Announcement - The Experiment: Return to Lord Weary's Castle

No Rules Westbrook · Post by **No Rules Westbrook** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:36 pm

So, I suppose I should make an "official" announcement thread for the tournament I'll be putting on at Illinois Open. I still don't know exactly whether it'll be after IO Saturday or on Sunday; I'd push for the former if IO is a fairly short tourney, but whatever accomadates everyone's interests best is fine.

There are no need to form teams for this event, just show up at the right time and place and you'll be drafted onto a team. The format will be 10 rounds (double round robin with six teams) of 20 tossups each with no bonuses - tossups will have powers and superpowers, allowing 20 or 15 points depending on where you answer, and there will be no negs. Standard ACF distribution with all topics covered. Ten bucks per person. Also, I'll need three laptops, three buzzer systems, and two moderators not counting myself.

The difficulty will be quite high indeed, but noone should feel hesitant to play - at the very least, it should be an amusing chance to hang out with luminaries of the qb universe, eat some pizza, and hear some cutting edge avant garde tossups. Especially if you love geology and obscure world mythology (and your name is or isn't Seth Teitler), come on down.

millionwaves · Post by **millionwaves** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:18 pm

Ryan Westbrook wrote:three buzzer systems, and two moderators

Illinois can provide two of those buzzers systems. I will be around to read, or, if there two people who really, really want to read, I'll play.

dtaylor4 · Post by **dtaylor4** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:31 pm

I will sign up as a reader as well, and will bring my laptop.

No Rules Westbrook · Post by **No Rules Westbrook** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:37 pm

Though I'll probably just yell out an appropriate annoucement of some sort at Illinois Open, in case anyone needs the info - this tournament is happening Sunday morning November 11th, let's say beginning at 10:00 AM.

I presume we'll meet in the same place where the meeting is for the regular IO tourney. If this isn't true or anything changes, I'll post here and announce it to people at IO.

Captain Sinico · Post by **Captain Sinico** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:52 pm

This will actually be held at a different location, as disclosed in the soon-to-be-sent IO update. Check your e-mail!

Later,
MaS

grapesmoker · Post by **grapesmoker** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:45 pm

Since no one has said anything yet, I guess I'll just note that as far as I can tell, Matt Weiner and Gautam (sorry, don't know the last name) won this tournament. They ended the day with a 7-3 record.

I liked the no-neg and the superpower policies. I had a great time, even if I did howl in outrage upon having Weiner get 20 points on a "Dyson sphere" tossup against my team. Not a tournament for the fainthearted, and I mean that in the best possible way.

No Rules Westbrook · Post by **No Rules Westbrook** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:34 pm

Okay, now that I've managed to get around to posting something...thanks to everyone who came out Sunday and played in this tournament or staffed, brought equipment, etc. I hope it was an amusing experience; I had a lot of fun writing the tournament and watching people attempt to play it. If people generally had a good time, I'd be open to writing another one of these or something similar at some appropriate point in the future.

That said, to the results - the standings were as follows:

Team Weiner (Matt/Gautam): 7-3
Team Lafer (Matt/Andrew Hart/Rom Masrour): 6-4
Team Magin (Jon/Eric Mukherjee): 5-5 (Team PPG: 102)
Team Teitler (Seth/Steven): 5-5 (Team PPG: 92.5)
Team Jerry (Jerry/Chris): 4-6
Team Sorice (Mike/Trygve): 3-7

Individual statistics:

Matt Weiner: 3-27-60 1065 pts. 106.5 PPG
Seth Teitler: 4-27-42 905 pts. 90.5 PPG
Jerry Vinokurov: 6-23-38 845 pts. 84.5 PPG
Mike Sorice: 1-23-38 745 pts. 74.5 PPG
Matt Lafer: 2-10-47 660 pts. 66 PPG
Jon Magin: 11-14-23 660 pts. 66 PPG
Eric Mukherjee: 5-4-20 360 pts. 36 PPG
Andrew Hart: 4-6-3 200 pts. 20 PPG
Rom Masrour: 0-1-5 65 pts. 6.5 PPG
Chris: 0-1-1 25 pts. 2.5 PPG
Gautam: 0-0-2 20 pts. 2 PPG
Steven: 1-0-0 20 pts. 2 PPG
Trygve: 0-0-1 10 pts. 1 PPG

As you can probably figure out, the first column is 20 on the tossup, the next is 15, the next is 10. Sorry for my rather primitive stat-keeping here. I suppose I can later muster more detailed stats if anyone is particularly interested, but not now. I can also send people the set or it can be posted somewhere, whatever, it may take me a little while to respond though.

And, lastly, feel free to comment on the set and tournament as you like. I'd be quite interested in what people thought, minus the obvious point which Jerry alludes to that Dyson spheres and God and Golem, Inc. are awesome things that can surely only be described as bona fide SCIENCE.

grapesmoker · Post by **grapesmoker** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:25 pm

I thought my team went 4-6, but maybe not?

No Rules Westbrook · Post by **No Rules Westbrook** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:21 pm

Huh, yeah you're right, Jerry's team was 4-6. That'll fix that little problem in the stats above of there being more total wins than total losses...which I suppose isn't a problem if you hate math or just think everyone in life is a winner.

wd4gdz · Post by **wd4gdz** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:28 am

Ryan Westbrook wrote:I can also send people the set or it can be posted somewhere, whatever, it may take me a little while to respond though.

Could you send it to fsucollegebowl at yahoo dot com please?

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:24 am

I'd also like a copy of this exciting set (dennis _ jang AT brown DOT edu).

Jeremy Gibbs Lemma · Post by **Jeremy Gibbs Lemma** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:39 am

as would I, [email protected]

The Logic of Scientific Disco · Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:51 am

Tossing myself on the bandwagon: chriskennedy AT mit DOT edu

Post by **theMoMA** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:18 am

I don't have much of a critique other than to say that this tournament was really different in a good and fun way. I had a blast. It's really awesome to get rewarded with powers and super-powers for in-depth knowledge on such diverse and difficult topics.

Magister Ludi · Post by **Magister Ludi** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:42 am

Could someone send me a copy of the set at [email protected]. Thanks

DakarKra · Post by **DakarKra** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:53 am

Could someone send me a copy of the set at [email protected]. Thanks

I'll have what he's having. dakarkra [at] yahoo [dot] com

Quantum Mushroom Billiard Hat · Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:27 am

I'm curious to see the questions too.
hausingerm [at] gmail [dot] com

Thanks!

pray for elves · Post by **pray for elves** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:25 am

Yet another one: enagler at brandeis dawt edu.

Mettius Fufetius · Post by **Mettius Fufetius** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:26 am

Show me fear in a handful of dust. Show me at [email protected]

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:07 pm

Why not - styxman42 at gmail dot com.

Maxwell Sniffingwell · Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:06 pm

cornfusedATcomcastDOTnet

vandyhawk · Post by **vandyhawk** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:13 pm

Perhaps someone could just post it at this point?

Post by **Auks Ran Ova** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:33 pm

http://www.angelfire.com/mech/strifehea ... riment.doc

MLafer · Post by **MLafer** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:55 pm

This tournament was a lot of fun, and a lot more playable than you'd think a tournament written by Westbrook without having to temper the difficulty level would be. Of course, the field being exemplary had a lot to do with it. I think the "draft" idea was a great one, because it required one to be at the top of their game for every single match, with no boring blow-outs. It would be interesting to see if more people implemented this idea for house-written tournaments.

As for the other quirks, I thought the "super-power" idea was in general a failure. Awarding twice the amount of points for a tossup as normal is huge, even more so in a tossup-only format, and sometimes those marks were not placed in the most proper places. I did kind of like the idea of an all-encompassing "power" though where some tossups were worth more than others at the end of the question.

As for the lack of negs, this didn't seem to affect the strategy of the game or my mindset when deciding to buzz or not in the least. I would say that the removal of the -5 would not affect the results of matches in the slightest.

No Rules Westbrook · Post by **No Rules Westbrook** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:18 pm

I'll note that, even though I'm the one who specifically wrote the tourney to include powers and superpowers, I completely agree about their inherent unfairness. I did it mostly because I found it amusing and the tourney was meant to have a (perverse) sense of humor. I think what this ultimately boils down to is the same old generalist vs. specialist debate. If I'd have played in this tournament, I'd make the same complaint about people 20'ing and 15'ing certain questions, because I'm the sort of player who's generally pretty good at buzzing at the end of a wide range of hard questions. People like Magin or Teitler, players who know a crapload about certain subjects and can buzz very early on them, are less likely to complain. Having said that, though, Weiner and Lafer did still finish 1-2 at this tourney, and they are probably the 2 most obvious people on the generalist side of the spectrum.

vandyhawk · Post by **vandyhawk** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:47 pm

strifeheart wrote:http://www.angelfire.com/mech/strifehea ... riment.doc

Anyone else get an error?

pray for elves · Post by **pray for elves** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:12 pm

Rob's link did not work for me, either.

Skepticism and Animal Feed · Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:13 pm

Don't click on the link. Copy/paste the link.

Post by **Auks Ran Ova** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:33 pm

Yeah sorry about that. Do what Bruce said.

Jeremy Gibbs Lemma · Post by **Jeremy Gibbs Lemma** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:37 pm

Major props on the Lemmiwinks question..... stuff like that would have been my only chance of getting a 20.

Sima Guang Hater · Post by **Sima Guang Hater** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:20 pm

This tournament was really great for two reasons, first because I put up way more points then I thought I'd be able to, and second because it shows me how much farther I have left to go in terms of learning things. Playing with Jon was a real blast.

The questions were great, and the superpowers and no negs were fun (although I do agree with Lafer that they may be unfair; even so, this was supposed to be a humorous thing).

vcuEvan · Post by **vcuEvan** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm

Kent B wrote:Major props on the Lemmiwinks question..... stuff like that would have been my only chance of getting a 20.

Awww... I would have been all over that. Probably one of the few in that set I would have known... period. Matt read a round in practice today and all I can say is its a good thing that field was capable. Those were some hardcore tossups. I think we got 1 or 2 in the whole round.

wd4gdz · Post by **wd4gdz** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 5:17 am

We read the first packet at practice tonight and I really enjoyed it. Well done Ryan

The Quizbowl Resource Center

Announcement - The Experiment: Return to Lord Weary's Castle

Announcement - The Experiment: Return to Lord Weary's Castle

Re: Announcement - The Experiment: Return to Lord Weary's Ca