NAMING AND NECESSITY:
A Brief Note about Initialing Mechanics
Here we go again.
Just when I thought this topic (controversy?) had been laid to rest (a black wreath happily placed onto its bier), Im dragged back into the matrix of misunderstandings and fuzzy definitions.
The question still vexingly unanswered is: Why bother?
The loose talk regarding the K.M. Move begs to be clarified yet again, causing some of us to examine the business of provenance, the practice of naming and claiming sleights, and of giving the SAME name to all variants of these sleights, even when each accomplishes different ends and are applied differently.
The NAMING business is inevitably problematic, especially for those desiring credit. Their rationale is: I thought of it. Its my discovery or invention. I named it. IT IS MINE. End of story.
As far as casual, level-headed practitioners are concerned, they stay out of such frays. They are primarily interested in what the mechanics of a sleight DOES. They ask: Will I use it? Can I do it? Is it practical? Is it deceptive?
Once these questions are satisfactorily answered, they add the sleight to their arsenal and are largely indifferent to its name. If they care about provenance and its history is uncomplicated and clear-cut, they will most of the time refer to the sleight by its CONSENSUAL name. Otherwise, its up for grabs or as a character in Things to Do in Denver When Youre Dead says:
Give it a name!
This being said, what about the K. M. Move?
I tried to answer this question in a 100-page book pretentiously titled, COMPLEAT KM MOVE (1992).
Since most readers will not be motivated to slog through a hundred pages, let me offer four observations:
(1) Marlo did not take a commonplace set of mechanics and claim them as his invention. The initials (K.M.) stand for Kardyro and Marlo. Marlo, if he claimed anything, was the important finesses that gave the mechanics FLEXIBILITY.
(2) The mechanics, by the way, can be used to secretly REVERSE a card or cards or to SWITCH a card or cards. This can be done in a myriad of ways.
(3) In the big treatise, I pointed out Jean Irvings Peek (Phoenix #70), which was SOMEWHAT similar to the mechanics of the K.M. Move insofar as being a way to steal-reverse cards.
(4) The move initially brought up on the Genii Forum is the CONTEMPORARY KAM CHANGE, which has four variations. This is the move that Harry Lorayne published and apparently reinvented. (I will post that background separately on this Forum, if anyone is interested.)
As just mentioned, I doubt that many readers are really interested in such detailed background. If you are, I suggest reading the COMPLEAT KM MOVE. (This mss. will be on my Website very soon, free to Premium Members.)
In the meantime, others will use the mechanics of this sleight and its variants to their advantage and will call it any name they like.
This is how the game is played.