Today, Nathan forwarded me Subash's e-mail with the field for the Open as it stands, and I was immediately floored by what I saw. The only analogy that came to my mind was that this field makes NAQT nats look like a junior bird (certainly no disrespect meant to NAQT :) ). I think its worth discussing whether or not this is the strongest field ever at a qbowl tournament (this is just theorizing off the top of my head, and I obviously am not anywhere near qualified to make that sort of postulation myself,) but it seems like almost every great active player is in this field, as well as some "masters" who are on the short list for the title of best player ever. Here is the field as it stands now:
- Hillemann, Hentzel, Waters, ?
- Cjivanovich, Matthews, Hilson, ?
- Kevin Clair / Carleton team
- Cohn, Ferrarri, Reece, Koo
- Roger Craig and ?
- Dhuwalia, Borglum, Kendall
- Freeburg, Passner, Stratton, ? (hopefully DeJesus)
- Jeff Hoppes and ?
- Kelly, Suzman, Vaz
- Lafer, Francis, Frankel, Freeburn
- Sorice, Potru, Ullsperger, Weiner
- Yaphe, Litvak, ?
- Romero and friends
Free agents:
Mengmeng Zhang, Darrell Frye, Anthony DeJesus (their
e-mails are above)
And, yes, I am waaayyyy out of my league here :) I'll be happy to watch and buzz in on the one baseball q and the two judaicas :P
Of course, Subash is missing as he is editing. Who else is missing as far as legends go? I would imagine Watchorn, Kidder and some of the other NAQT staffers.
How would people rank the teams as they stand? I don't even know where to begin. Eric, R. and Waters... thats three of the ten (maybe 5) best players of all-time, on one team, (though I think they placed third or fourth at last year's open). The Illinois troika that won the undergrad title and showed some fantastic speed will also have Matt Weiner, a player who could possibly be top bracket at NAQT playing solo. Frankel will have a strong supporting cast, and Harvard is the same team that won undergrad last year, only Suzman seems a world better now (of course he was great in '03 too.) Raj/Seth/Borglum seems like one hell of a team by itself, and could be over the top with a good FA, and of course you can never count out a team with Andrew Yaphe, the man, the myth, the legend on it.
I know its long, but I think its a topic worth some quality discussion. This tourney sure has me excited (just wish there were a singles tourney to go with it.)
I've included a poll, take the team names in good fun, they aren't meant to slight anyone.
Chicago Open Discussion
-
Matt Weiner
- Sin
- Posts: 8148
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Richmond, VA
I think as of right now the question marks on Andrew's team will be Adam Kemezis and Leo Wolpert, if this influences anyone in their choices.
I voted for the Hilleman/Hentzel/Waters team...I think Emily Pike is playing with them too, and that team without Waters won the tournament two years ago, while the top two teams from last year have lost key players (Kelly McKenzie and Zeke). I would put the Yaphe team in second with Weiner's team in 3rd. The question marks on Hoppes's team are also interesting...if they include other Berkeley people or top west coast players they could be in the mix as well. And true about the upsets but, no offense to Romero and co., I don't think they have a shot. The general trend has been that the upsets happen to every good team and it tends to balance things out overall.
As for the field containing the best active players, Kelly McKenzie and Zeke are notably absent, as is Seth Teitler, but it still could be the toughest field yet assembled.
I voted for the Hilleman/Hentzel/Waters team...I think Emily Pike is playing with them too, and that team without Waters won the tournament two years ago, while the top two teams from last year have lost key players (Kelly McKenzie and Zeke). I would put the Yaphe team in second with Weiner's team in 3rd. The question marks on Hoppes's team are also interesting...if they include other Berkeley people or top west coast players they could be in the mix as well. And true about the upsets but, no offense to Romero and co., I don't think they have a shot. The general trend has been that the upsets happen to every good team and it tends to balance things out overall.
As for the field containing the best active players, Kelly McKenzie and Zeke are notably absent, as is Seth Teitler, but it still could be the toughest field yet assembled.
Matt W, don't agree with the logic there. I always go with the favorite, if they are truly the best team there, and if they aren't, I go with the team I feel is best. My problem here is I have a tough time figuring out who that best team is. I went with Ill/Weiner because I feel that taking a team that averaged nearly 350 ppg at NAQT nats, with 58 powers and adding someone who tends to put up some damn scary numbers (although at this tourney, almost everyone has put up scary numbers at one time or another.)
Edit: If I had known the full Yaphe roster before I voted, I would have probably given them the nod.
Edit: If I had known the full Yaphe roster before I voted, I would have probably given them the nod.
-
Captain Sinico
- Auron
- Posts: 2675
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Champaign, Illinois
As a point of fact, our team's name is "The Anti-Geography Army."
As for who will win, well, that really depends a lot on who the ?'s are. There are two teams with players that I've played but never beaten on them but, unless the ?'s on one of them are truly solid, this may be the end of a trend that began with the now legendary (at Illinois, anyway) Adam Malamen "Falling Water(s)" buzz. Therefore,
MaS
As for who will win, well, that really depends a lot on who the ?'s are. There are two teams with players that I've played but never beaten on them but, unless the ?'s on one of them are truly solid, this may be the end of a trend that began with the now legendary (at Illinois, anyway) Adam Malamen "Falling Water(s)" buzz. Therefore,
Anyway, that doesn't mean much. That's why I'm playing the games. That, and to win them.Shaq wrote:my team.
MaS
One correction, or I think it's a correction. After I saw the field list, I tried to recruit Jeff Hoppes as a fourth, but he said (if i understood correctly) that he'd agreed to join the Yaphe/Litvak team. Curses! Foiled again!!
Based on that, I'd go with Yaphe's team, R.'s team, and Illinois/Weiner as my choice for top 3. Don't know how my own team will do -- Kelly was really the locomotive last year, so it's hard to say how well Chris, Seth, and I will cover the gap. Depends a lot on how much rust we're able to scrape off. I imagine the same applies for many other teams, particularly Hentzel/Hilleman/Waters, since they're not playing a battery of tournaments throughout the year. Regardless, there's a good chance that, as in recent years, no one will go undefeated. Last year we (the Popes of Chilitown) took two narrow victories each against Hentzel/Hilleman/Waters and the Yaphe/Zeke team but lost to Cohn/Reece/Ferrari, and there were a couple other close calls. And with the tournament being packet submission this year, the chance of an upset may increase.
I'm disappointed that there's no singles tournament, so far. That's my favorite part of the trip.
--Raj Dhuwalia
Based on that, I'd go with Yaphe's team, R.'s team, and Illinois/Weiner as my choice for top 3. Don't know how my own team will do -- Kelly was really the locomotive last year, so it's hard to say how well Chris, Seth, and I will cover the gap. Depends a lot on how much rust we're able to scrape off. I imagine the same applies for many other teams, particularly Hentzel/Hilleman/Waters, since they're not playing a battery of tournaments throughout the year. Regardless, there's a good chance that, as in recent years, no one will go undefeated. Last year we (the Popes of Chilitown) took two narrow victories each against Hentzel/Hilleman/Waters and the Yaphe/Zeke team but lost to Cohn/Reece/Ferrari, and there were a couple other close calls. And with the tournament being packet submission this year, the chance of an upset may increase.
I'm disappointed that there's no singles tournament, so far. That's my favorite part of the trip.
--Raj Dhuwalia
-
Chris Frankel
- Wakka
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:52 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
I voted for Hentzel et al, but after hearing that Yaphe/Litvak may likely play with Hoppes/Teitler, I'd put them in first instead.
My predictions for the top of the order are:
1. Yaphe/Litvak
2. Hentzel et al
3. Weiner/Illinois
Then I see a noticeable dropoff with a bunch of teams (Wesley/Matt C., Chicago, Harvard, Raj et al, our team) vying for 4th and 5th with upsets and the way the packets fall having a large role in determining the order. I'd put Wesley's team 4th, and to be both cocky and ambitious, I'll put us as 5th, though we could just as easily finish much lower if things don't go our way.
My predictions for the top of the order are:
1. Yaphe/Litvak
2. Hentzel et al
3. Weiner/Illinois
Then I see a noticeable dropoff with a bunch of teams (Wesley/Matt C., Chicago, Harvard, Raj et al, our team) vying for 4th and 5th with upsets and the way the packets fall having a large role in determining the order. I'd put Wesley's team 4th, and to be both cocky and ambitious, I'll put us as 5th, though we could just as easily finish much lower if things don't go our way.
my 3 cents
I'd suggest that last year's Open may have been slightly stronger....
In terms of predictions, I guarantee that the team of Dan, Ted, myself and the player to be named later will pull off at least one "upset".
As well, in the interests of talking smack -- we'll finish in the top 5 and we'll not finish first in negs.
In terms of predictions, I guarantee that the team of Dan, Ted, myself and the player to be named later will pull off at least one "upset".
As well, in the interests of talking smack -- we'll finish in the top 5 and we'll not finish first in negs.
Nathan, no way we don't lead in negs :) Even if our 4th were Jason Keller we'd still have enough interrupts to go around between you and me.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we upset a team or two, but that top 3 is just incredible. It'll be interesting to see who the top scorer is at the tournament and what there final ppg is.
Would a question submission singles tournament be feasible? Like everyone writing 25 tossups or something like that?
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we upset a team or two, but that top 3 is just incredible. It'll be interesting to see who the top scorer is at the tournament and what there final ppg is.
Would a question submission singles tournament be feasible? Like everyone writing 25 tossups or something like that?
With the usual format, I don't think packet submission or question submission would work for a singles tournament. You'd really have to wrench the format around to make it work as a question submission tournament. Hopefully there'll at least be the science tournament.
Also, I'd say the 2004 Chicago Open field is stronger, overall. The HHW, Yaphe, Cohn, and Matthews teams are as strong as last year, and although a couple of teams will be weaker (such as mine), others will be stronger (Freeburg, the Illinois team), and others will be added (Harvard, Romero's team).
--Raj Dhuwalia
Also, I'd say the 2004 Chicago Open field is stronger, overall. The HHW, Yaphe, Cohn, and Matthews teams are as strong as last year, and although a couple of teams will be weaker (such as mine), others will be stronger (Freeburg, the Illinois team), and others will be added (Harvard, Romero's team).
--Raj Dhuwalia
-
Captain Sinico
- Auron
- Posts: 2675
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Champaign, Illinois
In light of recent developments, I'd like to retract any and all statements, overtures, insinuations, etc. that I may have made indicating that anyone other than the Hoppes-Litvak-Teitler-Yaphe team has anything like a non-trivial shot at winning the Chicago Open. I apologize for my short-sightedness and wish you gentlemen the best of luck with the trophy polish salesmen.
As for which field is better... it's almost a wash to my eyes. It really still depends on who the ?'s are, but the loss of Kelly McKenzie can't be good. If Zeke and Kemezis also don't play, I'd have to give it to last year's field by a nose, (also, the addition of myself has to make this field suck more.) The fact that this is even a debatable topic, however, says all you need to hear about how good this field is.
Hoping not to hit my hands with any more hammers (I need those to buzz),
MaS
As for which field is better... it's almost a wash to my eyes. It really still depends on who the ?'s are, but the loss of Kelly McKenzie can't be good. If Zeke and Kemezis also don't play, I'd have to give it to last year's field by a nose, (also, the addition of myself has to make this field suck more.) The fact that this is even a debatable topic, however, says all you need to hear about how good this field is.
Hoping not to hit my hands with any more hammers (I need those to buzz),
MaS
-
Chris Frankel
- Wakka
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 12:52 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Here's my team by team comparison of 2003's and 2004's field, with last year's teams listed first:
1. Kelly/Raj/Kendall/Borglum v. Raj/Kendall/Borglum: Easily the most pronounced absence from 2004 will be Kelly. As good as he is though (good enough for his absence to ensure that there almost surely won't be repeat champs), one can't say that his team was far and away the most dominant, due to some of the upsets that occurred. Other teams in the field will compensate for the loss of talent.
2. Yaphe/Zeke/Litvak/Heller v. Yaphe/Litvak/Hoppes/Teitler: Zeke is a huge loss, and probably a better overall player than Hoppes, but Hoppes seems to be a better fit because he brings almost unparalleled domninance of a major category (history) without any expected overlap (as with Zeke and lit) with Yaphe. And as good as Heller is, Teitler's science coverage ensures strength in every subject and may make this team one of the best combinations ever.
3. Hentzel/Hilleman/Waters v. Hentzel et al. plus possibly Pike: Same as last year, will be even better if Pike plays, though I have no idea of her ability.
4. Cohn/Reece/Ferarri v. Same + Selene Koo: No losses, plus Selene gives additional deep science knowledge.
5. Andrew/Lafer/JP v. Andrew/Hairboy/Sudheer/Weiner: Huge improvement from last year. Sorice compensates for the loss of Lafer's science knowledge, and with Sudheer he can replace most of Lafer's generalist knowledge too. Weiner's huge overall knowledge base will be a substantial improvement, even if much of his big numbers are just the result of playing without teammates.
6. Wesley/Matt C. v. Wesley/Matt C.: I didn't mention any others since I didn't know them, but obviously they're both very good players who will be back at CO without any major personnel changes.
7. Freeburg/someone else v. Freeburg/Passner/Stratton/?: Don't know how the Brandeis players will fare on CO questions and competition, but Freeburg's ACF nationals showing was pretty solid if not for the neg counts. Good shot at pulling an upset or two if things go their way.
In terms of the other teams:
CO 2003 had Watchorn/Hill/Friedman, Chicago novices, and Valencia.
CO 2004 will have Harvard w/ Vik back, Frankel/Lafer/Francis/Freeburn, Rome.ro and other Texas people, Carleton, and a Roger Craig team.
I think the first 3 of the teams in that 2004 list would beat Watchorn's team fairly consistently, and pretty much every team in that list is better than the two last place teams at last year's CO.
So in other words, the field at this year's CO will definitely be stronger.
1. Kelly/Raj/Kendall/Borglum v. Raj/Kendall/Borglum: Easily the most pronounced absence from 2004 will be Kelly. As good as he is though (good enough for his absence to ensure that there almost surely won't be repeat champs), one can't say that his team was far and away the most dominant, due to some of the upsets that occurred. Other teams in the field will compensate for the loss of talent.
2. Yaphe/Zeke/Litvak/Heller v. Yaphe/Litvak/Hoppes/Teitler: Zeke is a huge loss, and probably a better overall player than Hoppes, but Hoppes seems to be a better fit because he brings almost unparalleled domninance of a major category (history) without any expected overlap (as with Zeke and lit) with Yaphe. And as good as Heller is, Teitler's science coverage ensures strength in every subject and may make this team one of the best combinations ever.
3. Hentzel/Hilleman/Waters v. Hentzel et al. plus possibly Pike: Same as last year, will be even better if Pike plays, though I have no idea of her ability.
4. Cohn/Reece/Ferarri v. Same + Selene Koo: No losses, plus Selene gives additional deep science knowledge.
5. Andrew/Lafer/JP v. Andrew/Hairboy/Sudheer/Weiner: Huge improvement from last year. Sorice compensates for the loss of Lafer's science knowledge, and with Sudheer he can replace most of Lafer's generalist knowledge too. Weiner's huge overall knowledge base will be a substantial improvement, even if much of his big numbers are just the result of playing without teammates.
6. Wesley/Matt C. v. Wesley/Matt C.: I didn't mention any others since I didn't know them, but obviously they're both very good players who will be back at CO without any major personnel changes.
7. Freeburg/someone else v. Freeburg/Passner/Stratton/?: Don't know how the Brandeis players will fare on CO questions and competition, but Freeburg's ACF nationals showing was pretty solid if not for the neg counts. Good shot at pulling an upset or two if things go their way.
In terms of the other teams:
CO 2003 had Watchorn/Hill/Friedman, Chicago novices, and Valencia.
CO 2004 will have Harvard w/ Vik back, Frankel/Lafer/Francis/Freeburn, Rome.ro and other Texas people, Carleton, and a Roger Craig team.
I think the first 3 of the teams in that 2004 list would beat Watchorn's team fairly consistently, and pretty much every team in that list is better than the two last place teams at last year's CO.
So in other words, the field at this year's CO will definitely be stronger.
I hope Harvard is able to get Paco too. That would surely be a fearsome foursome. Its kind of crazy to think that the bottom bracket will feature numerous excellent members of national championship teams.
Btw, would anyone have a problem with me recording the matches and getting some interviews like I did at NAQT nats? The matches should make for really good watching :) and I still hope to make some sort of documentary product (though my first partner dropped out recently). On that note, if there is anyone in the Chicago area or not who would like to come and operate the camera (provided people agree to it) please let me know. Again, if people have any problems with this, I am totally fine with that.
Now, if we can just get our team a great science player :) ...
Btw, would anyone have a problem with me recording the matches and getting some interviews like I did at NAQT nats? The matches should make for really good watching :) and I still hope to make some sort of documentary product (though my first partner dropped out recently). On that note, if there is anyone in the Chicago area or not who would like to come and operate the camera (provided people agree to it) please let me know. Again, if people have any problems with this, I am totally fine with that.
Now, if we can just get our team a great science player :) ...
-
QuizbowlPostmodernist
- Wakka
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:22 am
Well, with the usual format, no. A tossup only, guerilla-edited or minimally-edited tournament with the normal kind of bracketing we see in a regular team tournament would work if you can round up enough staff.NotBhan wrote:With the usual format, I don't think packet submission or question submission would work for a singles tournament. You'd really have to wrench the format around to make it work as a question submission tournament. Hopefully there'll at least be the science tournament.
Or, you could have a hybrid tournament where one or more people sacrifice and writes enough tossups to use as seed rounds to divide the field into round robin brackets playing on their own packets.
Hell, someone could do Nathan Freeburg's wet dream and run all-lit tournament as a complement to the science tournament.
--Anthony
-
Matt Weiner
- Sin
- Posts: 8148
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Richmond, VA
The top five should be pretty easy to predict, I think:
1. Hoppes/Litvak/Teitler/Yaphe. Don't even try to argue otherwise. They're just too solid in every area.
2. Hentzel/Hillemann/Pike/Waters. Not only is Hentzel a ridiculous player in general, but his constantly being around quizbowl 24/7 is just that much more helpful. I'm just glad I'll get to see Tom Waters play for the first time.
3. Potru/Sorice/Ullsperger/Weiner. Despite the fact that I'm going to suck ass on these questions (I'm terrible on hard shit), Sorice and Andrew alone still comprise one of the best science teams in the nation, and I'd definitely argue that they're going to tear up the science at CO, as well as Science Masters. Although I haven't seen Weiner play since he beat the shit out of me at Kidder two years ago, I imagine he's pretty ridiculous now.
4. Bhan/Borglum/Kendall. This team contains two ass-kickers (one current, one former) and a very solid humanities player in Kendall. I might consider giving this spot to Cohn/Reece/Ferrari/Koo, but even if they can take science off Raj, Borglum and Kendall's humanities strength will still win.
5. Cohn/Ferrari/Koo/Reece. Having played and lost to this team several times in the past two years despite being on some amazing squads, I can honestly say this is an incredibly strong team. I could see the difficulty hurting them slightly, especially in terms of humanities, but they should be very solid.
Should be interesting to see.
1. Hoppes/Litvak/Teitler/Yaphe. Don't even try to argue otherwise. They're just too solid in every area.
2. Hentzel/Hillemann/Pike/Waters. Not only is Hentzel a ridiculous player in general, but his constantly being around quizbowl 24/7 is just that much more helpful. I'm just glad I'll get to see Tom Waters play for the first time.
3. Potru/Sorice/Ullsperger/Weiner. Despite the fact that I'm going to suck ass on these questions (I'm terrible on hard shit), Sorice and Andrew alone still comprise one of the best science teams in the nation, and I'd definitely argue that they're going to tear up the science at CO, as well as Science Masters. Although I haven't seen Weiner play since he beat the shit out of me at Kidder two years ago, I imagine he's pretty ridiculous now.
4. Bhan/Borglum/Kendall. This team contains two ass-kickers (one current, one former) and a very solid humanities player in Kendall. I might consider giving this spot to Cohn/Reece/Ferrari/Koo, but even if they can take science off Raj, Borglum and Kendall's humanities strength will still win.
5. Cohn/Ferrari/Koo/Reece. Having played and lost to this team several times in the past two years despite being on some amazing squads, I can honestly say this is an incredibly strong team. I could see the difficulty hurting them slightly, especially in terms of humanities, but they should be very solid.
Should be interesting to see.
-
ValenciaQBowl
- Auron
- Posts: 2560
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Orlando, Florida
I want to express my thanks to Sudheer for styling me an "ass-kicker," though I'm not sure I can live up to that billing now (if I ever could), and almost certainly not among this field of players. As Raj suggested in an earlier post, shaking off rust is going to be a problem, and I got pretty slow/lazy on the buzzer last year with Kelly taking 90% of the stuff I can answer. A typical situation was like this:
"Early in the novel, [some male British/Italian name] attempts to seduce [some female British/Italian name], much to the consternation of [another name]" --BUZZ: watch Kelly stare at ceiling for 1.5 seconds then hear him say name of some book/play I actually read back in 1992 in grad. school (though Kelly had just learned the characters' names on Sparknotes).
Note that the above is no indictment of the age-old "deep knowledge/list knowledge" debate; it's just hard for us old guys to remember some of that stuff. I love list learning, and will spend half an hour tonight reading the Drabble-edited "Oxford Encyclopedia of English Literature" to learn more about the works of John Lyly and Thomas Heywood.
Who's going to win? Don't know, but it probably won't be us. However, I will be going drinking Saturday night--if you're interested, please join me. One thing I think I could beat Yaphe in is number of shots of Patron imbibed without barfing, but there's only one way to find out . . .
--chris borglum
"Early in the novel, [some male British/Italian name] attempts to seduce [some female British/Italian name], much to the consternation of [another name]" --BUZZ: watch Kelly stare at ceiling for 1.5 seconds then hear him say name of some book/play I actually read back in 1992 in grad. school (though Kelly had just learned the characters' names on Sparknotes).
Note that the above is no indictment of the age-old "deep knowledge/list knowledge" debate; it's just hard for us old guys to remember some of that stuff. I love list learning, and will spend half an hour tonight reading the Drabble-edited "Oxford Encyclopedia of English Literature" to learn more about the works of John Lyly and Thomas Heywood.
Who's going to win? Don't know, but it probably won't be us. However, I will be going drinking Saturday night--if you're interested, please join me. One thing I think I could beat Yaphe in is number of shots of Patron imbibed without barfing, but there's only one way to find out . . .
--chris borglum
Very brief results:
1st place: Living in the Cult of Blix (Yaphe, Teitler, Hoppes, Litvak)
2nd: Anti-Geography Army (Weiner, Sorice, Potru, Ullsperger)
3rd: No More Mr. Nice Guys (Hentzel, Waters, Hillemann, Smith)
4th: C+ in Alien Sex (Lafer, Frankel, Francis, Dolemite)
I don't know what happened in the other brackets.
1st place: Living in the Cult of Blix (Yaphe, Teitler, Hoppes, Litvak)
2nd: Anti-Geography Army (Weiner, Sorice, Potru, Ullsperger)
3rd: No More Mr. Nice Guys (Hentzel, Waters, Hillemann, Smith)
4th: C+ in Alien Sex (Lafer, Frankel, Francis, Dolemite)
I don't know what happened in the other brackets.
Thanks to Subash for editing a great set for the CO. The difficulty wasn't as extreme as I was expecting, although the questions (especially bonuses) were certainly hardcore.
Thanks also to everyone who moderated and staffed, and my congratulations to Andrew, Seth, Jeff, and Paul, who all put on a ridiculous display in capturing first place. Nicely done, guys.
Thanks also to everyone who moderated and staffed, and my congratulations to Andrew, Seth, Jeff, and Paul, who all put on a ridiculous display in capturing first place. Nicely done, guys.
-
Captain Sinico
- Auron
- Posts: 2675
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Champaign, Illinois
Subash claimed that stats would be posted "within a week," so you should expect them any time now, I suppose. Honestly, I recall very little about the final standings (both with respect to teams and individual scoring) beyond what has been posted. I think Andrew Yaphe was the leading individual scorer, but I am not sure; I also think that there was a whole bunch of people (8 or so) hovering near the top at about 40-50 PPG. The tournament was awesome, and the questions were also awesome. My detailed reaction is "that was awesome."zotlbusy wrote:Were there ever any more detailed results/reactions posted about the tournament? I haven't seen any stats or discussion.
MaS
-
Matt Weiner
- Sin
- Posts: 8148
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Richmond, VA
It's easy to forget to speak unless one has something bad to say, so thanks for the prodding.
The whole tournament experience was great, and I chalk a lot of it up to the top-to-bottom strength of the field. Any given team from the second half of the standings could have won half of the regular tournaments held last year. I didn't feel like the outcome of any game whatsoever was a forgone conclusion, and that did make every game a lot more intense.
The question set was, simply, one of the best ever put together if not the best at this level, and should go alongside the 2002 ACF Nationals, 2001 ACF Regionals, and 2002 Cardinal Classic as model sets for the future. Particular props to Subash, Ezequiel, and all the teams who submitted packets for that. The difficulty and style were perfectly consistent from round to round even as, reportedly, almost nothing was cut from submitted packets; that takes a coordinated great effort from every team and the editor.
As for lit singles, I wish certain people had shown up to expose my true ignorance, but I guess winning is the next-best thing. A few bumps (Invisible Man) aside, the lit was very well written and it seemed like it was not out of reach of the players who specialize in other subjects. I hope someone can run with this theme and do a singles on another popular subject next year.
The whole tournament experience was great, and I chalk a lot of it up to the top-to-bottom strength of the field. Any given team from the second half of the standings could have won half of the regular tournaments held last year. I didn't feel like the outcome of any game whatsoever was a forgone conclusion, and that did make every game a lot more intense.
The question set was, simply, one of the best ever put together if not the best at this level, and should go alongside the 2002 ACF Nationals, 2001 ACF Regionals, and 2002 Cardinal Classic as model sets for the future. Particular props to Subash, Ezequiel, and all the teams who submitted packets for that. The difficulty and style were perfectly consistent from round to round even as, reportedly, almost nothing was cut from submitted packets; that takes a coordinated great effort from every team and the editor.
As for lit singles, I wish certain people had shown up to expose my true ignorance, but I guess winning is the next-best thing. A few bumps (Invisible Man) aside, the lit was very well written and it seemed like it was not out of reach of the players who specialize in other subjects. I hope someone can run with this theme and do a singles on another popular subject next year.
I agree with Matt's assessment. The Chicago Open was a very well-written and well-edited tournament. I wish I'd been more prepared for it -- instead I was as flat as a copper monolayer and we lost one close match after another. The field was very balanced top to bottom. Other than a weird blowout loss to the Harvard/Wolpert team and two wins over the Valencia/Kentucky team, every one of our matches had a final margin of under 90 points. (Unfortunately we were habitually on the wrong end of that margin.) The Yaphe team was as strong as advertised. I got to watch them demolish the Hentzel team by a score of something like 445-95, and the tossups weren't getting very far along. Anyway, my thanks to Subash and Zeke and company for putting together the tournament. And my sincerest compliments to any team that managed to finish with a winning record in that field.
The Science Monstrosity was also a very good tournament. The level of the questions was good -- I thought these were more accessible than the ones in the previous SM tournament. The field was again very balanced. We (Wes and I) suffered close losses to the Seth/Trey and Suzman/Kelly teams, as well as a trampling by the A-Train. We led 125-75 after 12 against Sorice and Ullsperger, and then Andrew took the next 5 in a row. Anyway, it was a well-written tournament, and I thank the Berkelians and Sudheer for their efforts.
The Literature Singles tournament was also very well done. The level of the questions was about right, most were well written, and the field was competitive. (Note: Yaphe, Subash, and Zeke were among those who didn't show up, or it would have been a very different tournament.) I'm glad I at least got to beat Seth Teitler once before he beat for the third tournament of the weekend. My thanks to Chris, Susan, Trey, Eric, and the other Texans. And my compliments to Matthews and Frankel for the great matches and to Teitler and Weiner for knocking me out.
--Raj Dhuwalia
The Science Monstrosity was also a very good tournament. The level of the questions was good -- I thought these were more accessible than the ones in the previous SM tournament. The field was again very balanced. We (Wes and I) suffered close losses to the Seth/Trey and Suzman/Kelly teams, as well as a trampling by the A-Train. We led 125-75 after 12 against Sorice and Ullsperger, and then Andrew took the next 5 in a row. Anyway, it was a well-written tournament, and I thank the Berkelians and Sudheer for their efforts.
The Literature Singles tournament was also very well done. The level of the questions was about right, most were well written, and the field was competitive. (Note: Yaphe, Subash, and Zeke were among those who didn't show up, or it would have been a very different tournament.) I'm glad I at least got to beat Seth Teitler once before he beat for the third tournament of the weekend. My thanks to Chris, Susan, Trey, Eric, and the other Texans. And my compliments to Matthews and Frankel for the great matches and to Teitler and Weiner for knocking me out.
--Raj Dhuwalia
though it was one of the worst performances of my life -- that was a tournament for the ages...probably the strongest field in history and the best question set I have ever played on -- the packet writing was superb in every round -- to be self-aggrandizing for a second, I think the packet I submitted was the best I've ever written and it seems like everyone else outdid themselves as well...there were no clunkers among the tossups.
kudos to Subash
what Andrew, Seth, Paul and Jeff did is even more amazing when you consider not only the strength of the field but how they always pulled that last question when they needed it....(damn you Rasselas!)
put it this way, I think I played on the best 2-10 team ever....but I can't say that we deserved to be any better, the field was just that good...we were competitive in every match but one (even taking the #1 team to the last tossup) but the field was just too strong...my compliments to everyone
kudos to Subash
what Andrew, Seth, Paul and Jeff did is even more amazing when you consider not only the strength of the field but how they always pulled that last question when they needed it....(damn you Rasselas!)
put it this way, I think I played on the best 2-10 team ever....but I can't say that we deserved to be any better, the field was just that good...we were competitive in every match but one (even taking the #1 team to the last tossup) but the field was just too strong...my compliments to everyone