"Young" versus "Old" Players

Tell your tales of bygone days and rank historical things here.

"Young" versus "Old" Players

Postby Periplus of the Erythraean Sea » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:37 pm

I wanted to start a thread based off a discussion that died off a couple months ago:

vinteuil wrote:I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this, Zeke—partly because I suspect that "young player" studying strategies have changed drastically in the past couple years, due to the ascendance of tossup-reading programs/tossup-clue-flashcarding programs.

I wanted to get some opinions on this and related topics. Some questions to get people thinking:

- Is there a noticeable overall difference between how older players and younger players (generation-wise) approach the game? (i.e. is this even worth talking about)
- Are there differences in study strategies?
- Are there differences in play style?
- Are there overall differences in writing style, and commitment to writing in general?
- Is there a tendency to relatively over-rate younger or older players?
- What are the biggest advantages that come with additional experience with the game?
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase '12
Dartmouth College '16
"You are beyond parody" -Auroni Gupta
User avatar
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Posts: 1461
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: Falls Church, VA

Re: "Young" versus "Old" Players

Postby AKKOLADE » Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:26 pm

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:- Is there a noticeable overall difference between how older players and younger players (generation-wise) approach the game? (i.e. is this even worth talking about)
- Are there differences in study strategies?

I believe Subash Maddipoti was more or less the originator of the "write a bunch of question (fragment)s and cram for a few months to get gud" method, which has since been a major part of quiz bowl studying over the past 15 years.

I can remark that high school quiz bowl studying from 1999-2002, at least in my small corner of the world, amounted to "make some flash cards from a random reference book" and "naturally know a bunch of crap."
Fred Morlan
PACE Vice President of Outreach, 2017-18
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, PACE member (former President and At Large member of Board), NAQT writer (former subject editor), HSAPQ freelance writer, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT Tournament Director
User avatar
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: "Young" versus "Old" Players

Postby Mike Bentley » Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:12 pm

I suspect that one difference between younger and older players is that older players might be slightly more attuned to gameplay tactics. When you're playing on bad questions and bad formats, these things are more important than in modern quizbowl.
Mike Bentley
Treasurer, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence
Adviser, Quizbowl Team at University of Washington
University of Maryland, Class of 2008
User avatar
Mike Bentley
Posts: 5339
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:03 pm
Location: Bellevue, WA

Re: "Young" versus "Old" Players

Postby salamanca » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:35 pm

I apologize for not seeing this earlier and providing additional context regarding my original question, which was meant to really tease out differences regarding the individualized evolution of top players, e.g., as they progress from inexperienced to experienced, rather than generational differences among top players now v. then.

For example, I've always felt that by the time I was at, what lots of observers would consider my historical peak, i.e., 2005, I was actually a less efficient, less sure player than I'd been in, say, 2003. And a lot of that has to do with the intensity of my studying from 01-03 (which included note taking, reading primary sources, flash carding, question writing, etc.). In those, "younger" years I was working super hard to learn everything I could about, say, a particular author or work, and constantly reinforcing that knowledge, so that if a particular clue came up, I wouldn't miss it... but I was very literal, very tied to the cluing in the question. In other words, if that particular thing I'd learned didn't come up, I'd probably be stymied till the second last or last part of the question. This would result in me playing tournaments where I'd be making 1-2 crazy early buzzes per game and then some towards the end of questions, but much fewer middle buzzes.

Looking back, what I learned to do as my career progressed-- and what I suppose I'm implicitly arguing arguing "older" players are better at-- was to get better at contextualizing clues that I didn't know thus allowing myself to make leaps about a potential answer with reasonable assurance. In retrospect, I suppose this also explains why I liked ACF so much more than NAQT for a long time. ACF questions, with their more rote cluing structure and more meaty content, rewarded my earlier form of study much more consistently. NAQT questions of the time, at least as I remember them, were much more about feeling out where the question was going, a skill I developed over time but one I had to work hard to learn. Of course, this glosses over the fact that Sudheer P. would eventually game the system by noticing the question recycling trend then inherent in the NAQT distribution and just learning all the shit that had come up in the past to become a powerful NAQT TU player. Having written for NAQT these past two years, I can say, without a doubt, that I would have been a much better player on these newer, modern questions which are much closer to ACF questions than they were in my day.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies somewhat what I was aiming at in my previous post and, of course, I'd be curious to hear what other folks think on the subject.
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:00 pm

Return to Quizbowl History Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest