Speed Mathematics: Secret Skills for Quick Calculation

Rating:
Summary: A LONG COMPLICATED REVIEW
Review: The classic book on high speed calculation was written by Lester Meyers and titled HIGH SPEED MATH SELF-TAUGHT. I have two copies of the 1961 edition on my paperback shelf since I pick up a copy anytime I see one at a library sale. I got my first copy in sixth grade (true story). There are very few tricks that appear in ANY speed math book that don't also appear in Meyers book. But most of Meyers book is information on what to do in very specific problems (multiplying by 9, multiplying by 36, etc.) Nowadays, people generally want methods that are applicable in a wide variety of situations, not just multiplying by specific numbers.
A good test for one of these books is to see how it deals with division. Division is by far the most difficult operation for kids to learn, and books on speed math are often very short on division methods. Handley's book contains two, one of which, as far as I know, only appeared A. H. Russell's RAPID CALCULATIONS (printed in London, 1956, hard to find.)
Why three stars? The book is very good in teaching what Handley calls the reference number method for multiplication. But I think the average reader would have difficulty following some of the explanations for both division methods. Handley's subtraction method (which he says he was taught in third grade) is excellent - recommended for any parent whose kids are having trouble borrowing. There are other interesting things here(meaning things I have not seen before or not seen in awhile)--an easy way to go from Fanrenheit to Celsius or vice versa, multiplying feet and inches by feet and inches, a quick method for mental square root estimates. But I am not sure the average reader will be able to follow all of Handley's explanations. So, next reviewer, whoever you are, please comment on how easy to follow you found the explanations to be. Maybe I am unnecessarily pessimistic. In any case, despite these reservations, the book is recommended.

Rating:
Summary: INCOMPLETE METHOD NEED ADJUSTMENTS?
Review: What about 97 x 97?
If you follow the 'simple method' the answe would be 949 instead of 9409? ( 97-3 = 94 and 3 x 3 =9)