Thursday, November 09, 2017

Report on Quiz at IISER

Date: 04-11-2017
Quiz: H.A.N.D.
Venue: Indian Institute of Scientific Education and Research, Pune
Organized by/Fest: Karavaan 2017
QM(s): Bhavesh, Aditya, Vishal, Anisha, Samarendra, Yogesh, Amit, Amla

1. Pranav Pawar and Omkar Dhakephalkar, 255 Points (Open) (Team A)
2. Ranajeet Soman, 205 Points (Solo, Open) (Team  F)
3. Ajai Ragde and Gokul Panigrahi, 50 Points (Open) (Team E)

Other Finalists

4. Advay and Ananya, 20 Points (AFMC) (Team D)
5. Rohit and Harshini, 15 Points (IISER) (Team B)
6. Arnabh Senupta and Anirudh Anilkumar, -170 Points (AFMC) (Team C)

On a bright Saturday morning, the quiz started at 10:30 (standard delay of half an hour).

The elims composed of 48 questions divided into 4 sections, each set by a different person. They were themed around mythology, music, pop culture and one more. The questions were easy and consisted of many Peters. However, the usual IISERized title hints were a treat. Some of them were difficult though well-framed. Unfortunately, every question was offered a hint, after a vote on whether a hint is needed and gone through again. This caused it be a very long prelims. And in terms of number of questions it was longer than the finals.

The finals were held about two hours after the elims, providing a much-needed break. However, the point system was very skewed. The first IR had a +30/-10 on Pounce (teams could pounce on their own question), +10 on direct and +5 on passing. The questions were well-framed, however there were only six of these.

-At the end of this round, Scores (A->F) were 65, 20, 50, 10, 70, 65 -

The next round was a Hangman round. The rules of this round changed and kept changing as more and more points against parity and unfairness were brought forth by the finalists. It seemed the QMs were themselves unsure of rules. The existing rules made it mandatory to guess a letter for a team (the order randomized using chits) for a +5, a correct guess and -5 for not. Teams could not not guess a letter. After every letter, teams could guess the word which had a question (brilliant qs though). And this went on. Later however, doubts were raised regarding the added information other teams would gain and yet get same points based on the number of people who attempt. Negatives were also differentials.
After more protests and again discussing among themselves, QMs agreed to make it written with differential marking. But they did retain the hangman part with the one of the QMs now revealing letters. This was much better and more fun was had.

-At the end of this round, Scores (A->F) were 235, 45, 150, -5, 95, 170 -

The next round was even surreal: a wheel of fortune. There were fourteen slots on the wheel. 12 contained questions (though only six would be asked, one for each team, unpassable, for +30). One team member would be blindfolded and would stop it while the other would spin it. The two left-over slots contained a ‘+20’ and ‘-20’ which would give a flat +20/-20 and no question if it was landed. This was unfair for a team who got it because they would lose out on a chance on getting +30 via a question and a team who would get -20 based on pure luck. Moreover, the sequence would be decided at random, further increasing the chances of a latter team landing on -20; as the wheel would be spun another time if the arrow landed on a slot whose question was already asked. This was a scary round. Despite protests from the finalists this round went ahead after much debate among the QMs.

-At the end of this round, Scores (A->F) were 265, 45, 180, 15, 125, 170 –

The next round was like the first round with even more skewed scoring, though making it easier to catch-up, at the same time degrading the usefulness of points scored in earlier rounds. The scoring system was +50/-20 on pounce (temas could pounce on their own q), +30 on direct correctly and +20 on pass correctly. HOWEVER, if a team did not attempt an answer, or answered wrongly, even on its own direct, it got a negative. If it passed, and an incorrect attempt was made, or no attempt was a made, a -5 was incurred. Also there was a strange system of part points. A team could attempt for only a part of the answer and get half points if correct, however if wrong, a team would get half negatives. If an attempt was made for both parts, and one part was wrong, then negatives would be granted and no points for answering a part correctly. Only six questions were asked.
Such strange distribution of marks and random negatives left a bad aftertaste despite some excellent questions.

-At the end of this round, Scores (A->F) were 345, 15, 230, 20, 130, 230 –

The last round was a bidding round. There were six questions. Teams had to blind bid a minimum of 20 points and a maximum of the amount of points they had. If a team did not have 20 points, then the QM would pay the rest. Whoever bid the most before a question was would get the question. If there was a same bid, tied teams would go on bidding until one wins. Only that team would then get the question (no pouncing or passing or question going down to the next team which bid). If it answered correctly, it would get points based on the amount it bid, else negatives equal to the same amount. Then there was a second chance to answer, in which it would not incur the penalty if it answered correctly, but at a risk of double negatives.

Teams raised objections regarding how one team could potentially run-away with all the questions with minimal loss by out-bidding them due to their margin and how teams below 20 had no chance of getting a question. Teams also suggested revealing the questions or the subject of the questions so that an intelligent bid could be made. Also, how a single wrong answer could mean doom for all the hard-work so far.

At the first question, after a fierce fight for it, with upto three tied bids between Teams A and C, C got the question and after answering wrongly at both the chances to get a whopping -400. Then Team A bid for three questions in a row successfully (getting -90 in that process). Teams E and F got the last two and answered wrongly.  

Thus no question was answered either fully or correctly and no one ended up gaining any points in this round, though some of the fundae were really good.

The quiz ended at about 6 with prompt handover of prizes.

A special mention is a must for :
-Ranajeet Soman who played H.A.N.D. solo and came second.
-The efforts of the IISER Quiz Club for finding such interesting fundae and questions.

*Whereas the idea to get something different, or a fresh idea for a round is commendable and one daresays, a necessity in a monotonous quiz scene filled with IRs and written rounds; care should be taken that it does not become too gimmicky and allows luck to play a much greater role required in an event designed around knowing stuff. In case this does happen, and the quizzers all feel that the quiz would be better served if the round would be modified to be more fair, it would be a good idea to accept the suggestions and be flexible in that regard.

*If questions are going unanswered, a way must be devised so as to ensure that maximum are being answered and that they don’t go unutilized.

*Because the screen was big and quite close to the finalists, they had to strain their necks to see at the questions. Perhaps, next year, they could be seated in the audience chairs: the front row.

*It would be a good idea to have a single QM who takes all decisions instead of multiple heads thinking and discussing during every doubt as it consumes a lot of time.

Report by: Omkar Dhakephalkar with inputs from Anirudh Anilkumar, Arnabh Sengupta, Pranav Pawar, Ajai Ragde and Gokul Panigrahi

Friday, October 13, 2017

Reports on Quizzes at Mindspark 2017

Date: 22-09-2017
Quiz: Torquest 2017
Venue: College of Engineering, Pune
Organized by/Fest: Mindspark 2017
QM(s): Vrushabh Gudade

1. Siddharth Ramesh and Arnabh Sengupta (AFMC)
2. Anirudh Anilkumar and Hritvik Jha (AFMC)
3. Sai Pavan and Rituraj (AFMC)

The prelims round started at about 11.30. About 40 teams participated in the prelims. Though the prelims were low scoring, the questions were stimulating and fascinating. The cut off was 3 with the highest score being 13.5. A total of 6 teams qualified to the finals.

The final round started by 1. It consisted of two infinite rebounds, each with 12 questions and a written round with 8 questions. Here too, the teams found it difficult to score. The questions asked were from diverse fields-from simple tech to medicine, to India.

In the end the team of Arnabh Sengupta and Siddharth Ramesh from AFMC came 1st with 100 points. The team of Anirudh Anilkumar and Hritvik Jha came runners up beating the team of Sai Pavan and Rituraj in a tiebreaker.

The quizmaster Vrushabh Gudade did an impressive job in setting up the lovely questions and conducting the quiz. 

Report by: Siddharth Ramesh

The post will be updated with reports of Indikya (the India Quiz)

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Reports on the Quizzes at Credenz 2017: the PICT Fest

Date: 16-09-2017
Quiz: Credenz BizTech Quiz
Venue: Pune Institute of Computer Technology, Pune
Organized by/Fest: Credenz 2017
QM(s): Ritwik Manatkar

1. Arnabh Sengupta and Anirudh Anilkumar (AFMC)
2. Veushabh Gudade and Karan Agarwal (COEP)
3. Sameer and Yash (PICT)

The Quiz started off with just a delay of around 20 minutes with a full house auditorium of about 30-35 teams. It is notable that there was no hassle in the registrations and other pre-quiz rituals and a fair share of the crowd was from the host college.

The elims was a nice set of 20 questions with a few two-part questions and star marked ones that touched all the corners of all the Biz-Tech dome. All the answers were familiar to the layman, thus creating multiple guesses and helping the non-quizzing junta to think upon the context. Very appreciable. Advertisements, simple questions, one-liners, company trivia, etc all were covered and the cut-off was around 7.

Top six teams made it to the finals: 3 from PICT, 2 from AFMC and 1 from COEP. 5 rounds of various formats made the finals playful and engaging. The two IRs were regarding various companies, their histories, business terminologies etc. Good framing made answers workable. There was a short and quick written round of 10 questions on "Honest Company Taglines" in which all teams scored decent points.
Another round was a pounce-only round. Questions were divided in two parts. If you answer in the 1st part then the stakes are +10/-10 and if attempted in the next slide with more hints, then they were +5/-5. This round was a bit easy though the teams struggled whether to answer Ponds/ Vaseline or Royal Enfield/Harley Davidson at a point.
The Derail round (wonderfully explained by Arnabh in 5th para of General Quiz report below) saw tougher questions. The interesting rules many teams gained points while others lost.

Overall the quiz was prepared with a lot of efforts that could be seen in terms of framing and content. A few extremely unpopular terms popped up as answers, that ideally shouldn't be in a Biz-Tech quiz but they didn’t seem too vague or irrelevant; and also spoke of the research that must have gone in the making of the quiz.
Peters were tweaked so that still looked new and fresh. 

Suggestions: Instead of just companies/terms the quizmaster should have weaved a story into the questions and asked the fundae. That would result in interesting guesses from teams. The QM should have been more stiff in engaging the crowd and instructing the teams.

It was all in all a very awesome time spent at the quiz with scores coming neck to neck of all the top teams. Kudos to the QM for putting up a great debut series of quizzes.

Report by: Vrushabh Gudade


Date: 16-09-2017
Quiz: Credenz MELA Quiz
Venue: Pune Institute of Computer Technology, Pune
Organized by/Fest: Credenz 2017
QM(s): Ritwik and Rajan

1. Arnabh Sengupta and Anirudh Anilkumar (AFMC)
2. Ankit and Anurag Chaudhary (PICT)

The quiz had robust participation from engineering, medical, pharmacy colleges, leading to a full house. The preliminary round consisted of a written round with 20 questions. They were very workoutable, with hints being provided by the QM.

Finals followed the same interesting format as the first quiz, with a Derail Round that really brought the claws out. There was a pleasant balance with respect to questions, and they were evocative of a nice, general flavour. Anime, music, celebrities, literature and TV series; the questions covered it all. The contributions of William Shakespeare to the English language made itself felt during two quizzes, sinister connotations associated with nursery rhymes raised their heads and things started getting Schwifty in there. The rounds were aptly named and the safety slides were all prepared by a meme lord.
The quizmaster was not overly pedantic (Take note, Divij.) and seemed to be happy when teams figured out answers. 

Gr8 m8, 5/8 would quiz again. 

Report by: Anirudh Anilkumar


Date: 17-09-2017

Quiz: Credenz General Quiz

Venue: Pune Institute of Computer Technology, Pune
Organized by/Fest: Credenz 2017
QM(s): Ritwik Manatkar

1. Anirudh Anilkumar and Arnabh Sengupta (AFMC)
2. Bareedu Sai Pavan Kimar and Ruturaj (AFMC)
3. Advay Aundhekar and Ananya Menon (AFMC)

The prelims were on the easier side and had many derivable Qs with the top score being 17 and the cut-off being 8. Most regulars saw their prelims score hover around the 15 mark.
Teams from AFMC dominated the quiz from the start with 4 out of 8 teams in the Finals from the college.

The Finals questions were well spread among the topics and everyone from Rick and Morty, Van Dyck , Skrillex to Shashank Manohar made a cameo. A slurry of incorrect pounces kept some teams on the back foot in the start.
The LVC was made on the Angry Birds characters and led to some teams widening their lead. A second LVC was included that was pounce only for its elements. This round was really well crafted with everyone from Edith Piaf and Zlatan making an appearance. The connect spelled out the name of the fest itself!
The General Quiz at PICT always surprises us with innovative rounds. While last year we saw the introduction of a ‘Memento’ based round, this year the QM, Ritwik Manatkar introduced a wonderful ‘Derail’ round. No tongue in cheek reference to the current rail scenario, obviously. The teams could challenge another team to a Q and if the challenged team failed, they would have 10 points docked from their tally! It led to some wonderful “camaraderie” among the quizzers, all regular in the circuit. It took some explaining for the first timers and shook up the score board a lot.
By the start of the final round 2 AFMC teams were decidedly in the lead while the others trailed by 30 odd points.

The final round saw some great Qs as has been the style of the QM, keeping his best Qs for the last. There was a lot of arguments about half points at one point which came to a stop when the arguing team realized there’s no cash prize for 3rd place. All in all, the quiz was well made, had questions on various topics and the effort put in by the QM was evident from the innovative rounds he had included in the quiz.
PS: Reportedly 200 teams registered for this quiz. That’s some footfall!

Report by: Arnabh Sengupta