I guess most of the day's participants are busy preparing for their exams, so it falls on me to record the results and leave the floor open for reviews.
Results
1st: Kunal Sawardekar & Ganesh Hegde
2nd: Anand Sivashankar & Vibhendu Tiwari
3rd: Niranjan Pedanekar + 1
Also: Salil Bijur & Siddharth Dani, Gaurav Sabnis & Sarika Chuni and Sudarshan Purohit & Srihari Suthamally
Organised by J. Ramanand & other Persistent quizzers
Reports
Got some feedback from Niranjan, Gaurav, Sud, Sarika & Harish. If you have any comments, please use the commenting boxes.
From my part, the disappointing feature was the abbreviated nature of the finals, with barely more questions than in the elims. Also, a few repeats in the elims.
Only 4 out of the 44 qns were unanswered with all teams putting on a good show and providing great answers.
6 comments:
Really liked the quiz, iut was interesting, but answerable, the organisers should be very proud of themselves.
One interesting aspects was that the seating arrangement was completely decided by the elims toppers. I think this was a little unfair, because we, as elims toppers, were able to decide on an arrangement most suitable to us.
The quiz in a way was interesting because:-
of the unique seating system,
the winner was decided by a tie-breaker, which resulted in a 'slip-of-pen' on part of the team that came 2nd,
there were some really workable questions (including one that required working out math involving conversion of inches into yards)
the system of team names was done away with (more focus on content)
in the elims, there was no qn. no. 42.
D-uh ! Who’s Jason ?
ELIMS—We asked for a third replay, pointedly refused :)
I felt some q’s did not do justice to the obvious effort in setting them—i.e. that Tendulkar q was too simple for that much research on Clapham, England etc..
Good spread of topics—with something for all—still feel a 70% top score is way too high from the statistics p.o.v—
I hate AVs so will let that by …
FINALS—Very good mix again, reflecting the eclectic repertoire of the setters.
Too few q’s –otherwise the brilliant performance of Teams B & C –they got a staggering ( 5 + 6) out of 22 q in Part 2—would not have gone unnoticed.
Again, my innate conservatism surfaces—40/44 q answered is way too high…
I have no opinion on seating etc, as I am not a believer in IR.
Well done !
Anand, Jason was the leader of the argonauts :-)
Unlike you, I prefer more qns being answered, so for me a high %age of qns answered is better than a minefield of a pitch. It can however mean that the quiz was too easy, but it can also mean that the quiz was "workable" and offered everyone a good shot. So when I set qns & wonder if a qn is too tough, I'd rather err on the side of answerability. I'm not denying that some finals qns were easier and perhaps shouldn't have been there, but some compulsions on my part. As for eclectic nature of setters, well, i'll hog the compliment, as about 38 qns were mine :-)
Niranjan & your team got some crackers, no doubt. Gaurav+Sarika missed a few early on, otherwise their 2nd half surge would have mattered more. What i'm happy was that despite a range of qns (though leaning towards lit+etymology) no one was really affected majorly. Kunal + Ganesh were probably the best balanced team on show & hence benefited.
Should have had more qns no doubt. The yearender should have the requisite amt to sate the thirst.
I agree. Questions are meant to be answered. And elims should not be like a university paper where full marks are discouraged. And the final quiz should not be (as we've seen in some cases) a platform for the QM to show he's smarter.
Great to hear all the comments.
Missed being a part of the excellent Pune quizzing season this year.
Post a Comment