Page 1 of 2

Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:50 pm
by Mike Bentley
I've heard reports that there will be the following teams at the Chicago Open:

Matt Weiner, Eric Mukherjee, Jerry and Jonathan
Andrew Yaphe, Seth Teitler and Mike Sorice

To me this seems like not a great idea. Unless there is some other super team that I'm not aware of, these two teams are essentially going to clobber every other conceivable team at the tournament. That exact Weiner team cleared the field at IO and that Yaphe team is obviously going to be very good.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this doesn't seem like a great way to arrange teams at a tournament. Rather than having two super teams blowing everyone else out, would it not be better to break them up into like 4 or so teams that would create a competitive top field?

Sure, there are imbalanced teams at tournaments all the time. But rarely are such teams open teams comprising people from multiple places or whatever. They're usually the consequence of a school having a stronger program than another's, not an intentional (or byproduct) of an attempt to create a team that is going to clear the field without question.

I understand why such teams form. It's cool to play with people you don't usually get a chance to or who are very good in certain areas. It wouldn't be the end of the world if these teams played (and likely won't affect me personally as I plan on duking it out in the bottom bracket), I just think that this tournament would be better for everyone else if the teams were assembled in such a fashion that there was at least some competition in the matches between these two teams and everyone else.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:08 pm
by Birdofredum Sawin
Hey, there's a venerable history of assembling all-star line-ups at summer masters tournaments. To give a few examples, remember the "Legion of Superheroes" that dominated Tennessee Masters in the '80s and '90s; the Tom Waters/Jim Dendy/Al Whited powerhouse that showed up at Philly Experiment in the mid '90s; or the Sorice/Weiner/Berdichevsky/Ullsperger machine that beat a team of me/Teitler/Kemezis/Matthews to win the 2005 Chicago Open. Traditionally, seeing a monster assemblage of talent which would never happen at a regular-season tournament has been part of the charm of the summer masters tournament.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:43 pm
by Matt Weiner
You play to win the game.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:09 pm
by No Rules Westbrook
I have really mixed feelings about such teams. On the one hand, I think it's a lot of fun to watch them play and a lot of fun to write questions for teams like that. On the other hand, it has the potential to negatively impact the number of good packets submitted, since lots of good players/writers are condensed into a few teams.

I guess what I would say, then, is that I hope lots of people come to this tournament and put time into writing good material. There's enough people out there that, if everyone participates and puts their hat in, we can still have a lot of good packets. So I hope that happens, take it as a challenge, people.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 12:34 am
by grapesmoker
Honestly, I find it somewhat offensive that my (or anyone's for that matter) choice of what team to play with is open to any kind of discussion or criticism. Hey, Chicago is such a good team, maybe they should loan Susan Ferrari to Florida; you know, to make things more fair. Or maybe Maryland would like to farm out Jonathan Magin to UCLA? No? Shocking!

Chicago Open is all about having these kinds of teams, playing with people you don't play with often. And it's about playing the other great teams that show up; the opportunity to play a team of Andrew, Seth, and Mike is not something that comes along every day. I wouldn't want to disband that team anymore than I would want to disband my own.

If Chicago Open goes on a draft system next year with a house-written tournament, I'll be glad to play within that system. But when players are free to form their own teams, I don't see any reason why I should give up playing with good players whose company I enjoy for the sake of some arbitrary notion of fairness.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:38 am
by vcuEvan
I think Mike's post is more about trying to make more games competitive than insulting anyone. The thing is a lot of the people on these teams don't get that many chances to play, and when they do, winning is probably pretty important to them. I know it would be for me.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:27 am
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Then don't go to summer opens where that is par for the course and has been for ages. I personally had a blast at CO and we got blown out by Jerry's and Mike's team, and I liked getting the experience of that.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:07 am
by Skepticism and Animal Feed
If all the good players are concentrated on two teams, shouldn't that make the tournament more enjoyable for the average player, since it maximizes the number of games that he has a chance of winning?

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:43 am
by Sima Guang Hater
grapesmoker wrote:If Chicago Open goes on a draft system next year with a house-written tournament, I'll be glad to play within that system. But when players are free to form their own teams, I don't see any reason why I should give up playing with good players whose company I enjoy for the sake of some arbitrary notion of fairness.
QFT

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:49 am
by Matt Weiner
Also, one of the charms of Chicago Open is that if your team can't cut the mustard in the main event, there are about 78 other tournaments that you can form different teams for or show off your better knowledge of different subjects in.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:23 am
by cornfused
DJ Shadow wrote:If all the good players are concentrated on two teams, shouldn't that make the tournament more enjoyable for the average player, since it maximizes the number of games that he has a chance of winning?
QFT. My team is going to have at least two solid novice-level players - Peterson/Angiuli - (by the way, folks, still looking for two more) - but I'm pretty sure that Sorice, Seth, OR Yaphe could beat us with OK-bordering-on-bad teammates. If Sorice/Seth/Yaphe/Jerry/Weiner/Magin/Eric all play on separate teams, that's 5 losses, minimum, for OK teams like mine. This way, we take two absolute beatdowns and are competitive against the rest of the field.

I don't mind superteams - I'll enjoy losing by 805, I really will.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 2:17 pm
by Gautam
Eh, I think it's fine for there to be superteams like that. I mean, looking back at the main event at the Illinois open, we played 2 games against the Manocentric Maleocracy, and though we lost both the times, I think we did fine. It's not like we lost terribly, and it really was fun to play against them. I think playing against superteams is great because you learn about when/where to buzz, etc. I look forward to playing these teams at CO and other events.

Gautam.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:59 pm
by theMoMA
I don't know what to make of this discussion. First off, I want to say that parity among teams certainly makes for a fun tournament...it was one of the factors that made Ryan's doubles so intense, and it means that you can't take a single question off if you want to win.

But I do think that part of the charm of these open tournament get togethers is the opportunity to play super configurations of player, as well as the participation of semi-retired players like Andrew Yaphe, Jeff Hoppes, Adam Kemezis, etc. There may not be another conceivable team that could compete with the two purported superteams listed above, but who doesn't want to play them?

Finally, I'd advise against the logic that having all the good players are on one team is good because it maximizes your potential wins. At any tournament, but especially at a tournament like the Chicago Open, your enjoyment should never depend upon how the other teams are configured. Leaving aside that such comments are vastly discounting the abilities of players not yet accounted for, it's absurd to root for any segment of the field to be populated with weaker teams at an event like Chicago Open. Even if you only wind up winning a game or two, the experience of playing the best competition that quizbowl has to offer far outweighs the benefit of moving up or down a few places in the final standings. If you need to be competitive in the majority of your games to feel vindicated, you should probably find another tournament.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:20 pm
by No Rules Westbrook
Jeff Hoppes and Adam Kemezis, you heard Hart's invitation. Come on, who could turn that down...I just received news that the number of tournaments CO weekend is up to 79!

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:16 am
by cornfused
theMoMA wrote:If you need to be competitive in the majority of your games to feel vindicated, you should probably find another tournament.
Point taken. My point was that being competitive in the majority of my games was a bonus for me - if Bruce and Carlo drop out and I end up playing solo (or with, say, 7th graders) against a field where EVERY TEAM is better than me by far, I'll still have fun.

But yeah, I'll admit that competitive games (double-digit point margin, my team has a >15% chance of winning) are a bit more fun for me.
theMoMA wrote:...vastly discounting the abilities of players not yet accounted for...
Well, yeah. I'm just drawing a line between the Yaphes and Jerrys of the world and, say, relatively weaker players like you and Meigs that are still a) strong and b) much better than I am.

---QUIZBOWL IN GENERAL SECTION---
Anyway - is it wrong of me to really prefer having a shot at the win? I understand that I'm not going to win all my games (or in a tournament like CO, probably not even 40%) but I really do get a decent amount of satisfaction out of a W. Even if I only wind up winning a game or two, I'll still be happy with my tournament experience, yes. But I'm hardwired to compete... and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Winning isn't everything... but it IS something.


EDIT: Er, make that "If Carlo..."

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:26 am
by Mr. Kwalter
cornfused wrote: ---QUIZBOWL IN GENERAL SECTION---
Anyway - is it wrong of me to really prefer having a shot at the win? I understand that I'm not going to win all my games (or in a tournament like CO, probably not even 40%) but I really do get a decent amount of satisfaction out of a W. Even if I only wind up winning a game or two, I'll still be happy with my tournament experience, yes. But I'm hardwired to compete... and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Winning isn't everything... but it IS something.
If you want to win, get better. Don't blame other people for being better than you. Tournaments like Chicago Open (probably tournaments in general) shouldn't have to make allowances for people who gosh darn it just like to win every once in a while. I think most of the people who have been to CO will agree that especially at your level (at which most of us once were), you have to go in knowing that it's possible that you'll lose all your games, and you have to be ok with that. Wanting to win is good, having a competitive drive is good, but instead of trying to change the people against whom you're playing channel that drive into studying and writing questions.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:34 pm
by cornfused
cornfused wrote:I don't mind superteams - I'll enjoy losing by 805, I really will.
Kit Cloudkicker wrote:...shouldn't have to make allowances...
Uh, yes. I agree with that.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:12 pm
by Council of Trent Reznor
If you're that irked at the format, or the existance of these juggernaut teams, then don't play the main event. I understand we now have a fine choice of 83.75 side tournaments on every part of the mACF distribution (except science,) so just show up for the megafinal, which might go down as one of the greatest games ever played, and then go play some side events. I have no intention of playing CO proper, but I would like to see this final, and then go play some history, and possibly a couple other side events as well.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:36 pm
by No Rules Westbrook
If you're that irked at the format, or the existance of these juggernaut teams, then don't play the main event. I understand we now have a fine choice of 83.75 side tournaments on every part of the mACF distribution (except science,) so just show up for the megafinal, which might go down as one of the greatest games ever played, and then go play some side events. I have no intention of playing CO proper, but I would like to see this final, and then go play some history, and possibly a couple other side events as well.
With all due respect, that's a pretty poor way of looking at it. Anyone who decides not to play an event they otherwise would because there are "juggernaut teams" seems to me to be pretty misguided as to what this game is all about. Like Eric said, if you're a fan of qb, for heavens sake play it...and channel your energy into getting better at this game so that you can be on the juggernaut team of the future.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:21 pm
by Council of Trent Reznor
I just happen to think that my time would be better spent writing questions or studying, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, than getting up and going to Chicago to go 0-fer or 1-fer in a tournament. I fail to see how not wanting to spend a day getting creamed when I could be making myself a better player through other means makes me not love quizbowl. I would, in fact, be willing to guarantee that I'd learn more, and have more fun, by spending four hours of the day ensconced in a history book in lieu of serving as cannon fodder. And considering that this game is about the love of knowledge and learning more of it, I'd say that puts me ahead of someone who spent the day getting run over by megateams - the existence of which, might I add, I have no problems with, and which are not the reason I'm not going.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:27 am
by Aaron Kashtan
Was there really a team called the Legion of Superheroes? If so, did they use Boy/Girl/Kid/Lass/Lad names?

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:56 am
by ValenciaQBowl
Indeed that super-team of the time existed and usually had Don Windham, his wife Carol Guthrie (sometimes), and assorted other studs of the early southern circuit (I think I recall Dendy, Whited, Robert Trent and others being on there at times, but I took beatings from all of them, so it's kind of a blur). No cute nicknames as I recall, though.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:30 pm
by No Rules Westbrook
I just happen to think that my time would be better spent writing questions or studying, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, than getting up and going to Chicago to go 0-fer or 1-fer in a tournament. I fail to see how not wanting to spend a day getting creamed when I could be making myself a better player through other means makes me not love quizbowl. I would, in fact, be willing to guarantee that I'd learn more, and have more fun, by spending four hours of the day ensconced in a history book in lieu of serving as cannon fodder. And considering that this game is about the love of knowledge and learning more of it, I'd say that puts me ahead of someone who spent the day getting run over by megateams - the existence of which, might I add, I have no problems with, and which are not the reason I'm not going.

Okay, I don't mean to pick on you, as it seems like your heart is in the right place, but this is pretty much the silliest thing I've ever heard. "Sure, I'm not playing the tournament, but look guys, I'm spending all that time studying hard while you're wasting your time playing!!!" Come on now, there are all kinds of hours in all kinds of days on which tournaments are not being played. Now, for instance. Five seconds from now, is another example. These are all good times to study. Are you really arguing that you need the time during the tourney to "study"? Please, at least be honest, and give real reasons for not playing if you're going to give any.

And, I hope you do realize that having 2 megateams means you have x number of other teams which are probably not megateams. And on that note, there are lots of pretty capable players out there who could form solid midlevel teams, and they should come and make CO an impressive field. That's all.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:41 pm
by Matt Weiner
There were only 6 teams who had any realistic hope of winning the ICT, yet 25 other teams showed up! What fools!

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:13 pm
by GuardianOfPrestige
Let me tell you something, guys: don't even bother going! You think it's bad being beaten by a better team every weekend? Well, wait until you're being hammered by the combined forces of Brown, Maryland, or VCU, or Andrew Yaphe goes 12/0 against your team! You're just going to embarrass yourselves, and then people will learn find out that just because you go to a prestigious institution doesn't mean you're automatically entitled to win everything, and that will make your school look bad! So instead of running the risk of losing a game to a better team, and, God forbid, learning something or having a good time, you should just stay home.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:22 pm
by Skepticism and Animal Feed
I think there is an educational value to attending any tournament, even one where you will get destroyed. There are things I know for the sole reason that Zeke once powered it against me in a memorable fashion.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:10 pm
by Nathan
in my experience, 1 of the top 2 or 3 teams on paper entering the Chicago Open does not finish in the top 2 or 3.

and upsets ALWAYS happen.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:43 pm
by Skepticism and Animal Feed
Nathan wrote: and upsets ALWAYS happen.
http://www.doc-ent.com/qbwiki/index.php ... is_Borglum

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:45 pm
by ValenciaQBowl
The above-referenced example wasn't an upset. Matt is much younger than Seth or I, and once he gets a chance to write some questions for a couple college-level tournaments, he will likely win some trophies at an ICT. And keep an eye on that Sorice kid--he's got a future. Ho ho!

Anyway, while we're talking megateams, note that Billy Beyer, Sean Platzer, and Jim Baker will be joining me, so there's probably no reason for the Yaphe or Weiner teams to play, either--quit now or face our cruel wrath!

PS--sorry, I'll be quiet now.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:52 pm
by MLafer
Ray Luo and I are looking for some teammates that know things.

please e-mail me matt.lafer at gmail.com

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:05 pm
by Susan
Ed and I are also looking for some teammates--please email me at [email protected] if you're interested.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:11 pm
by pray for elves
I'm currently looking to be part of a team. Email [email protected] if you need someone to score Jew points and get trash questions (plus math and CS, somewhat, and various random shit).

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:22 pm
by evilmonkey
I'm looking for a team.
[email protected]

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:47 pm
by ktour84
I'm interested in playing. My email is [email protected]

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:59 pm
by DumbJaques
Jeremy Eaton and I are probably looking for teammates, as well.

EDIT: Oh, right, email me at [email protected]

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:08 pm
by walter12
I'm also looking for a team. E-mail me at [email protected]

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:16 pm
by Ethnic history of the Vilnius region
Bryn Reinecke and me, Eric D., are looking for teammates for CO. Feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:31 pm
by Nick
Okay. The moment that you’ve all been waiting for is finally upon us. After much deliberation and approval from our parents(because that’s how stuff works when you’re only 17) we have decided to attend the weekend event that is the Chicago Open. Needless to say, this announcement brings the total number of “megateams” up to three. We want to apologize for bringing hopelessness and despair to many of you who thought you might have had a chance, however, we will in fact be there to rock your world.

Ha. In all seriousness, we have made arrangements to attend the tournament and are very much looking forward to it. We are under no misconceptions as to the extreme level of difficulty and competition that will be experienced especially in comparison to what we normally play. It is our belief that whether we go 12-0(again, we understand the probability of this) or 0-12(hopefully not, but certainly a possibility) we should have an absolute blast. We will actually get to see the great players in action that we’ve heard and read about for so long.

With regards to these “megateams” that seem to be stirring up trouble, if our opinion matters at all, we support it whole-heartedly. It would be a privilege to see these quizbowl stars play the game at its best, and putting four of them on a team sounds astounding. Besides matching some QBwiki pictures with the faces of some of our readers at the HSNCT, the legendary guys on these teams are simply big names with big numbers spoken of on the forum with seeming reverence. These are literally the best players of the game, and well, we are ready to see the magic firsthand. On top of that, we also agree with the previously mentioned comments that this may dilute some of the super-talent, perhaps giving the rest of the field a more uncertain outcome—if that makes any sense. We know that winning isn’t everything and that the best way of winning games is studying and getting better and not necessarily hoping for a field with more less-able teams. We do, however, know that we will likely be one of the youngest, if not the youngest team present, and although utter obliteration is a definite possibility, we were hoping to win a game or so. Either way, it’s going to be sweet.

Its our understanding that over-ambitious high schoolers are permitted to compete, so Mr. Westbrook, if you would please sign us up. We would also encourage and even challenge other high school players or rising college freshmen to come out and play, so as perhaps to have a couple games within a somewhat equal range of ability. The more the merrier! Also, in our opinion, the more people that get involved, the better it is for the game of quizbowl, which is something of which we are all in favor.

In addition to the main event on Saturday, several of us will probably be competing in the subject tournaments as well, but we’ll post about that in the appropriate threads. We are jumping into a new pond with very big fish, so bear with us if we seem inexperienced or childish. Compared to most of you fossils, we very much are.

Thanks and we look forward to seeing all of you there,

-Nick Clusserath and George Stevens, Dorman ’08
-Todd Faulkenberry and Freddy Deangelis, Dorman ‘09

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:39 pm
by The Time Keeper
You guys are cool as hell for manning up and attending CO as a team while still in high school, and I'd be quite surprised if you didn't win some games here and there depending on the exact field.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:15 am
by Sima Guang Hater
Serious props to you all, dorman. I look forward to meeting you.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:32 am
by AKKOLADE
This will be pretty awesome!

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:49 am
by grapesmoker
Nick wrote:Okay. The moment that you’ve all been waiting for is finally upon us. After much deliberation and approval from our parents(because that’s how stuff works when you’re only 17) we have decided to attend the weekend event that is the Chicago Open. Needless to say, this announcement brings the total number of “megateams” up to three. We want to apologize for bringing hopelessness and despair to many of you who thought you might have had a chance, however, we will in fact be there to rock your world.

Ha. In all seriousness, we have made arrangements to attend the tournament and are very much looking forward to it. We are under no misconceptions as to the extreme level of difficulty and competition that will be experienced especially in comparison to what we normally play. It is our belief that whether we go 12-0(again, we understand the probability of this) or 0-12(hopefully not, but certainly a possibility) we should have an absolute blast. We will actually get to see the great players in action that we’ve heard and read about for so long.

With regards to these “megateams” that seem to be stirring up trouble, if our opinion matters at all, we support it whole-heartedly. It would be a privilege to see these quizbowl stars play the game at its best, and putting four of them on a team sounds astounding. Besides matching some QBwiki pictures with the faces of some of our readers at the HSNCT, the legendary guys on these teams are simply big names with big numbers spoken of on the forum with seeming reverence. These are literally the best players of the game, and well, we are ready to see the magic firsthand. On top of that, we also agree with the previously mentioned comments that this may dilute some of the super-talent, perhaps giving the rest of the field a more uncertain outcome—if that makes any sense. We know that winning isn’t everything and that the best way of winning games is studying and getting better and not necessarily hoping for a field with more less-able teams. We do, however, know that we will likely be one of the youngest, if not the youngest team present, and although utter obliteration is a definite possibility, we were hoping to win a game or so. Either way, it’s going to be sweet.

Its our understanding that over-ambitious high schoolers are permitted to compete, so Mr. Westbrook, if you would please sign us up. We would also encourage and even challenge other high school players or rising college freshmen to come out and play, so as perhaps to have a couple games within a somewhat equal range of ability. The more the merrier! Also, in our opinion, the more people that get involved, the better it is for the game of quizbowl, which is something of which we are all in favor.

In addition to the main event on Saturday, several of us will probably be competing in the subject tournaments as well, but we’ll post about that in the appropriate threads. We are jumping into a new pond with very big fish, so bear with us if we seem inexperienced or childish. Compared to most of you fossils, we very much are.

Thanks and we look forward to seeing all of you there,

-Nick Clusserath and George Stevens, Dorman ’08
-Todd Faulkenberry and Freddy Deangelis, Dorman ‘09
You guys make CO sound like the NBA playoffs.

You're writing a packet, right?

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:05 am
by ClemsonQB
Yeah, I've already written my required amount and the other three intend on writing theirs this weekend.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:27 am
by Peter
As someone almost totally ignorant of Quiz Bowl logistics, might I ask how might one find details about, and possibly register for, the Chicago Open? (Sorry if such information is obviously posted somewhere that I've managed to miss.)

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:03 am
by Matt Weiner
Peter wrote:As someone almost totally ignorant of Quiz Bowl logistics, might I ask how might one find details about, and possibly register for, the Chicago Open? (Sorry if such information is obviously posted somewhere that I've managed to miss.)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5226

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:05 am
by Pilgrim
Hey, I'm looking for a team for this. [email protected]

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:01 am
by theMoMA
If you've made a team already, would you mind posting here, just so we can see what's out there?

I will be on a team of: Rob Carson, Gautam Kandlikar, Brendan Byrne, and me.

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 4:39 am
by MLafer
Current team: Matt Lafer, Ray Luo, Kelly Tourdot

Looking for: person who can answer some questions and help write a packet

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:25 am
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Eric Mukherjee's Harem includes me, Trygve Meade, and Shantanu Jha right now. If Eric so decrees it, we'll add a teammate, but until then we're looking for an undergrad who knows some things (it's kind of an expiriment to see how a team of OK undergrads/high schoolers could do at CO).

Re: Chicago Open Team Discussion

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:57 am
by ValenciaQBowl
Repeating from above, I'll be playing with Billy Beyer, Sean Platzer, and Jim Baker.