Date: 5th November 2005.
Venue: Dewang Mehta Auditorium.
Organised by: Abhishek Nagraj, Kapeesh Saraf, Aniket Khasgiwale (I hope I spelled that right) & Gaurav Singh.
Main Quiz Results:
1st: Shamanth Rao + Kunal Sawardekar.
2nd: Anand Shivshankar + Meghashyam Shirodkar.
3rd: Maj. Brijesh Nair + Manish Manke.
Also: Gaurav Sabnis + D. Dharmendra; Niranjan Pedanekar + Sudarshan Purohit; Shivaji Marella + Ganesh Hegde
Picture Quiz Results:
1st: Niranjan Pedanekar.
2nd: Ganesh Hegde.
Comments
Some questions in this regard: How many people have taken up quizzing for the first time at BCQC and have continued doing it in a competitive manner for a sizeable amount of time?
Do we really think that people who have turned up at the BCQC in the hope of 'taking up quizzing' as a possible 'new hobby' should return in large numbers owing to the interest that was generated in the BCQC sessions? IMO, quizzing is related to an individual's choice of having a good time, not a past-time that is cultivated at short notice, which he/she can be lured into or driven to.
I don't quite agree - I think JR would be a good example for that. I know the interests are dormant somewhat - but the BCQC has to provide an outlet - you don't need to actually quiz before to know you can.
I agree with Niranjan: most people who have come and stayed back forever have been into quizzing even if not formally. Look at some of the late bloomers (if i can call them that): Harish, Sammy, Sud - I'm sure they always had that bent of mind.
BC quizzing helped all of us improve tremendously - at an accelerated pace, irrespective of where we started from.
That would help in making a better Chakravyuh.
The packaging,scoring systemm and the Pic quiz were great.
Now, the areas of improvement :
1. Too many questions.
2. Too many 'direct' questions - which could be answered by the first or the second team.
3. Too many questions which weren't processed much - straight off the net with a proper noun replaced with an X.
4. Inconsistent 'pitch' - a great Question (don't remember which one it was) followed by the Trevor C one.
5. Some questions were very long.
The effort that went into the quiz didn't deserve the dull response it was getting because of the lack of passing,length of questions and non-workability of the questions.
The questions were mostly workable, but some were workable for only experts in those fields (eg. the nicknames-of-EPL-teams connect).
I'd elaborate Harish's point of processing the question: If the question is to identify the person X with some given info, details like the birthdate are unnecessary. They not only make the question long, but tend to be useless (and may be misleading).
Waiting for a better Chakravyuh!
As for the first time stuff - it's really hard to judge what ppl will get and what they won't - so more experience would help one get better at judging that. The consisteny will similarly get better with more 'stirring'.
I totally agree as for the processing part. Maybe a more 'spunkier' question presentation - cutting out the crap. But sometimes it's better to let the participants dig out the necessary parts.
If the quizmaster is hesitant to read out the entire question during the quiz, then it's too long. I was myself guilty of having too-long questions in my quiz, and I noticed Abhishek too pointing out the 'relevant' parts of the Qs during the quiz. That implies that there are non-relevant parts too.
It's true what you say, though - some questions deliberately require people to dig out the relevant part - but these Qs shouldn't be in the majority.