several of the games went, and who was playing who.
I am the one who knows about how there was a break after the games finished, which gave Derren a chance to make up the second envelope.

Perhaps you are the one looking ill-informed?

I never said I worked out how Derren got the number of pieces at the end on every board correct. I scarcely glanced at that bit when the programme was on. I simply thought about the issue when TheBoyPaj raised it.

And got it wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't agree at all. Nothing obliged her to give all details on the initial posting. I would have done the same as Clancie.

You don't see it as a problem. OK.

We are very open to natural explanations. Please provide one. A sensible one not a wildly implausible one. Thanks.

Ian, you have to understand that the paranormal explanation is the wildly implausible one.

 

[Nigel]

Has anyone else noticed Ian seems particularly adept at hijacking threads and turning the topic toward himself?

As in this thread, and also here .

 

[lofgoernost]

The thing I love about the snake and SLO is how they fit me. About ten or eleven years ago I flew out to Cali from Boston and my brother and I drove from San Francisco to San Luis Obispo. Rt. 1 is an amazing road which snakes along the California coast...I put that desription down in my journal. The dashboard of my brother's van was littered with relics collected on his many journeys - weighted down by various remnants of bones, stones, and sea glass was the shedded skin of a corn snake. We were on the road for Easter, our first away from our family. We went to a secluded beach and read passages from the New Testament, and then, feeling ourlseves to be in Paradise (and soon to be self-expelled from it as we made our way to Death Valley and, later, Las Vegas) we read portions of Genesis which included the most famous serpent.


But those stretches aren't necessary. While hiking in Big Sur a snake crossed the trail in front of us - we were double-timing it to reach a camp spot before dark and took the snake as a bad omen (soon after we had to creep thru some bushes and both emerged covered by dozens of ticks - we muttered curses at that snake for a while...)

 

[CFLarsen]

lofgoernost,

According to Mediumship Rules, the reading was also for you. If someone can "validate" the information, then the spirit is trying to connect to that person.

In this case, you.