The Quizbowl Resource Center

I have put the UIC back-up buzzer in the trunk of the Rommobile, but it is stuck at ~ 6/8 strength. I can see what I can re-repair during whiffle ball. It is now raining/thundering for at least the 3rd straight Chicagoland evening with more in the forecast. I can bring a few cases of cold sodas, too.

Hoping for Brett to backup Vick,
Rom

The War (boxing) wrote:I'm skeptical of the idea that most quizbowlers would have a problem playing until 11 PM, especially at Chicago Open where it's rather expected that things will run well into the night.

But if there is overwhelming support I will go along with it.

11 PM is a pretty optimistic end time. From what I understand, there are 14 packets and a finals. If we start exactly at 7:00 PM and the rounds take 20 minutes each (which I don't think is a stretch when you account for having to shift moderators around since we need people playing to read, people taking bathroom breaks, walking between rooms, people getting used to computers they haven't used before, some packets probably having 8+ line questions, etc.) that means that we'll finish at midnight.

Will Butler and I are playing this

I didn't plan on playing this but if people want to make up whimsical 4-person teams to cut into this event's length I'm up for hopping in on that, otherwise I can staff.

I do have Guy's half of the Tabachnick-Weiner packet and Ben's half of the Chametzky-Nutter packet. I also have 13 questions from Auroni.

Kyle wrote:I do have Guy's half of the Tabachnick-Weiner packet and Ben's half of the Chametzky-Nutter packet. I also have 13 questions from Auroni.

I just sent you our packet.

By my count:

There are currently 15 teams of two signed up, which makes the formation of quads a touch awkward. If you count Rom and Dees, we could form eight teams, although this again is annoying because the schedule requires byes.

I used a random number generator to pair off some of the teams and it actually worked out more or less fair by my estimation. I won't call it official because who knows who will show up, but if we end up doing quads, this would be an option once we see who's there.

So, uh, I feel like I should warn all potential moderators in advance to take a deep breath and hold on tight.

Distance model wrote:

Cheynem wrote:It would be great to have at least one more staffer and several more buzzer systems.

Also, please brig a laptop if possible.

I'm getting in to Chicago around 4 that day, so I would be able to staff this.

My flight was cancelled, and I'm now on a flight that leaves Detroit later in the evening, so I will actually not be in Chicago in time to moderate for this.

I really dont feel like changingnthe nature of this tournament the day of, especially since it would require smashing together packets without editorial oversight. Additionally, I don't think a tossup only subject tournament would be nearly as much of a fun competition with 8 players in the room, and nobody actually signed up to play that.

Most importantly, I suspect the actual time you'd save by doing this would be minimal - I mean, we're not talking less questions here, just less time between rounds. We can make that more negligible than average with effort, an dont forget that combining inro quads would inevitably involve haggling, drafting, schedule-rewriting, etc. If you subtract that time from the alleged gains by cutting out mysteriously long bathroom breaks, I bet it nearly evens out anyway.

Besides, we can always play the finals after co proper something if it goes abysmally late (which, again, I think will be independent of quads vs. doubles). Hell, based on my experience with how long figuring out teams/schedules from scratch the day of an event can take, I actually think this plan would take longer.

Anyway ,we've had these plans set for a while now, and people knew what the deal was. Co side events run late, it's Chicago Open! Seriously, this plan is not a good one, and with charlie available and bye teams reading (like everyone playing is a good mod), it's not even going to be hugely helpful from a staffing perspective.

I'm not going to be there, and thus my opinions on all matters of logistics are irrelevant, but I do agree with Chris that people didn't sign up to play a tournament in teams of four. We have some really interesting pairs of people who signed up to play doubles together, and some (but not all!) of those people seem to have worked hard together writing packets that reflect the styles and interests of both people. So I do think it would be a shame for this tournament not to proceed with doubles as planned.

EDIT: Also, at least three of the contributors to this tournament need to learn how to spell the word "Massachusetts"

Do you guys have enough staffers to run doubles? You have three people signed up in the post that lists staffers (Michael Hausinger, Matt Jackson--who had a question mark after his name in Mike Cheyne's list--and Bryce Durgin) plus Charlie Dees, plus two people who will be on their bye each round. That leaves you one short (unless Rom was planning on staffing?) in which case you have exactly enough with no room for any staffer or player to have some sort of travel mishap. I obviously have no dog in this fight as I'm not playing, but unless I've missed a staffer or two it seems like you're cutting it awfully close if you do doubles.

Start with a group of 7 and a group of eight. Play a rr, then rebracket into 6-6-3. If my scratches on a pad of paper are correct, you can be assured of having adequate packets if you play the first rr with the 7 packets of the group of 7.

Edit: nevermind, still doesn't work.

Edit 2: But it would work with 14 teams. I like including as many as possible, but didn't team 15 sign up yesterday? If so, it seems that they may need to be dropped to get this to work. Obviously, if we can just find another staffer, that would be preferable, though.

Edit 3: Looks like a train is not my best thinking spot. Given the lack of bonuses, powers, and tb packets, and given the anticipated packet variability, there is no good way to pick team 7 in a 7-7 rebracket, and you go one packet short in a 6-6-2.

Here's the current situation. The following 13 teams have written full packets:
Arthur Byrne
Bentley Carson
Blaszkiewicz Hang
Bollinger Cheyne
Davis Hart
Droge Zeng
Gauthier Steinbaum
Gehring Larsen
Hoppes Ray
Kandlikar Simons
Lafer Westbrook
Magin Vinokurov
Tabachnick Weiner

You guys get to play this tournament in a doubles fashion.

The following teams did not complete the requirement of submitting a full packet with enough time for Kyle to edit the questions. You lose your right to have a guaranteed spot in this tournament and will likely be employed in assisting with reading or possibly filling in for people who aren't here yet:
Ike Jose / Will Butler
Joe Nutter / Ben Chemitzky

We will do a 13 team round robin of doubles teams followed by a finals from the packet from Kyle/Chris (there are also some questions from Auroni that can maybe be used in an emergency).

This implies there are 6 game rooms at once. The two people on bye will help the 3 full-time staffers read. I heard some rumblings that Charlie Dees maybe might be available as a 6th staffer, if not it will be one of the people from the Ike or Joe team that felt that writing a packet was not a requirement for this tournament.

I should take this opportunity to thank Auroni for sending me a bunch of questions. I used two of them to fill in for missing tiebreaker questions and noted his contributions where appropriate. I still have the other 11. I had hoped to combine those questions with some of what I have from Joe and Ben, but that process would take somewhat more effort than I had realized. Auroni, I guess this is the peril of sending a weird number of questions at the last minute. I do appreciate the gift -- too bad the timing and the numbers aren't working out well. I don't want to see them wasted (many are really well written), so I think I'll just send them back to you so you can use them again at any tournament I won't attend (which is almost any tournament).

Mike Bentley is teaching me how to password-protect files "properly," after which the packets will be dispatched.

Mike Bentley has the passwords. Mike Cheyne and Bruce Arthur have the packets.

Good luck to everybody playing in this tournament. There are some really cool questions in it. I hope you have fun playing on them.

But don't stay up too late.

I suppose I'll staff.

Mike Bentley wrote:if not it will be one of the people from the Ike or Joe team that felt that writing a packet was not a requirement for this tournament.

It wasn't, necessarily.

If your team submits a packet, the cost to play is FREE. If space permits, people who did not write packets can join teams that did write packets, but they will have to pay a fee, which will go towards buying food for people who did write packets. It is not guaranteed that we will have space for people who didn’t write packets.

So we just got kicked out of the building with 2.5 rounds left.

After some entertaining discussion in the shadow of The Man, the following is the situation:

-There are either 2 or 2.5 rounds left of the round robin to play (depending on how far through the Gauthier/Steinbaum packet your room got).

-The current plan is to set up immediately following CO and finish the tournament. Teams will finish the Gau/Ste round (DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE QUESTIONS FROM THAT ROUND no matter how cool it was to see Jeff Hoppes first line 10 of them), while teams that have already done so will chill. We'll then read the next two rounds and do finals as necessary. If teams do not wish to play the remaining 2/2.5 rounds, they can simply not show up (though it'd be helpful if you let people know of your intention at some point during CO proper tomorrow).

-This wasn't discussed, but I suspect we'll need to organize some sort of dinner-ordering plan to make sure we aren't once again kicked out by security (hopefully UChicago people are on this issue, though). I'd recommend discussing this tomorrow.

Congratulations to the Carl Winslow Experience on its win.

Current standings through 10 rounds:

Hoppes/Ray: 8-1
Weiner/Tabachnick: 8-1
Droge/Zeng/Chametzky: 6-3
Bollinger/Cheyne: 6-3
Gauthier/Steinbaum: 6-4 (Bye in round 11)
Arthur/Byrne: 5-4
Kandlikar/Simons/Jose: 5-4
Lafer/Brook: 4-5
Hart/Davis: 4-6
Gehring/Larsen/Hansen: 3-6
Magin/Vinokurov: 3-6
Carson/Bentley: 2-7
Hang/Adrian B/Nutter: 0-10

Also, in round 11, Hoppes/Ray beat Magin/Vinokurov, and Lafer/Brook had an insurmountable lead on Kandlikar/Simons.

Assuming the Droge/Zeng/Chametzky team doesn't go on an epic winning streak, it looks like the finals are not going to involve anybody named Chametzky, Jose, Nutter, or Gupta. Do you guys want me to compile their questions into a second packet for an advantaged final? There are some repeats, but if I sort through everything I could put together something usable. I have 11 from Ben and Joe, 12 from Ike, and 11 remaining from the lot Auroni sent me. Can somebody let me know if you want/need this to happen?

As our round was ending, Bruce Arthur was destroying my team.

Kyle wrote:Assuming the Droge/Zeng/Chametzky team doesn't go on an epic winning streak, it looks like the finals are not going to involve anybody named Chametzky, Jose, Nutter, or Gupta. Do you guys want me to compile their questions into a second packet for an advantaged final? There are some repeats, but if I sort through everything I could put together something usable. I have 11 from Ben and Joe, 12 from Ike, and 11 remaining from the lot Auroni sent me. Can somebody let me know if you want/need this to happen?

I don't think anyone (except maybe Andrew who wants to have his Law tournament played) will complain about more packets being available, but if they don't materialize I think we can manage.

Mike Bentley wrote:I don't think anyone (except maybe Andrew who wants to have his Law tournament played) will complain about more packets being available, but if they don't materialize I think we can manage.

I just don't want to waste the questions if they aren't going to be used. I'm the only person who has seen them and I don't play very many tournaments, so if they aren't going to be played then we should just let their authors submit them to something else.

Kyle wrote:

Mike Bentley wrote:I don't think anyone (except maybe Andrew who wants to have his Law tournament played) will complain about more packets being available, but if they don't materialize I think we can manage.

I just don't want to waste the questions if they aren't going to be used. I'm the only person who has seen them and I don't play very many tournaments, so if they aren't going to be played then we should just let their authors submit them to something else.

Chametzky saw mine, so they can't really be reused. I'd be happy for them to be read in some capacity.

We decided not to resume play on Saturday night.

Perhaps the remaining packets can be read shootout-style at VCU Open?

I'm fine with my questions being used however.

Hoppes/me and Weiner/guy played a final outside on the steps of the Linnaeus statue, where you buzzed in by stomping and correct answers allowed you to descend the steps of knowledge to Olmec's temple. I believe we won 90-45. Jeff Hoppes is really good at history.

DumbJaques wrote:Hoppes/me and Weiner/guy played a final outside on the steps of the Linnaeus statue, where you buzzed in by stomping and correct answers allowed you to descend the steps of knowledge to Olmec's temple. I believe we won 90-45. Jeff Hoppes is really good at history.

Were my questions read, and if so, how did they go over?

do stats exist for this tournament?

No, I have all the scoresheets and no access to a computer with SQBS. I will try to hand them off to someone who can do them at VCU Open.