Set by Ramanand J, Harish Kumar
Conducted by: J Ramanand
Flavour: General
Attended by ~30 teams
Format: Written elims of 25 questions. Finals (2*10 questions on IR (with One-finite Pounce per half) and one written round on sobriquets (5 qns)
Results:
1st: Saikat Sarkar and Kshitij Jyoti (AFMC): 120 pts (19/6* in prelims)
2nd: Suraj Prabhu (FC) and Aniketh Rallabhandi (SCOE): 95 pts (19/4*)
Jt 3rd: Rohan Danait and Vibhav Bhave (COEP): 70 pts (17)
Jt 3rd: Nirmoho Banerjee and Samridh Kapur (AIT): 70 pts (16)
5th: Debopriyo Moulik (ILS) and Pranav Pawar (MESCOE): 50 pts (16)
Five teams were included in the finals instead of the four previously advertised because of a almost-dead tie between the 4th and 5th teams to qualify.
The One-finite Pounce system: teams are allowed to 'pounce' on questions in a half for +10 and no negatives. But if they get a pounce attempt wrong, they forfeit the chance to pounce for the rest of the round.
The top two teams will now go through directly to the Conundrums semi finals at Mood Indigo in Dec. 2013.
Conducted by: J Ramanand
Flavour: General
Attended by ~30 teams
Format: Written elims of 25 questions. Finals (2*10 questions on IR (with One-finite Pounce per half) and one written round on sobriquets (5 qns)
Results:
1st: Saikat Sarkar and Kshitij Jyoti (AFMC): 120 pts (19/6* in prelims)
2nd: Suraj Prabhu (FC) and Aniketh Rallabhandi (SCOE): 95 pts (19/4*)
Jt 3rd: Rohan Danait and Vibhav Bhave (COEP): 70 pts (17)
Jt 3rd: Nirmoho Banerjee and Samridh Kapur (AIT): 70 pts (16)
5th: Debopriyo Moulik (ILS) and Pranav Pawar (MESCOE): 50 pts (16)
Five teams were included in the finals instead of the four previously advertised because of a almost-dead tie between the 4th and 5th teams to qualify.
The One-finite Pounce system: teams are allowed to 'pounce' on questions in a half for +10 and no negatives. But if they get a pounce attempt wrong, they forfeit the chance to pounce for the rest of the round.
The top two teams will now go through directly to the Conundrums semi finals at Mood Indigo in Dec. 2013.
4 comments:
JR, how was the experience with the one-finite pounce? Did it serve it's purpose or are you thinking of any other modifications?
Speaking as a QM, it wasn't too bad. My intention is to get teams to pounce only if the question is a sitter (for them). Otherwise, I'm hoping the questions are reasonably well-designed to theoretically pass around and invite guesses.
It saved us some book-keeping in general - no keeping track of number of pounces, or negatives.
With one-finite pounce, what tends to happen (predictably so) is that teams become a little more circumspect about using the pounce early, and are more willing to 'go for it' towards the end of the round. Teams only guessed early when they were really sure of their answer.
I think about 2-3 qns per team per round were attempted on the pounce.
Only one team (AIT) lost its pounce early in a round; the rest used it almost till the end. Strangely, AIT did well in that round on the regular pass.
Rohan was the only one I spoke to about it: he said he preferred having more pounce-ability (i.e. infinite pounce with negatives) even if it meant losing points. They were one of the more conservative teams, who lost out on about 20-30 points by not attempting. It was their first time, of course.
It would be nice to have feedback from the others who were there.
I guess a QM who wants teams to use the pounce as an 'offensive strategy' i.e. one that lets you take a shot at gaining more points at a risk should offer infinite pounce (I often think it should be offered with +15/-10, not just +10/-10). One-finite is more of a 'defensive strategy' where I'm covering cases where there are inadvertent sitters, or any other case where teams see very little risk in answering (i.e. it rewards knowledge.)
I plan to use/inflict it a few more times before coming to any conclusions.
The quiz was very balanced and mostly workoutable, which is what makes a quiz enjoyable.
The one-finite pounce system was not only innovative, but also very fun to work around as a strategy. I think we should use it more often at BC.
I really needed a good quiz before the exams and Conundrum hit the spot. Zero complaints.
Very nice stuff Dude Ramanand!
Thank you sir Suraj God :)
Post a Comment