RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
- ThisIsMyUsername
- Auron
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I am pleased to announce that I will be editing the 2015 edition of the Chicago Open literature side-event tournament, to be played on the Sunday of this year's Chicago Open Weekend. It will be titled Recondite Individuals' Literary Knowledge Extravaganza (RILKE).
I will be writing the set with the assistance of Nick Jensen. Additionally, I will make use of several tossups that were not included in PADAWAN, which I had purposely set aside to be repurposed for this tournament, and which I have not discussed with or shown to anybody except their original writers. Those writers will receive an e-mail from me confirming the security of those questions, before any of them are used for this set.
This will be a singles tournament, designed to be played by 36 players. I will not open registration until the CO main event itself has been formally announced on these boards. However, once that announcement is up, I will accept registrations on a first-come, first-serve basis. If there is sufficient interest to warrant re-tooling the format, and expanding the field slightly, I will consider doing so.
All tossups will be 7.5 - 8.5 lines in Times New Roman, 10-point font, 1-inch margins, and will be power-marked.
My hope is to reward knowledge of both canonical works--well-established within the canon--and works that have received minimal or negligible quizbowl exposure. The goal is to keep answer-lines accessible while doing this, so that this is an enjoyable and still competitive experience for players of all skill level. (So, an ideal type of tossup for this tournament might be a two-work common-link on "heart", drawing only on My Traitor's Heart by Rian Malan and The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene, with substantive descriptive clues from both works.)
This tournament's format is based on last year's Gorilla Literature Singles (http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewto ... 21&t=15796), but with a couple of modifications.
There will be one seeding round of 30 tossups, in which everyone is broken into 6 rooms of 6. Based on the scores in that seeding round, players will then be sorted into 6 playoffs rooms. We will produce enough packets that there can be 8 playoff rounds (20 tossups each), but we may read only 7 rounds if the tournament runs behind. The packets have no tiebreakers.
Unlike last year's tournament, in which only points in the top room mattered, all points in the playoff rooms will count towards each player's final score for this tournament. However, different rooms have different point values for powers, gains, and negs. (I've tried to make the differentials large enough so that it will always be advantageous to move up rooms, rather than purposely dropping a couple of tossups to remain in the same room.) And the lower rooms are more volatile to hopefully keep things exciting for those who don't have much of a shot of getting to the top room.
Top Room (4 people) -- Score: (300) - (150) - (-75). Bottom player goes down.
Second Room (4 people) -- Score: (160) - (80) - (-40). Top player goes up, bottom player goes down.
Third Room (5 people) -- Score: (80) - (40) - (-20). Top player goes up, bottom two players go down.
Fourth Room (6 people) -- Score: (40) - (20) - (-10). Top two players go up, and bottom two players go down.
Fifth Room (7 people) -- Score: (12)- (6) - (-3). Top two players go up, and bottom two players go down.
Sixth Room (10 people) -- Score: (4) - (2) - (-1). Top two players go up.
Field (36 of 36):
Mike Cheyne
Dylan Minarik
Chris Borglum
Auroni Gupta
Rob Carson
Evan Adams
Andrew Hart
Tommy Casalaspi
Will Nediger
Matt Bollinger
Andrew Wang
Jordan Brownstein
Trevor Davis
Seth Teitler
Jordan Palmer
Saajid Moyen
Stephen Liu
Matt Lafer
Matt Jackson
Charles Hang
Will Holub-Moorman
Chris Manners
Jacob Reed
Chris Ray
Ike Jose
Jonathan Magin
Sam Bailey
Mike Sorice
Richard Yu
Jerry Vinokurov
Doug Yetman
Greg Peterson
Tejas Raje
Billy Beyer
Foster Hughes
Derek So
Staff (9 readers/scorekeepers + 1 stats):
John Lawrence
Will Alston
Ashvin Srivatsa
Marshall Steinbaum
Eric Mukherjee
Daniel Hothem
MIk Larsen
Kenji Golimlim
Victor Prieto (tentative)
Joe Su (stats)
I will be writing the set with the assistance of Nick Jensen. Additionally, I will make use of several tossups that were not included in PADAWAN, which I had purposely set aside to be repurposed for this tournament, and which I have not discussed with or shown to anybody except their original writers. Those writers will receive an e-mail from me confirming the security of those questions, before any of them are used for this set.
This will be a singles tournament, designed to be played by 36 players. I will not open registration until the CO main event itself has been formally announced on these boards. However, once that announcement is up, I will accept registrations on a first-come, first-serve basis. If there is sufficient interest to warrant re-tooling the format, and expanding the field slightly, I will consider doing so.
All tossups will be 7.5 - 8.5 lines in Times New Roman, 10-point font, 1-inch margins, and will be power-marked.
My hope is to reward knowledge of both canonical works--well-established within the canon--and works that have received minimal or negligible quizbowl exposure. The goal is to keep answer-lines accessible while doing this, so that this is an enjoyable and still competitive experience for players of all skill level. (So, an ideal type of tossup for this tournament might be a two-work common-link on "heart", drawing only on My Traitor's Heart by Rian Malan and The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene, with substantive descriptive clues from both works.)
This tournament's format is based on last year's Gorilla Literature Singles (http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewto ... 21&t=15796), but with a couple of modifications.
There will be one seeding round of 30 tossups, in which everyone is broken into 6 rooms of 6. Based on the scores in that seeding round, players will then be sorted into 6 playoffs rooms. We will produce enough packets that there can be 8 playoff rounds (20 tossups each), but we may read only 7 rounds if the tournament runs behind. The packets have no tiebreakers.
Unlike last year's tournament, in which only points in the top room mattered, all points in the playoff rooms will count towards each player's final score for this tournament. However, different rooms have different point values for powers, gains, and negs. (I've tried to make the differentials large enough so that it will always be advantageous to move up rooms, rather than purposely dropping a couple of tossups to remain in the same room.) And the lower rooms are more volatile to hopefully keep things exciting for those who don't have much of a shot of getting to the top room.
Top Room (4 people) -- Score: (300) - (150) - (-75). Bottom player goes down.
Second Room (4 people) -- Score: (160) - (80) - (-40). Top player goes up, bottom player goes down.
Third Room (5 people) -- Score: (80) - (40) - (-20). Top player goes up, bottom two players go down.
Fourth Room (6 people) -- Score: (40) - (20) - (-10). Top two players go up, and bottom two players go down.
Fifth Room (7 people) -- Score: (12)- (6) - (-3). Top two players go up, and bottom two players go down.
Sixth Room (10 people) -- Score: (4) - (2) - (-1). Top two players go up.
Field (36 of 36):
Mike Cheyne
Dylan Minarik
Chris Borglum
Auroni Gupta
Rob Carson
Evan Adams
Andrew Hart
Tommy Casalaspi
Will Nediger
Matt Bollinger
Andrew Wang
Jordan Brownstein
Trevor Davis
Seth Teitler
Jordan Palmer
Saajid Moyen
Stephen Liu
Matt Lafer
Matt Jackson
Charles Hang
Will Holub-Moorman
Chris Manners
Jacob Reed
Chris Ray
Ike Jose
Jonathan Magin
Sam Bailey
Mike Sorice
Richard Yu
Jerry Vinokurov
Doug Yetman
Greg Peterson
Tejas Raje
Billy Beyer
Foster Hughes
Derek So
Staff (9 readers/scorekeepers + 1 stats):
John Lawrence
Will Alston
Ashvin Srivatsa
Marshall Steinbaum
Eric Mukherjee
Daniel Hothem
MIk Larsen
Kenji Golimlim
Victor Prieto (tentative)
Joe Su (stats)
Last edited by ThisIsMyUsername on Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:50 pm, edited 40 times in total.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
What if a PADAWAN writer wants to play the set? Will you just eliminate the questions from that writer since they're so spread out between writers?
Nick Collins
C. E. Byrd '12 (Shreveport, LA)
Louisiana Tech '16, '17
University of Virginia
C. E. Byrd '12 (Shreveport, LA)
Louisiana Tech '16, '17
University of Virginia
- ThisIsMyUsername
- Auron
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll give the PADAWAN writers with leftover questions the option to play RILKE or have their questions used in it. But if they decide to play RILKE, their questions are going to be discarded. I'm not going to save them for the next time I write a literature tournament.Mnemosyne wrote:What if a PADAWAN writer wants to play the set? Will you just eliminate the questions from that writer since they're so spread out between writers?
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
You should attach their questions as a special bonus feature on RILKE's Blue-Ray release.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota
"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
Formerly U of Minnesota
"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
This sounds fun and I look forward to playing it.
There is a slight issue with the format, though. Assuming a uniform distribution of player skills (hopefully not too terribly inaccurate for the lower rooms, or perhaps even for the higher ones) with skill defined as percentile and percentage of tossups answered defined as player's percentile divided by sum of all players' percentiles in the room, there is a decrease in scoring between rooms 5 and 6, which can easily be remedied by halving the point values for room 6 (or doubling them for all other rooms). A spreadsheet with the data is attached.
There is a slight issue with the format, though. Assuming a uniform distribution of player skills (hopefully not too terribly inaccurate for the lower rooms, or perhaps even for the higher ones) with skill defined as percentile and percentage of tossups answered defined as player's percentile divided by sum of all players' percentiles in the room, there is a decrease in scoring between rooms 5 and 6, which can easily be remedied by halving the point values for room 6 (or doubling them for all other rooms). A spreadsheet with the data is attached.
- Attachments
-
- CO_lit_scoring.xlsx
- (45.9 KiB) Downloaded 352 times
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Penn '15
- Auks Ran Ova
- Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
- Posts: 4295
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
- Location: Minneapolis
- Contact:
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'm excited!
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??, BHSU forever
Member, ACF
Member emeritus, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??, BHSU forever
Member, ACF
Member emeritus, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
- ThisIsMyUsername
- Auron
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
If your base assumptions are correct, then I should indeed make the adjustments you request (i.e. doubling the point values for rooms 1-5). However, my assumption in how I set this up is that player skills are not uniformly distributed; that, in fact, player skill is clumped enough at the bottom of the field that the number of players in rooms 5 vs. 6 is more important than the difference in their skills.Ras superfamily wrote:This sounds fun and I look forward to playing it.
There is a slight issue with the format, though. Assuming a uniform distribution of player skills (hopefully not too terribly inaccurate for the lower rooms, or perhaps even for the higher ones) with skill defined as percentile and percentage of tossups answered defined as player's percentile divided by sum of all players' percentiles in the room, there is a decrease in scoring between rooms 5 and 6, which can easily be remedied by halving the point values for room 6 (or doubling them for all other rooms). A spreadsheet with the data is attached.
Rather than attempting to solve this quandary now, I think the best time would be after the field of 32 players has materialized. Once we have those names, we can make more sensible predictions of how evenly the skill level will be distributed.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'm interested to know why you think that. The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for your claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true (feel free to play around with the sheet to see exactly how much so). Have you observed this kind of distribution in quiz bowl results?ThisIsMyUsername wrote:If your base assumptions are correct, then I should indeed make the adjustments you request (i.e. doubling the point values for rooms 1-5). However, my assumption in how I set this up is that player skills are not uniformly distributed; that, in fact, player skill is clumped enough at the bottom of the field that the number of players in rooms 5 vs. 6 is more important than the difference in their skills.
I think the goal should be to have a generally fair format, not to make a format that might be fair for a given set of participants. It seems to me that having a format that is unfair for any of the commonly observed distributions in population data, e.g. normal, power law, sBG, uniform, is inherently unfair, though it obviously won't matter in distinguishing between the vast majority of finishes. Either way, you have at least considered the issue now, which is all I was really aiming for.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:Rather than attempting to solve this quandary now, I think the best time would be after the field of 32 players has materialized. Once we have those names, we can make more sensible predictions of how evenly the skill level will be distributed.
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Penn '15
- ThisIsMyUsername
- Auron
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Yes, look at the individual stats for other quizbowl tournaments with field sizes comparable to this. The difference in PPG between players decreases as you go down the stats sheet. Or, another way of seeing this: pick a range like 5 PPG, and see how large the groups of players with PPG within 5 PPG of each other are at the top of the individuals list, then see how big those groups are at the bottom. Quizbowl individual stats almost always clump at the bottom.Ras superfamily wrote: I'm interested to know why you think that. The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for your claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true (feel free to play around with the sheet to see exactly how much so). Have you observed this kind of distribution in quiz bowl results?
By the way, your spreadsheet proves the idea that room size will correct for differences in skill level without changing the point values, in certain situations: there is no increase in the points values between rooms 3 and 4, only a change in room size, but these rooms do not suffer from the problem that rooms 5 and 6 have on your spreadsheet. Which situations room-size corrections do or do not solve are dependent on the actual distribution of skill.
There is no such thing in quizbowl as a participant-independent concept of fairness. If there were, then we wouldn't need to have discussions after ACF Nationals about whether increasing or decreasing difficulty would "better distinguish" the strength of teams in the field. Tournaments do a good or bad job of determining a winner only relative to the field that played them. You don't write good questions based on an idealized, "objective" buzz distribution; you write good questions based on where people can actually buzz.I think the goal should be to have a generally fair format, not to make a format that might be fair for a given set of participants.
Of course, if one tailors the questions too closely to the field, it becomes unfair in a different way. But I don't think that what I'm proposing is in that territory.
This is absurd. How would you design a format that is "fair" for every single one of those of mutually contradictory population distributions? A format designed to be "fair" for normal distribution is not going to be "fair" for a uniform distribution, or vice versa.It seems to me that having a format that is unfair for any of the commonly observed distributions in population data, e.g. normal, power law, sBG, uniform, is inherently unfair, though it obviously won't matter in distinguishing between the vast majority of finishes.
The gist of this exchange is that you've: (a) suggested that the proposed tournament format is unfair, by applying it to a uniform distribution of quizbowl skill, even though you've given no reason whatsoever to believe that uniform distributions are the norm; (b) rejected the idea of improving the format based on projections of what the actual distribution might look like, as somehow less fair than building it around a cocktail of statistical distributions whose relevance to quizbowl results has never been established.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
This is pretty unfair. You can't look at a regular season tournament and conclude something meaningful about a side event at CO. Looking at the two most recent such events that have stats on hsquizbowl.org, here and here, I'm not seeing a huge clumping at the bottom.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:Yes, look at the individual stats for other quizbowl tournaments with field sizes comparable to this. The difference in PPG between players decreases as you go down the stats sheet. Or, another way of seeing this: pick a range like 5 PPG, and see how large the groups of players with PPG within 5 PPG of each other are at the top of the individuals list, then see how big those groups are at the bottom. Quizbowl individual stats almost always clump at the bottom.Ras superfamily wrote: I'm interested to know why you think that. The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for your claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true (feel free to play around with the sheet to see exactly how much so). Have you observed this kind of distribution in quiz bowl results?
This is not the same change in room size. 8->6 is a 25% decrease whereas 6-4 is a 33% decrease. This is the actual source of the difference.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:By the way, your spreadsheet proves the idea that room size will correct for differences in skill level without changing the point values, in certain situations: there is no increase in the points values between rooms 3 and 4, only a change in room size, but these rooms do not suffer from the problem that rooms 5 and 6 have on your spreadsheet. Which situations room-size corrections do or do not solve are dependent on the actual distribution of skill.
I'm not talking about the questions, I'm talking about the tournament format.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:There is no such thing in quizbowl as a participant-independent concept of fairness. If there were, then we wouldn't need to have discussions after ACF Nationals about whether increasing or decreasing difficulty would "better distinguish" the strength of teams in the field. Tournaments do a good or bad job of determining a winner only relative to the field that played them. You don't write good questions based on an idealized, "objective" buzz distribution; you write good questions based on where people can actually buzz.I think the goal should be to have a generally fair format, not to make a format that might be fair for a given set of participants.
Of course, if one tailors the questions too closely to the field, it becomes unfair in a different way. But I don't think that what I'm proposing is in that territory.
Formats like "round robin" and "playoff brackets" are robust to a variety of skill distributions, including all of the ones I mentioned. Formats like this one are not, so we should be aware of their shortcomings and try to correct for them.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:This is absurd. How would you design a format that is "fair" for every single one of those of mutually contradictory population distributions? A format designed to be "fair" for normal distribution is not going to be "fair" for a uniform distribution, or vice versa.It seems to me that having a format that is unfair for any of the commonly observed distributions in population data, e.g. normal, power law, sBG, uniform, is inherently unfair, though it obviously won't matter in distinguishing between the vast majority of finishes.
The gist of this exchange is that you've: (a) suggested that the proposed tournament format is unfair, by applying it to a uniform distribution of quizbowl skill, even though you've given no reason whatsoever to believe that uniform distributions are the norm; (b) rejected the idea of improving the format based on projections of what the actual distribution might look like, as somehow less fair than building it around a cocktail of statistical distributions whose relevance to quizbowl results has never been established.
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Penn '15
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
For the sake of providing actual useful data here rather than saying "look at the data", I've smoothed PPG from the last few CO side events that are available on hsquizbowl.org (history from '14, '13, and '12, and WELD from '12) and graphed their frequencies in buckets of 5. It looks like you can expect something like 13% of players to fall into the bucket (15,20], which is about 4 players at this tournament. That is hardly enough to support your argument that the players in rooms 6 and 5 are all so close in skill that the points per tossup should be the same between the rooms.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:The gist of this exchange is that you've: (a) suggested that the proposed tournament format is unfair, by applying it to a uniform distribution of quizbowl skill, even though you've given no reason whatsoever to believe that uniform distributions are the norm; (b) rejected the idea of improving the format based on projections of what the actual distribution might look like, as somehow less fair than building it around a cocktail of statistical distributions whose relevance to quizbowl results has never been established.
- Attachments
-
- smooth.png
- (75.04 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Penn '15
- ThisIsMyUsername
- Auron
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Yes, this is true. And that is why any variable-scoring format (such as this) is going to be far more prey to wackiness than is a round robin + playoff brackets format. I assume, though, that you are not advocating that I scrap a variable-scoring format altogether. I assume, rather, that you are advocating that I make adjustments to my proposed points values for the rooms, to eliminate the likelihood of one room systematically outscoring the room above it, while also avoiding arbitrarily huge gaps between rooms. As I said, I'm on board with that idea. I will probably end up changing the scoring values. The question is: for which rooms, and by how much.Ras superfamily wrote: Formats like "round robin" and "playoff brackets" are robust to a variety of skill distributions, including all of the ones I mentioned. Formats like this one are not, so we should be aware of their shortcomings and try to correct for them.
If there's a way to change the scoring values in the rooms so that it is generally pretty robust (without my having to use utterly ridiculous score values), and minimally affected by what plausible subset of 32 people playing CO sign up for RILKE, then I'll simply adopt those changes. If you have such a model, show it, I'll implement it, and our conversation is over.
But if there isn't one, and a format like this inherently is quite participant-dependent, the argument we seem to be having is what distribution should be used to make the adjustments. You seem to want to pick some abstract distribution that's common in general population statistics; I would want to pick a distribution empirically derived from quizbowl results, that's close to what we think the field will actually look like. To me, the disadvantage of what you're proposing is that your distribution will identify a particular pair of rooms as the source of "unfairness", and we'll have to correct those rooms; but, of course, those may be an entirely different set of rooms than the ones that would have had problems and our adjustment is really just picking a room at random in the name of "objectivity". In other words, I'm saying (in this instance): participant-dependent problems require participant-dependent solutions (teleological fairness). You seem to be saying: participant-independency is the root of fairness, even if actual distribution of skill among the real field doesn't resemble the ideal distribution used as the metric, and thus has divergent results (deontological fairness).
I am aware that these are not the same, and that a 33% difference in room size will make a bigger difference than a 25% difference. I was merely addressing your point that: "The skill distribution would have to be pretty extreme for [my] claim (that number of players dominates difference in skill level as a determiner of points scored) to be true", which seemed like you were saying that I basically cannot ever rely on number of players to correct for skill level in this format (since that case would be "extreme"), and I'll have to have point values vary between every pair of rooms. I'm not wedded to the current points scheme, but I am suggesting that the eventual solution may allow certain rooms to have different sizes and the same point values. And I would prefer this, so the points values don't spiral upwards too much.This is not the same change in room size. 8->6 is a 25% decrease whereas 6-4 is a 33% decrease. This is the actual source of the difference.
I've already conceded that the points values I initially chose may be fundamentally flawed for the field we're going to get. You're right that if the 32 players of RILKE look like the top 32 players at CO History 2014, I would need to adjust. However, my basic argument about changing the scoring is and was: (a) the stats will clump somewhere, and this clump will not be the same as one of the canonical distributions (uniform, normal, etc.); (b) until we know the field for this tournament, we won't know where this clump is going to be. Surely, what you just did--discounting using a dissimilar field as a metric because it is "pretty unfair", identifying a field that you think is similar, and using the tournament results from that field to try to predict where the clump will be--is exactly along the lines of what I'm saying should be the solution? So, what are we arguing about, at this point?For the sake of providing actual useful data here rather than saying "look at the data", I've smoothed PPG from the last few CO side events that are available on hsquizbowl.org (history from '14, '13, and '12, and WELD from '12) and graphed their frequencies in buckets of 5. It looks like you can expect something like 13% of players to fall into the bucket (15,20], which is about 4 players at this tournament. That is hardly enough to support your argument that the players in rooms 6 and 5 are all so close in skill that the points per tossup should be the same between the rooms.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Will the poor suckers who don't make the cut for the field have a shot at playing this, like some sort of dismal side room somewhere? (Such a room might also work for people who are interested in it but also have to leave relatively early and thus can't commit to the whole tournament)
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota
"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
Formerly U of Minnesota
"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Right, that's why I produced that graph: so we could see where the clumping actually will be and notice that it still makes the bottom two rooms unfair (and all the rest of them fair, in that scoring for a player increases as he moves up rooms). It's not so much about an argument at this point as it is about figuring out whether the format is fair, and I still think it is not based on the players in CO history and lit the past 3 years, and not just the top 32, mind you.ThisIsMyUsername wrote:Surely, what you just did--discounting using a dissimilar field as a metric because it is "pretty unfair", identifying a field that you think is similar, and using the tournament results from that field to try to predict where the clump will be--is exactly along the lines of what I'm saying should be the solution? So, what are we arguing about, at this point?
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Penn '15
- ThisIsMyUsername
- Auron
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:36 am
- Location: New York, NY
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I asked Max to do the math on the scoring system for this tournament, and he very kindly complied. He tried to project what the scores would have been like in each room had last year's Gorilla field been grouped into RILKE-style rooms. The results differed wildly from Saajid's predictions and even more drastically from my (admittedly terrible) predictions. I've completely overhauled the score values in each room based on his recommendations, as guided by the data he generated. The revised score values can be found in the edited version of my first post. As you can see, the score differentials are now gigantic, but this is apparently the best way to ensure that each room stays ahead of the rooms below it. Hopefully, I will not need to change the score values again, but we'll see.
Since the Chicago Open main announcement is up, I'm opening registration for this tournament now, as I said I would. You may register for this tournament simply by posting in this thread to say that you're registering. Of course, the weekend for Chicago Open has not been settled yet, so registrations are not binding.
Since the Chicago Open main announcement is up, I'm opening registration for this tournament now, as I said I would. You may register for this tournament simply by posting in this thread to say that you're registering. Of course, the weekend for Chicago Open has not been settled yet, so registrations are not binding.
John Lawrence
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Yale University '12
King's College London '13
University of Chicago '20
“I am not absentminded. It is the presence of mind that makes me unaware of everything else.” - G.K. Chesterton
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I plan on playing.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota
"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
Formerly U of Minnesota
"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger
- Harpie's Feather Duster
- Forums Staff: Administrator
- Posts: 1117
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:45 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I will play this.
Dylan Minarik
Hamburger University 'XX
Northwestern '17
Belvidere North High School '13
Member Emeritus, PACE
JRPG Champion, BACK TO BACK Robot Slayer
Hamburger University 'XX
Northwestern '17
Belvidere North High School '13
Member Emeritus, PACE
JRPG Champion, BACK TO BACK Robot Slayer
- naan/steak-holding toll
- Auron
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll staff this, presuming nothing interferes with going to CO.
Will Alston
Dartmouth College '16
Columbia Business School '21
Dartmouth College '16
Columbia Business School '21
- ValenciaQBowl
- Auron
- Posts: 2560
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Orlando, Florida
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
If CO is not held on the July 25th weekend, I will definitely play this; however, as this is the only weekend I can't make it, surely it will be held then and I will be sad.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah
Valencia College Grand Poobah
- Auks Ran Ova
- Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
- Posts: 4295
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
- Location: Minneapolis
- Contact:
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'm in, of course.
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??, BHSU forever
Member, ACF
Member emeritus, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??, BHSU forever
Member, ACF
Member emeritus, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
- women, fire and dangerous things
- Tidus
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:34 pm
- Location: Örkko, Cimmeria
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll play this.
Will Nediger
-Proud member of the cult of Urcuchillay-
University of Western Ontario 2011, University of Michigan 2017
Member emeritus, ACF
Writer, NAQT
-Proud member of the cult of Urcuchillay-
University of Western Ontario 2011, University of Michigan 2017
Member emeritus, ACF
Writer, NAQT
- The King's Flight to the Scots
- Auron
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm
- Good Goblin Housekeeping
- Auron
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 10:03 am
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'm interested in not getting question sign Me up
Andrew Wang
Illinois 2016
Illinois 2016
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll play this.
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11
University of Alberta
CMU '11
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll play.
-Seth
-Seth
Seth Teitler
Formerly UC Berkeley and U. Chicago
President of NAQT
Emeritus member of ACF
Formerly UC Berkeley and U. Chicago
President of NAQT
Emeritus member of ACF
- Excelsior (smack)
- Rikku
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:20 am
- Location: Madison, WI
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll staff if I'm at CO (which I presume I will be).
Ashvin Srivatsa
Corporate drone '?? | Yale University '14 | Sycamore High School (OH) '10
Corporate drone '?? | Yale University '14 | Sycamore High School (OH) '10
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
If there's still room I would like to enter as a player. Please sign me up.
Jordan Palmer, Nick Penner's Hero.
Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait.
Pass by, and curse thy fill, but pass and stay not here thy gait.
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:21 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
As I stated earlier in the thread, I would like to play this
Saajid Moyen
Penn '15
Penn '15
-
- Yuna
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:45 am
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'd also like to play.
Stephen Liu
Torrey Pines '10
Harvard '14
Stanford '17
Torrey Pines '10
Harvard '14
Stanford '17
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I would like to play.
Matt Lafer
Plymouth Salem 1997-2001
University of Michigan 2001-2005
Plymouth Salem 1997-2001
University of Michigan 2001-2005
- Adventure Temple Trail
- Auron
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:52 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I am interested in this event and wonder if some other method of registration like emailing might make sense.
Matt Jackson
University of Chicago '24
Yale '14, Georgetown Day School '10
member emeritus, ACF
University of Chicago '24
Yale '14, Georgetown Day School '10
member emeritus, ACF
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll play this.
Charles Hang
Francis Howell Central '09
St. Charles Community College '14
Washington University in St. Louis '19, 2x (President, 2017-19)
Owner, Olympia Academic Competition Questions, LLC
Question Writer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC and National History Bee and Bowl
Francis Howell Central '09
St. Charles Community College '14
Washington University in St. Louis '19, 2x (President, 2017-19)
Owner, Olympia Academic Competition Questions, LLC
Question Writer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC and National History Bee and Bowl
- Mewto55555
- Tidus
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:27 pm
- hydrocephalitic listlessness
- Forums Staff: Moderator
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Same here.Mewto55555 wrote:If I'm at CO I'm in.
Will H-M
Harvard '16
Princeton ~'26
ACF
Harvard '16
Princeton ~'26
ACF
- Muriel Axon
- Tidus
- Posts: 729
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:19 am
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
And here.Mewto55555 wrote:If I'm at CO I'm in.
Shan Kothari
Plymouth High School '10
Michigan State University '14
University of Minnesota '20
Plymouth High School '10
Michigan State University '14
University of Minnesota '20
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'll play if I'm there, which is likely.
Quince Orchard HS '11
Maryland - College Park '15
Well, you built up a world of magic
Because your real life is tragic
Yeah, you built up a world of magic
- Gonzagapuma1
- Tidus
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I will staff if I'm there.
Dan Puma
Alum: Gonzaga, Montgomery College, University of Maryland
Currently Unaffiliated
MAQT President-ish, 2014-2015
Champion of the Modern World, 2014
Former Member, PACE
Alum: Gonzaga, Montgomery College, University of Maryland
Currently Unaffiliated
MAQT President-ish, 2014-2015
Champion of the Modern World, 2014
Former Member, PACE
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Yup.hydrocephalitic listlessness wrote:Same here.Mewto55555 wrote:If I'm at CO I'm in.
Jacob R., ex-Chicago
- DumbJaques
- Forums Staff: Administrator
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
- Location: Columbus, OH
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
Of course I will play this John Lawrence tournament.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I'd like to play this tournament.
Jonathan Magin
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF
"noted difficulty controller"
Montgomery Blair HS '04, University of Maryland '08
Editor: ACF
"noted difficulty controller"
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I would like to play this.
Sam Bailey
Minnesota '21
Chicago '13
Minnesota '21
Chicago '13
- Captain Sinico
- Auron
- Posts: 2675
- Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
- Location: Champaign, Illinois
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I will neg anything if you give me a chance. Just try to stop me!
Mike Sorice
Former Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-2020) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
Member, ACF (Emeritus), IHSSBCA, & PACE
Former Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-2020) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
Member, ACF (Emeritus), IHSSBCA, & PACE
-
- Tidus
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:57 am
- Location: Washington DC
Re: RILKE: Chicago Open Literature Singles 2015
I will tentatively sign up for this tournament, but I'm not absolutely certain I will be at CO this year.
Ted Gioia - Harvard '12
Editor ACF, PACE
Editor ACF, PACE