CO Lit Singles

[magin]

Inspired by Bruce, here's the unofficial announcement for the literature singles event to be held sometime during the Chicago Open weekend. It will almost certainly cost $15, and definitely no more than $20. It's being written by me, Dennis Jang, Dave Letzler, Ahmad Ragab, Phil Durkos, and Chris Borglum, and it includes powers.

If people are definitely going to play it, then posting here would be very helpful, so we can figure out the format. Ideally, I'd like to run a Hilleman-style singles event, but we can only do that if enough people sign up (at least 16 people, I think).

Also, it would be useful for people to also post what time during the weekend works best for them (if they know). If people want to staff, please let me know (either by posting here or by emailing me at jmagin at umd dot edu). If people have any questions, feel free to post them here or to email me.

- Jonathan Magin

[DumbJaques]

I will play.

EDIT: I'm spartacus

[Matt Weiner]

I'm in.

[grapesmoker]

Yay, more events. I'm in.

[Captain Sinico]

Comedy Terrible Lit Player II: The Revenge checking in.

[MLafer]

I would like to play.

[Mr. Kwalter]

Depending on my schedule and when the tournament is, fuck yeah I'm in. Gotta know when it's gonna be though, get that in order and stuff.

edit: read the post this time, please do it Saturday night.

[theMoMA]

I'll do it.

[Bentley Like Beckham]

I'll read for this so long as I'm there when it's taking place.

[No Rules Westbrook]

Sure, I'll play.

[suds1000]

Sorry, haven't read this board in a while. Despite the fact that I've undoubtedly forgotten everything I once knew about anything quizbowl-related, I'm down to play.

Oh, and Saturday night is definitely best for me.

[Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It]

I'll put myself up for voluntary slaughter.

[Jeremy Gibbs Lemma]

I can read for this one as well if you will need readers. Again, it would be worse than the slaughter that Chuq mentions if I played in this.

[Ukonvasara]

I can only stand so much slaughter. I'd be more than happy to read though, if needed.

[magin]

According to Seth, the lit singles will most likely be on Saturday night. Currently, there are 14 people signed up; there's still plenty of room. Also, unless a large contingent of people sign up, the tournament will use a bracketed round robin with packets of 20 tossups, which seems like the most efficient way to use the questions.

[Mr. Kwalter]

You're not doing Hilleman singles?

Also, can we get a field update?

[magin]

You're not doing Hilleman singles?

According to Seth (although I'm sure he can correct me if I mischaracterize him) a bracketed round robin is preferable given the number of people currently registered. I'm also under the impression that a bracketed round robin using packets of 20 will run faster than a Hilleman singles event (having never played at the latter style of tournament, I don't know how long it takes to run).

Also, can we get a field update?

Right now, the field is:

Chris Ray
Matt Weiner
Jerry Vinokurov
Mike Sorice
Matt Lafer
Eric Kwartler
Andrew Hart
Ryan Westbrook
Sudheer Potru
Charles Dees
Ray Luo
Seth Teitler
Tim Hartman
Rom Masrour
Dan Passner
Gabriel Lyon

If anyone believes they have registered and are not on the above list, posting here or emailing me at jmagin at umd dot edu would be a good idea.

- Jonathan

[Rothlover]

I could've sworn I said I'll play. That was probably in the other thread? Anyhow, I'll play.

[setht]

I could be wrong, but my impression is that playing bracketed round-robin gives everyone several more games and more questions heard than Hilleman-style singles, in about the same amount of time, for groups of ~16-20. It seems a little wasteful to use up ~200 tossups to eliminate 2 people out of 18 and seed the rest--why not just set up brackets randomly or with some guess at balance, then play lots of round-robin games? If the number of participants jumps up to 24+, bracketed round robin will still work, but Hilleman-style singles would also be fine.

I think the main thing Hilleman-style singles has going for it over bracketed round-robin singles is that the seeding rounds can be a nice change of pace from the later one-on-one matches, but again, I think they're pretty wasteful unless you have lots of people. Also, I don't like single-elim playoffs.

I don't think there's a significant difference in the amount of time needed for either format.

-Seth

[cornfused]

I'm out, forget that.

[grapesmoker]

Belatedly joining the call for round robin rather than singles.

[magin]

So it's certainly going to be a round robin. Also, I would greatly prefer to run a paperless tournament, so if anyone is able to provide laptops for this event, I would really appreciate it. Please let me know if you can by emailing me (or, I suppose, posting in this thread); if, on the other hand, anyone believes that running it paperless would be a bad idea, I'd like you to let me know why. See you all August 4th.

[ValenciaQBowl]

So what happened in the lit singles? And I'm curious to know what people thought of the questions, though presumably a thread for that should be set up next door.

[Bentley Like Beckham]

From what I gathered people very much liked the questions. I fell asleep before the 2 am finish of the event, so I don't remember who won, but I'm sure Jonathan or Ahmad will be posting stats soon.

[magin]

Due to a shortage of moderators, we ended up playing a literature doubles tournament instead. After 13 rounds, the team of Mike Sorice and Jerry Vinokurov won. The stats are currently on Ahmad's laptop; he's told me that he'll post them by Tuesday.

I'd like to thank Rob Carson, Ahmad Ragab, and my teammates Mike Bentley and Jeremy Eaton for staffing, and I'd also like to thank everyone who played, despite starting pretty late at night. Enormous thanks also go out to Dennis Jang, Dave Letzler, Chris Borglum, Ahmad, and Phil Durkos for writing many, many fine tossups; I really enjoyed working with them (not to mention discussing works of literature with them).

If anyone wants a copy of the set, email me at jmagin AT umd DOT edu; also, everyone who played should send me an email reminding me to email it to them (assuming that they want it). All the tournaments using these packets have finished, so everyone is free to discuss the questions; anyone can also email me with private comments or criticism if they so desire.

I hope everyone enjoyed the questions; writing them was a lot of fun.

- Jonathan

[SnookerUSF]

All,

In the interest of time, we kept full stats through the preliminary rounds.
http://myweb.usf.edu/~aragab/ChicagoOpenLitSingles2007_standings.html

I look forward to the discussion,
Ahmad

[Mr. Kwalter]

I'd like to come out right now and say that lit "singles" was a fantastically well-written tournament. Good fucking job, guys. There were a few things that were way too hard, but to many of us that's laughably refreshing. I think the best indication of the quality of the questions was that the top bracket, composed of a good percentage of the best writers and worst complainers in the country, never hesitated to continue playing really late into the night. Perhaps a more detailed post will ensue once the questions are made available, but for now, thanks to the writers for a very enjoyable experience.