The Quizbowl Resource Center

Georgetown Day School will be hosting the Ben Cooper Memorial Tournament on 11/8/08 at the Georgetown Day High School Campus in Northwest Washington, DC. This tournament will use the No Name Tournament set, edited by Christian Carter, Shantanu Jha, and me with contributions from many illustrious members of the quizbowl community. All teams are invited to attend.

Format
The tournament format will depend on the number of teams attending, but the planned format will be described here. The field will be divided into preliminary brackets of 6, and a round-robin will be played within each bracket. Teams will be then be rebracked based on win-loss record into new brackets of 6. If there is a tie in record, bonus converstion will be used to break the tie. A second round-robin will then be played in each bracket. The winner of the top bracket will be the tournament champion. If necessary, an ACF-format final will be played. Comments and suggestions on this format are requested.

Prizes/Schedule
Trophies will be provided for the top 3 teams, along with awards for the top individual scorers and neg leaders in the preliminary rounds. Registration will take place between 8:00 am and 8:50 am, with games beginning at 9 am. A light breakfast will be provided.

Fees
$60 for the first team
$50 for each additional team
-$10 per working buzzer system
-$10 for an experienced moderator/scorekeeper
The question set will be made freely available online following the conclusion of all mirrors of NNT on 11/22.

GDS is located 3 blocks from the Tenleytown Metro Station on the Red Line, at 4200 Davenport St., NW. Free parking is available on campus. There are a number of restaurants in the area for lunch. For more information or to register, please email Ian Eppler at [email protected]. The registration deadline is November 1st. We hope to see you at our tournament!

What a heartbreak, same date as ACF fall. I guess I would go to ACF fall and then a NY mirror of NNT, if I were really hardcore.
PS. For doing this to me, I'm going to not register until the very last minute just to fluster you!

Registration is now officially open.

Field (updated 11/01):
Archbishop Spalding (MD) x2
Banneker (DC) x2
Bloomfield (NJ)
Caesar Rodney (DE)
Centennial (MD) x2
Churchill (MD) x2
Gonzaga (DC)
Hunter (NY)
Lake Braddock (VA)
Kellenberg (NY) x3
Maggie Walker (VA)
Maret (DC) x3
Mercersburg (PA) x2
Sidwell Friends (DC)
St. Anselm's (DC) x2
Thomas Jefferson (VA) x3
Tucker (VA)
Walter Johnson (MD)
Whitman (MD)
Wilmington Charter (DE) x2
Wilson (DC)

Expressed interest (Updated 11/01):
Blake (MD)
Covenant School (VA)

Email invitations were sent out today. We are probably going to cap the field at 36 teams. There is still plenty of space left, but please register early to secure a spot in the field and to help me remain sane. Thanks!

I'd like to help out/moderate, so if any of the NY area teams (Hunter or Kellenberg) could give me a lift down with them I'd love to help out.

Blake is "expressing interest" and should send you an email in a few days.

CR will look into this. After playing well today a couple of us are thinking we don't want to go 5 weeks til our next competition at Penn... so we shall see and try to get back to you as soon as i know some real answers. This would likely be just one team, as well.

Double post.

Is there a list, Ian, of the distribution for these packets, in terms of subjects covered and frequency, etc.?

As I recall, the NNT distribution is based on the Minnesota Undergraduate Tournament distribution:

* History 5/5 (must vary reasonably by place and time)
* Science 5/5 (no science biography, please; 1/1 physics, chem, and bio is required)
* Literature 5/5 (must vary reasonably by place and time)
* Religion/Mythology/Philosophy 3/3 (1/1 of each; not all Western)
* Fine Arts 3/3 (at least 1/1 painting and 1/1 music; the other 1/1 is your choice, but be creative)
* Social Science 1/2 or 2/1 (no more than one question per discipline; disciplines include law, anthropology, sociology, psychology, paleontology, economics, game theory, etc)
* Geography 0/1 or 1/0 (write a geography tossup or bonus, but not both)
* Pop Culture/sports 1/1 (no more than 1 question on any category)

That is correct.

Hey, we've gotten a flood of registrations within the last few days. Currently, we have only (edit)2 spots remaining in the field, including teams that have expressed interest but have not officially registered. If you're interested in attending and you aren't on either list, email me at [email protected] as soon as possible so that I can hold a spot. If you are no longer planning to attend and you're included on one of the lists, email me and let me know so that I can give the spot to another team. Thanks!

Could you post a field update? I'm unsure whether or not we're registered; I'll ask my coach tomorrow.

A running field update is available above (3rd post in the thread, I believe.) Mr. Caulfield hasn't emailed me yet.

Hopper wrote: Format
The tournament format will depend on the number of teams attending, but the planned format will be described here. The field will be divided into preliminary brackets of 6, and a round-robin will be played within each bracket. Teams will be then be rebracked based on win-loss record into new brackets of 6. If there is a tie in record, bonus converstion will be used to break the tie. A second round-robin will then be played in each bracket. The winner of the top bracket will be the tournament champion. If necessary, an ACF-format final will be played. Comments and suggestions on this format are requested.

I'm not sure that this format would be the best thing, given that there are 7 or 8 clearly good teams, and a fairly large gap between those teams and the rest of the field. I mean, I don't think there's an easy solution, but I'm not too crazy about the idea that at least one or two really strong teams will have to leave the tournament having only played anothet top team once. I guess my proposal would be to do swiss pair for prelims (which would be perfect if there were 32 teams); in this case, you'll have to lose twice before being eliminated from the top bracket, and any potential problem about unequal brackets would be solved. The other, perhaps better way would be to write more packets to increase the size of playoff brackets to 8.

aestheteboy wrote: I'm not sure that this format would be the best thing, given that there are 7 or 8 clearly good teams, and a fairly large gap between those teams and the rest of the field. I mean, I don't think there's an easy solution, but I'm not too crazy about the idea that at least one or two really strong teams will have to leave the tournament having only played anothet top team once. I guess my proposal would be to do swiss pair for prelims (which would be perfect if there were 32 teams); in this case, you'll have to lose twice before being eliminated from the top bracket, and any potential problem about unequal brackets would be solved. The other, perhaps better way would be to write more packets to increase the size of playoff brackets to 8.

Yeah, on second glance, I'm not such a huge fan of this format. We will probably switch to some variation on the PACE-style format that was used at UMD and TJ.

Counting the teams that have expressed interest, our field is full. Once again, if your team is no longer planning to attend this tournament, please let me know so that space will be available for other interested teams.

I'm more than likely committed to coming and playing now, once I get the final information from Guy.

Hey Ian, do you have anything close to a ballpark estimate of when this will end? I need to figure out how I'm getting home and having some idea would help...

I am curious of what the official field is at this point. Is there anyway a list of teams can be posted any time soon?

Damn... I was planning on attending but a conference on-campus which I need to attend has been scheduled against it. Sorry I can't help out.

TheCzarMan wrote:I'm more than likely committed to coming and playing now, once I get the final information from Guy.

Awesome. E-mail me to confirm your registration.

MLWGS-Gir wrote:Hey Ian, do you have anything close to a ballpark estimate of when this will end? I need to figure out how I'm getting home and having some idea would help...

It should end no later than 6 pm, but probably closer to 5:30.

ImaPC wrote:I am curious of what the official field is at this point. Is there anyway a list of teams can be posted any time soon?

Field update is available above.

If you're from Blake, I still haven't received an e-mail confirming your registration. Please e-mail me (or have Caulfield e-mail me) as soon as possible, or you will lose your spot in the field.

Crap. He should have emailed you, as I can officially confirm we are bringing 1 team [and because we lug one around with us, one buzzer set.] I'll shoot an email to Caulfield, also.

Barring any last-minute changes, this is the final field:

Archbishop Spalding (MD) x2
Banneker (DC) x2
Blake (MD)
Bloomfield (NJ)
Caesar Rodney (DE)
Centennial (MD) x2
Churchill (MD) x2
Gonzaga (DC) x2
Hunter (NY)
Lake Braddock (VA)
Kellenberg (NY) x3
Maggie Walker (VA)
Maret (DC) x3
Mercersburg (PA) x2
Mt. Vernon (VA)
Sidwell Friends (DC)
St. Anselm's (DC)
Thomas Jefferson (VA) x3
Tucker (VA)
Walter Johnson (MD)
Whitman (MD)
Wilmington Charter (DE) x2
Wilson (DC)

Ian, how many packets total do you guys have? And did you decide what tournament format to use?

By the way, is Gonzaga sending their A team to this event?

I will not be able to attend due to unforeseen expenses it seems. Sorry for the late notice.

We're still coming (no worries) but i would be surprised if i'll be able to read/moderate at all tomorrow. My voice is practically gone right now and it's a struggle... i didn't read at all for practice today.

I'll let you know in the morning when we arrive, but right now you can probably assume that i'm not going to be up for it. Sorry... i really enjoy doing so, so i'm going to hope i'll improve.

Prelim stats are available at:http://results.scobo.net/SQBS.aspx?org= ... =standings.

Quick results:
1. Walter Johnson
2. Maggie Walker
3. Charter
4. Gonzaga
5. Hunter
6. Kellenberg

Prelim stats were made available in my previous post; playoff stats will be up in the near future. Please don't discuss the set online yet, as it will be used at other sites over the next few weeks. I'd like to apologize (if I didn't do so in person) for the repeats and logistical problems. I hope that it did not detract too much from your enjoyment of the tournament, and I would appreciate your comments, criticism, and feedback. Email me at [email protected]. Thanks for coming, and we hope to see you at future GDS tournaments.

Eh, 6:30 is hardly a disasterous time to be wrapping up. Late, but not disasterous. At least you had stats up quickly.

Congrats to all the teams participating, especially Daichi and Walter Johnson for winning the tournament

Wait a second, I heard that TJ beat Kellenberg and played Hunter in some sort of consolation and lost to them, so wouldn't TJ A be 6th?

It sounds like this was a great tournament - shame I couldn't make it

For those of you who are interested: After prelims, the top 16 teams were grouped into 4 brackets. Gov (2) and WJ (3) won without any upsets, and Gonzaga (5) beat Hunter (4) by 15 points or so. Charter (1) lost to Kellenberg (9), and Kellenberg lost to TJ(8), creating a circle of death; it seems like Charter went into the semifinals based on PPG, since we didn't have enough questions to break ties. Gov beat Charter, WJ beat Gonzaga in the semis. It was interesting that we managed to win the tournament without playing Charter or Hunter.

I thought the questions were actually pretty good. The tossups were very enjoyable, although some of them were probably too difficult, both in terms of clue selection (particularly with science - very few questions were answered early) and answer selection; there were weak leadins/second clues, but I would say less than most tournaments I've been to. Bonus fluctuation was definitely there, and I'm afraid that affected the outcome of some key games. The most noticeable problem was impossible third parts. There must have been at least 10 bonus parts which were converted by no team in this tournament (and probably no team playing the set). Overall, I liked the set. I'd like to thank the NNT writers for their good job.

The abundance of free food compensated for the below-average logistics (it wasn't that bad, anyway).

One of the areas where I can't really be apologetic is the readers, at least in the prelims. I understand they were mainly new at reading, but some were just really, really awful. We had one who continued to give the answer after only one team negged, even after being asked not to, and would repeatedly ask whether he could give the answer after a bonus was missed; a reader who would attempt to pronounce things, get halfway through, and give up, leaving us without a clue; and one who would randomly pause in the middle of questions for 3 or 4 seconds. They really detracted from the games, and shows what happen when green readers meet complicated questions- to avoid this in the future, maybe a pronunciation key should be provided?

The questions were hard... but fair. I mostly enjoyed the sets. I wish i could have moderated... sorry about my voice, but it needed the break today. I'm glad i got to help out in some way though scorekeeping.

The science questions, as Daichi mentioned, were quite difficult... many of them with answers/concepts i've never even heard of before (nor had our senior team member who specializes in science). I think they were still fair, and i'm not going to complain about them, but i will say that to hear a question give ridiculously hard clues in a bonus, then suddenly just go "with atomic symbol [symbol]" is a little odd. But that's just a minor thing.

Logistical problems... those aren't your fault, Ian. I really think you did a fine job today. I will say that rounds were a little long due to the long questions and bonus clues... but i've never complained about longer, more detailed questions... and i'm not about to now. Some moderators, though, really held up some rounds... but that's clearly not your fault either.

Overall, nice job, and we had fun today. A couple close games that tanked us and dropped us out of a potential playoff bid, but we would have just been killed in those games so maybe it's not so bad that we got a couple more wins in the consolations.

Seconding the awesomeness of the free food. I would have liked to play more of the top teams than we did, but I understand that the limited number of sets affected this. Overall, as well, the set was good but I will also second Daichi's comments about bonus fluctuation. I've emailed specific comments to Ian for things that probably need to be fixed before the remaining mirrors... The trophies were cool, too. I have never seen trophies like that before.

I think that the science questions were out of hand. They all seemed to gravitate to one topic and give long rambling clues that ended in buzzer races or a dead tossups

I did not attend the tournament and therefore did not hear any of the science questions from the set, but I will say this much. Good, actual science questions (not NAQT SCIENCE!) often seem like they are long and rambling and end in a buzzer race. Why? They are well written and usually start off with hard clues that only people who have taken college-level science would know. By college-level, I mean beyond AP Bio/Chem/Physics. By the time these questions mention clues that players would know from a standard high school class, the tossup becomes a buzzer race. For people who have deep knowledge of science or want to learn hard science, tossups that begin with high school level clues are painful at best.

Some of these are probably on med school level for the first clue.

Glacierguy1 wrote:Some of these are probably on med school level for the first clue.

Unless the editors went insane or all the packets were more difficult than the one I wrote, I will guarantee you that that's completely false.

Just like people say hard lit/art/RMP is good, hard science is good

That is especially the case when you're writing for a big field or many mirrors--you know that there's going to be a game out there where the teams are evenly matched in everything but science--and with a good science player, the harder opening clues are, in fact, meaningful. If it uses a CO-level leadin and then resumes its normal career as a high school tossup, then that's obviously a problem. But even the most cracked-out editor isn't going to do that.

Just like people say hard lit/art/RMP is good, hard science is good

Of course, non-specialists are more likley to get hard lit/art/RMP than hard science.
Incidentally, did people feel that the science was at a higher level of difficulty than the other categories, or were all the categories at the same difficulty level?

Moral: Non-specialists should get better at science, too.

Johannes Climacus wrote:to avoid this in the future, maybe a pronunciation key should be provided?

I have found that this doesn't really help in general; experience is what helps people push through long, unfamiliar science words.

No, science was clearly harder than any of the other categories. Some of the literature was slightly obscure, but nothing compared to the science answers that were coming out of left field over and over again... with, again, "with periodic table symbol [symbol]" several times as a final clue on bonus questions to bring the difficulty back down to 6th grade by the end of them.

With all due respect to the posters here (and not having seen or heard the questions, so I may be completely putting my foot in my mouth and these questions might just be out of left field, as you say), it's not a bad idea to have high school science questions that don't rely on stock clues. It's hard not to rely on stock clues without mentioning some material well beyond the AP level. I find it interesting. In fact, I deal with science tossups I don't know just like lit/art/RMP questions I don't know; I pay attention and learn the hard clues.

My science was actively written easier than my literature (for example) because the problem is, here, that you're actually competing with perceptions. NAQT science has fraudable clues; my biggest transition to playing mACF was getting questions off of real knowledge. I still can't play real bio the way I could play NAQT bio.

That said, Naren, you're extremely good at science and presumably not this tournament's principle audience, since it was presumably not meant to be harder than the typical event.

Atomic number giveaways are a separate problem; either the question should be made easier by other means or it should be left hard; you shouldn't reduce it to almanac knowledge. (That said, sometimes some things stand out disproportionally; give me the set and I'll take a look sometime after HFT.)

Andy, I think what I was getting at was your point that NAQT (and a lot of high school tournaments up to this point) had fraudable clues for science tossups, so the recent push towards more academic questions has made science (where the most egregious fraud had been taking place) seem much harder.

Andy, I think what I was getting at was your point that NAQT (and a lot of high school tournaments up to this point) had fraudable clues for science tossups, so the recent push towards more academic questions has made science (where the most egregious fraud had been taking place) seem much harder.

Also, the fact is that it is harder to fraud academic science than some other academic categories. For instance, as long we write creator tossups, than we will have a certain amount of list-memorization unless we resort to putting all titles in the givaway, in which case we could have the unpyrimidality of less-well known facts coming before well-known ones.

everyday847 wrote: If it uses a CO-level leadin and then resumes its normal career as a high school tossup, then that's obviously a problem. But even the most cracked-out editor isn't going to do that.

Why would that be a problem. I thought the point of 1 hard lead in clue at basic college level was supposed to make it only for AP/ Really specialized Science Player, and then the clues could decrease back to the top of high school knowledge and all the way to for ten points, name this mildly easy clue.

Glacierguy1 wrote:

everyday847 wrote: If it uses a CO-level leadin and then resumes its normal career as a high school tossup, then that's obviously a problem. But even the most cracked-out editor isn't going to do that.

Why would that be a problem. I thought the point of 1 hard lead in clue at basic college level was supposed to make it only for AP/ Really specialized Science Player, and then the clues could decrease back to the top of high school knowledge and all the way to for ten points, name this mildly easy clue.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, so forgive me. CO is nothing like basic college level; it's generally the hardest event of the year. (I guess that could be an abbreviation for 'college', I realize; it's not meant to be.)

What I'm saying is a clue that really might be something that zero undergraduates learn, ever, would be pretty unlikely to come up at a generic college tournament, so the only way your "med-school" argument applies is maybe to, like, the hardest college clues that are ever written. Consequently, that would create a ridiculous difficulty cliff.

But yeah, having a hard leadin is so specialized science players can outbuzz less specialized players.