Wednesday, August 03, 2005

My first Parnab Quiz

(Mirrored on my personal blog.

Parnab Mukherjee (you can see a picture here). That one name is guaranteed to make any serious quizzers blood boil. In his many years of conducting quizzes, he has chalked up a reputation for many things. He's been accused of embellishing his resume, lying about his education, unfairly influencing the outcome of quizzes and having a 6-year old alter ego. In fact, as the saying in quizzing circles goes, the "b" in his name (pronounced "Por-nob" in Bengali) should be left out, because his quizzes are so obscene. But all that is hearsay. I am now in a position to give you the dope on Parnabda first hand because today, I have had the infinite pleasure of actually attending a genuine 24-karat Parnab quiz.

When Salil told me that Parnab was conducting the SCIT Business Quiz, I knew I just had to go. Yes, the quiz was in a remote corner of Pune, and that the organisers were charging an obscene 100 bucks per participant*, but how often do you get to see India's best bad quizmaster perform? I found me an equally enthusiastic partner, and after spending a lot of money on petrol and the exorbitant entry fee, we were there. The quiz, as usual started late (I suspect this was Parnab's fault more than the organisers'). Almost an hour after the indicated time, in walked the great man himself. He then proceeded to conduct the elimination round without referring to any notes whatsoever. In fact, the questions were so off-the-top-of-his-head that he asked a volunteer to write them down so that they would remember them when it was time to check the answers. In theory, such paperless quizzing is what makes him (theoretically) great quizmaster. In theory. Communism works, in theory. But I digress. The elims were extremely so-so. Many of the questions were only tenuously related to business. We didn't do very well at all. We calculated we scored 6 out of 25, and there were many teams who said they'd scored 7s and 8s. We reconciled ourselves to watching the finals fromthe audience seats, and partook of a (really good) repast at the SCIT cafeteria.

We got back to the auditorium 15 mintes late, when they were just announcing the qualifiers, and we found that Ganesh and Salil had qualified for the finals. To our great surprise, so had we. We took our seats on stage, and the long (and allegedly false) introduction of the quizmaster began. This time, they left out the bit about him attending Penn State and Princeton (where he studied Econometrics under John Nash, no less). This may be because of the aforementioned schools' unreasonable reluctance to acknowledge their association with Mr. Mukherjee, but we'll let that pass for now. We will let the fact that several other unsubstantiated claims were made pass. We will even let the fact that Parnabda has really long, scary fingernails pass, and get on to the point of this article, the quiz.

The quiz was, in a word, weird. The questions, as in the elims, were asked without reference to any notes. The answers, too, were given without reference to notes. This rather unfortunate coincidence has led to uncomfortable questions about some of Parnabda's facts. However, since many of the questions were on topics that no one present had ever heard of, we were not in a position of actually challenging the great man. The only complaint I have to make about his four normal rounds is that they were either extremely arbitrary or extremely easy.

The two Parnab Special rounds, of course, were a different story. I call them "Parnab Special"s because I am sure no other quizmaster in the world has either the pizaz or the maaz to attempt them. The first of these Parnab Specials was the newspaper round. The gist of the newspaper round is that you get a newspaper, you choose you a page, and Parnab asks you a question that appears on the page. We chose the front page of the newspaper assigned to us (the 9th July issue of The Hindu). Parnab agreed, and began giving us a lot of gas about couriers, Meghdhoot and the Indian Postal Department. Then, changing subjects with aplomb (and leaving us wondering about the necessity of the aforementioned gas) he asked us the name of the two leading characters in Whatchamacallit, a book by Kalidas. Confused by the explanation of the round given us by Parnab, we mumbled some answer. Parnab smiled and told us that the correct anwer, Shiva and someone else. And how did he link it to our assigned newspaper? Very simple. In a obscure corner of our page, was a tiny 2 sq cm ad for Neelkanth Jewellers. And Neelkanth, as any idiot knows, is one of Lord Shiva's names. Simple, no? The outsatnding brilliance of this question left me stunned, and I didn't really listen to the questions asked the others, but my partner assured me that they were equally astounding.

But the showcase round, as in any other Parnab quiz, was the speciality round. Speciality rounds feature in many Indian quizzes, but the twist in Parnab's version is that you can choose a topic of your choice, off the top of your head, and he asks you a question off the top of his. Your topic can be as obscure as you wish, in fact, he encourages obscurity. However, having been warned that Parnab punishes obscurity, I chose the most general topic I could think of, History. On being prodded to narrow my speciality, I chose Western History. He smiled, and asked me the British Prime Minister who preceded Margaret Thatcher. He gave several clues, saying that the man in question was a Tory, an ex-businessman, and a founder of the New Labour tradition that Tony Blair belongs to. I answered James Callaghan, because although his biodata did not correspond with what Parnab gave in his clues (he was a Labour Party member who used to be a civil servant), he was Thatcher's predecessor**, and that was the question. Parnab disagreed, and said that the answer was Edward Heath. Now Heath, although a Tory, was not Thatcher's predecessor as PM. Nor was he ever a businessman. But such is Parnab's amazing stage presence, his supreme self-confidence, and his extreme pig-headedness that I did not attempt to dispute the answer. He went to the other teams, who had chosen such amazing topics as Heinz and Campbell Soup. Parnab rose to the occaison and asked superlative question, which of course we were unable to answer. Afetr this round, the quiz finished (to the great relief of all involved) and to our greta surprise, we finished third. Due to extreme mental anguish, I fail to recall the names of the winners and runners up, but they did well, and I do not grudge them their extra prize money. I was just glad that the ordeal was over, and ran home.

Thus ended my first Parnab quiz. Will I ever attend another, given the opportunity? Of course I will! This was the most entertaining quiz I ever went to. Parnab truly lives up to his reputation of being overconfident, obnoxious, and the best bad quizmaster in India. What a guy!

PS: I have an idea about an interesting meme. I have included links to every previous anti-Parab article I could find. How about, every time anyopne writes about Parnab, they include links to all the previous articles, so that we have all the relevant opinions and evidence in one place? The next person to write about Parnab, please try it out.

* Before I get any hate mail form SCIT junta, I'll just clarify this. The fee was for all ten-twelve events in the fest, and so wasn't all that exorbitant. We felt it was bad because we had to fork out that much for just one event. I'm sure the guys who took part in multiple events found it reasonable.

** See the list of British PMs here.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Season Opener 2005-06 aka the July Open Quiz

Results

1st: Niranjan Pedanekar & J. Ramanand
2nd: Gaurav Sabnis & Sudarshan Purohit
3rd: Manish Manke & Nishad Manerikar
4th: Amit Varma & Leslie
5th: Salil Bijur and Anupam Akolkar
6th: Siddharth Natarajan & Siddharth Dani
7th: names not recalled

Not sure if I've got the 5th and 6th places right, and can't recall the names of the team in 7th place - Please let me know if anyone remembers

Organised & Conducted by: B.V. Harish Kumar

Report:

Before beginning the report, we must record that Harish had just about 3 weeks to put this quiz together, so it was quite a commendable effort in the circumstances. A 25 question elims (a little too short) was quite tight, with most teams answering the same questions and not being able to differentiate themselves too much. The result was a 4-way tie for the last 3 spots, which could be split using the inbuild elim tie-breaker but still left us with 2 teams for the last place. An oral round failed to help, so we ended with a 7 team final.

Amit & Leslie began the 40-odd question final with 10 points and the Sids with 5 points, courtesy topping the elims. The first few questions went through with no team being able to take the shine off the ball, so scores were pretty close at the first score-break. It continued that way with a couple of near misses for teams and probably the large number of teams in the finals had a telling effect. With a couple of audio questions going our way, Niranjan and I were able to pull slightly ahead. Leaders till then, Gaurav & Sudarshan stayed in the hunt. Manish & Nishad made a late surge moving ahead of Leslie and Amit who uncharacteristically missed some of the questions. It stayed pretty much that way till the end.

I was happy with the quality of questions - the range was better than at previous quizzes by Harish and some of the trivia was new. There were a couple of bloopers and some whose framing could have been improved. But we give him the benefit of the doubt realising the short notice for preparations :-)

A special note must be made of the Bhamidipati family for sponsoring the prizes and even taking the 7th team addition into their budget. They needn't have but they did - and thanks to them for that. Harish's wife Sirisha is yet another quizzing wife adding the job of keeping scores to her domestic chores, and joins a list of long-suffering spouses/companions of BC quizzers in having to put up with all this nonsense ;-)

We had about 25 teams on Saturday which is good news for the viability of these open quizzes. Sudarshan plans to the next Open quiz (in September) with a more specific theme of "ATES" - All That Entertains Sudarshan.

The previous Open quiz - 2004-05 season ending quiz

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The July Open Quiz

Details

* Open quiz.
* Flavour : General
* Teams of 2
* No Registration fee
* Date : 9th July (Saturday)
* Time : 1630 hrs
* Venue : Bhageerath,PSPL - behind Domino's Pizza on Senapati Bapat Road
* Conducted by: Harish

Please assemble at the venue by 1630 hrs so that we can start the elims at 1700 hrs.

:: Harish

Monday, June 13, 2005

Maha!Quizzer - Bombay Round



Venue : Sophiya College,Mumbai
Date : 12th June, Sunday.
Time : 10 to 11:30 am
Organizers : Karnataka Quizzing Association (KQA)

Maha!Quizzer was a unique format consisting of 150 written questions to be answered in 1.5 hours at the same time at 5 locations around the country(Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Trivandrum and Mumbai). There were prizes for local winners and the title of Mahaquizzer was to be bestowed upon the person with the highest score in all 5 cities.

The only problem was that when a quiz is conducted across geographical boundaries care needs to be taken about the scope being truly fair to people from all the places involved. There were many questions which were very south-centric - for eg. we were asked about a certain mountain range you pass while going from trivandrum to bangalore or something like that. Another complaint was the sport. All the questions involved niche sports and their rules. There were no cricket-nostalgia questions or sport questions that did more than scratch the surface. Most questions were like - "this sport involves an arena of 2 x 15 m and is governed by ...."

The high point of the 'quiz' were the hindi film questions. They were really well set. Also lots of questions on literature-arts-architecture-language. Some of these questions were really good but some however bordered on the arbit. Overall a written 'exam' is never fun and KQA needs to come up with a better format if they really want their Mahaquizzer. Maybe take some tips from Siddharth Basu and Co. at UC.

(Also KQA seems to be getting afflicted with the problems of big associations. When you hear the words 'it's a policy decision not to hand out empty elims sheets' you know that something is wrong)

Friday, June 03, 2005

Anand & Vibhendu's Elims classifications

Anand and Vibhendu did some preliminary classification of *Elimination* rounds from four quizzes: Chakravyuuh 2005, JBIMS, PiQue 2005 and Quiz-O-Mania 2005.

After some application of MS Excel pivot chart magic (thus recouping their MBA investments), they have the following graphs to show. The base data is available with me in case anyone's interested. Each image has been preceded by a small note from A & V on how they arrived at those classifications.


Category

[Anand]: Simple [classes], we used a school subject kinda classification consciously trying to nail everything: less on Misc. etc, Social Sc includes History, Geo, Politics, Eco etc and hence appears to have more weightage. (No entry for Yoga, SUPW (Ramanand's note: SUPW stands for "Socially Useful Productive Work" (and has other variations too)))
[Vibhendu]:Mythology, etymology are clubbed under Lit for most cases.


CategoryPosted by Hello

Provenance

[Anand]: Sadly, this is divided into India & Western only--we have left out further subdivisions as that domain belongs to Llosa, Jospin, Chomsky etc--so a Home or Away format.


ProvenancePosted by Hello

Quality/Originality

[Anand]: The criterion used is if we feel it has appeared before in the same form (i.e. worded the same circa John Sutter), or is a basic regurgitation of a standalone fact that has appeared in the same form ( as in the q), or is derived from a fact/incident well chronicled.( This is for Banality)( Like also Lara Croft's stats.) Originality - anything that we felt required the QM to drill down on facts, contort incidents, derives from a reworking of known or even unknown events, and we felt was essentially framed by QM solely for the purposes of asking.( i e the SRT Clapham q, chimes )


QualityPosted by Hello Summary

[Vibhendu]: The classification was done in less than ideal conditions, some of it on our way back from Pune. Hence most of it was done on-the-fly and has not been revisited even once. The exercise is mostly exploratory in nature and was never intended to be a critique of the quizzes, hence no classification on the lines of good, not so good and bad etc. Provenance & category classification was again done to detect any mojor trends in the present day quizzes, can be improved with certain sub-topics institutionalised as independent categories by themselves;-) As for the contentious issue of originality-banality classification, the criterion is here the thought process followed by the question solver rather than the qn-setter. Chestnuts are classified as banal straightaway. Awell known fact making a quizzing debut may still run the risk of being dubbed as banal. e.g, north eastern capitals, new jalpaiguri & Geeta Dutt. Noble intentions behind incorporating quiz-virgin topics, notwithstanding ;-) Again, if the question solver is aided by an existing thread/chestnut, the qn could have been branded banal. e.g. A connect qn on last Male Singles Grand slam winners from the host nations finding an echo in a Ladies singles winners connect.


SummaryPosted by Hello

Regular disclaimers of errors in judgement, subjectivity and lack of consistency follow. Surely, there is enough scope for refining.The reason behind bringing it up was that it can be used as a template/suplement when you do a classification exercise of your own.
:: Anand and Vibhendu



Wednesday, June 01, 2005

On Fairness - Hirak's Blade

After the recent series of posts on the maddening methods, one of our old prabhaaris (the man who almost had the Inquizzition quiz named after him and the orator of the lost Mood-I monologue) Hirak has this to say: (Hirak, pardon me for the usual digs and for including the note before your actual "post" - I included it because I found it relevant)


I was reading the latest series of posts and I think that this discussion is in serious need of Occam's razor. I posted a rather long comment and I have removed it and I request you to post it on my behalf.

You had started a thread about what question setting is all about and that discussion has got subverted on the way. It seems to me that this discussion on systems is quite futile and even if someone does simulate them, the core assumption is that ALL questions will be fair and equal.

Such an assumption can never be made so every simulation suffers from a serious flaw. I, like you, hold a good question very close to my heart and I wish we talk about that more. I also hope that people on notesandstones still believe that quizzing is about fun and learning and not about showing how much you know.

I am currently in stuck in a Third World country (when it comes to quizzing), where quizzing is a rare sport. I am quite jealous of the fact that you guys have enough quizzes to discuss the best quizzing method. Filled with nostalgia here are my two paisa thoughts and a few axioms which which do not seem to be universally agreed anymore.

The discussions have been interesting and the different ideas were refreshingly original. Still, no method has, bar IR, has been tested or simulated. With each correction for unfairness there is an increase in complexity, and hence the chances of adoption of that method decrease.

My hypothesis is: The simplest and best method for fairness will converge to a written final.
It has 'ALL' the elements of a good system:

1) All teams get the same number of attempts.
2) Teams get to attempt every possible question set by the QM.
3) Points in direct proportion to what each team knew.
4) Also takes care of PMQ's and other artifacts of question-framing since everybody is on the same ground.

Of course, despite its technical strengths it is universally rejected because it fails in one vital respect which is 'lack of drama'.

As Kunal noted and which I rephrase as: Quiz Axiom 1: "Quizzes are slightly unfair competitions."

IR is not fair but slightly unfair. A really good system should have the slight unfairness. It is that slight unfairness or element of chance that adds drama and allows a slightly weaker team to win. I still am a proponent of a few buzzer rounds and joker rounds in quizzes.

Quiz Axiom 2: "Quizzing is more about fun than mere regurgitation of facts."

However, fun should not be at the expense of complete unfairness. Most will agree that in essence unfairness has less to do with the 'system' than the kind of questions, and how they are framed. Quizzing should be about the questions and not about the system.

Quiz Axiom 3a: "Quizzers are cribbers"

My chief grouse about quizzes that I lost was there wasn't a balance of topics and some questions were really vague and had no 'Ahaa' value. (Quiz Axiom 3b: You don't complain when you win)

I hope you all agree that we need to talk about content rather than method.

I also believe, that given a reasonably balanced quiz, a good team, regardless of the system, will more often than not finish in the top 3.

Quiz Axiom 4: If you are good, you are good.
OR
You can't fool all the people all the time.

:: Hirak



Friday, May 27, 2005

On Fairness

Quizzes are unfair competitions. In a running race, for example, all the athletes run on the same track, and the fastest among them wins. In golf, all the competitors play on the same course under the same conditions, and the most skilled of them wins. In a quiz, however, each team of finalists is asked a different question each time that other teams may or may not get to answer. Hence, many factors such as the seating of teams, the passing format, bias in question setting, etc skew the outcome in a way that may not reflect the ability of the teams.

Okay, so all of that is old news. Today, stuff like Infinite Rebounds as a passing format and drawing lots for seating are pretty standard in quizzes. However, this is not enough. More is needed. Althought the combination of IR and drawing lots has made quizzes more fair than before, it is felt that we should go further to ensure fairness. So the questions is, what more can be done?

The Centaurian System

The Centaurian System is a passing format derived from Infinite Rebounds which is, IMO based on the assumption that equalising the number of Direct question to each team is essential for fairness. Although I have never really understood how it works, anyone wanting to do so should read this excellent description by it's creator, "Centaurian" Abhishek Nagraj. To the best of my knowledge, no quiz has ever been conducted on the Centaurian system, so no data is available

Criticism: The main Criticism of the Centaurian System is that few accept its central assumption, that the number of directs per team really matter.

Drawing lots for Questions

This method seems to be prevalent outside Pune (correct me if I'm wrong). It basically consists of making chits with every question number on them, and having the teams draw them. The teams are asked the question corresponding the number they pick. The beauty of this systyem is that teams have no one but themselves to blame for the questions they are asked.

Criticism: If your quiz is on Infinite Rebounds and teams draw lots for seating, this procedure is basically redundant. You can draw lots either for seating or for questions, but the quantum of fairness is the same (provided the order of questions is fixed). Its just that drawing lots for seating is easier and takes far less time.

Choice of Seating by Qualfying Order

This method is championed by VIT quizzers since it was first used in Quiz-o-mania '05 the SCIT Software Quiz. The finalists are asked to choose their position in the order of qualification. This means that the team qualifying first will get first pick of seats, the second team will get second and so on. The rationale is that the seating arrangement, while suitably random, allows teams to carry forward to the finals the advantage of their performance in the qualifying round. In other quizzes, teams once in the finals are on an equal footing irrespective of their performance in the elims.

Criticism: This method does not really give the first qualifiers an advantage because they have no say in the seating of other teams. Subsequent teams engage in a competitive game, as all teams jockey to get a favourable position. Even so, the middle teams are likely to get the greatest advantage.

Choice of seating by First Qualifiers

This method calls for the team qualifying first to decide the seating order for all teams. The rationale is the same as the previous method.

Criticism: This method gives an advantage only to the first qualifiers, all other teams being on an equal footing. It also relies on the first qualifiers knowing the capbilities of the other teams. A team from another city, for example would not be able to fully take advantage of it.

Round Reversals

As Abhishek has coverd this in great detail in a previous article, I shall not go into it again. Suffice to say, there should be 0>R>N round reversals, R being the no. of Round Reversals and N being the number of questions (with R preferably being far close to 0 than N).

Post Scipt

I have only ennumerated here the techniques that I have come across. If I missed any, please feel free to point them out.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Round Reversals - Are they really that effective?

I was reading JR's anniversary article archives written in a seemingly alternately illegible hand and experienced firsthand Gaurav's pole-position & 4 quarter system at the S.E.Q. This post is a result of these two things.

The point is this, whatever may be the fallacies in a particular system of scoring these are ironed out due to round reversal. I.e. if a certain team is getting large number of directs due to another team sitting before them, this advantage is immediately transferred to the team on the otherside of that team. So seemingly all is well.

Then comes Quiz-O-mania '05, which witnessed super Vibhendu-Anand first half performance followed by an amazing catch-up in the second half by The Moops. (ala CSKA Moscow). Reason? It was surmised that the first half of questions had a concentration of Hindi-film questions and due to these questions being absent and/or due to round reversal Gaurav's team getting to answer before them they could perform better. So it is like the quiz being in two parts. Two absolutely different styled halves (?) thereby making round reversal ineffective.

So Gaurav decides that we'll go one step further and reverse 3 times. Now as his quiz was mostly done by him and JR (70-30 as he put it) and probably due to dispersion of JR's questions throughout the quiz this didn't have any major difference. I think the result would have been pretty similar had the normal system been adopted.

So does the 'success' of Gaurav's idea as many have claimed mean that the more we reverse the better it is. Actually a good way of testing a particular method is to take it to the hilt and then test it's effectiveness. Funnily it turns out that such a system would effectively result into an 'ox-cart'/Boustrophedon system which JR linked to recently. That is we go along in a particular order and then reverse once the cycle for a question is over.

So consider a particular case.

A - B -C -D. D gets it right. Now it is C's turn by this system. So we go C - B - A - F. F gets it right. Fair enough?

Now consider the following :

Team A : 2 attempts 0 points
Team B : 2 attempts 0 points
Team C : 2 attempts 10 points
Team D : 1 attempts 10 points
Team E : 0 attempts 0 points
Team F : 1 attempts 10 points

Now looking here you would say that logically the next question should be to E. But - as F got it right the next question will go back to A and so on. Those teams, which are around the leading teams, will get maximum number of attempts due to continuos reversals. Now this is an extreme case - but whenever we reverse in a quiz the team that was supposed to get the next question but don't is extremely hard done by. This is like omitting them from the current cycle of questions much like being a lap behind in F1. So whenever we reverse we are heavily discriminating against such teams. Now that I think about it, this happened to us at least once at SEQ. So consider a snapshot of the passing during a reversal: D-E-F-A-F and so on. How unfair to B!

Ideally as most agree 'fair'ness in a system is characterized by equal number of directs and more importantly attempts. So playing around with IR doesn't naturally imply a better system. More importantly I wanted to point out that 'reversal' is not necessarily the answer to all problems. I am not saying that reversals should be done away with - maybe one would be okay. I think next time someone is cataloguing a quiz he could note when the rounds reverse and so on. BTW did anyone manage to track SEQ statistically? That would be very interesting. Pls. post stats if available.

! gnizziuq yppah neht lliT

~ Abhishek

Sunday, May 15, 2005

The Pune Season Ender Quiz 2004-05 14th May 2005

Results:

1st: Niranjan Pednekar (TRDDC) & Sudarshan Purohit (PSPL)
2nd: Amit Varma and Leslie (Wisden Cricifo)
3rd: Rachit Lahoti (GSSL) and Abhinav Sharma (IIM Lucknow)
Joint 4th : Aditya Udas (MESCOE) & Meghashyam Shirodkar, Ganesh Hegde (VIT) & Shivaji Marella (BJMC)
6th: Vivek Venkataramani (BJMC) and Abhishek Nagaraj (COEP)

Organised by: Gaurav Sabnis, J. Ramanand & B.V. Harish Kumar

QM: Gaurav Sabnis

Report:

The Season Ender Quiz (thats the official name) had all what everyone desires in a perfect quiz. The elims had fine audio questions spanning a variety of music genre. The finals were formatted as a basketball game with 4 quarters with a round reversal after each (with no change in positions). The scoring was 2 points for a correct answer and 1 for half, doing away with the usual multiple of 10s scoring pattern. This made the final scores rather close: 20 for the 1st upto 9 for the 6th. A new 'pole position' system was introduced where the 3 toppers top of the elims were rewarded with 3,2,1 points to start.

The top 2 teams that won led the quiz neck-to-neck upto the 1st half of the quiz. Amit & Leslie maintained their lead till the 3rd quarter capitalising on all the cricket questions. Finally in the last quarter, Niranjan & Sudarshan managed a stunning breakthrough by cracking the visual connects on Andrew Lloyd Webber and Savarkar. The unique 'Kekule' connect (with APJ Abdul Kalam at the root node and 5 audio pieces) was particularly the highlight of the quiz. And yes, Gaurav did ask a football related question.

The Pune Quizzing Season of 2004-05 has ended dramatically with one one of the best quizzes we have seen so far. We hope to have a similar great year coming up.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Defending quizzing

Samrat's quizzing partner at IIM-L, Tadatmya Vaishnav, has written a couple of posts on the usual arguments against quizzers & quizzing. Here they are:

* In defence of quizzing - I
* In defence of quizzing - II

Friday, April 29, 2005

Pune Quizzing League - Do we have a framework?

[Post by Abhishek]

This is a reworked article about the long simmering idea for a Quizzing League system. I thought I would get the discussion started by putting up a preliminary framework.


Points System

This is the most important part. Points to be considered are:

1. Are points to be given for Elims performances? (even to non-finalists)
2. If yes, then how will they compare to finals points?
3. Generally accepted idea that points scored in finals directly added to total. (?)
4. Are bonus points to be given for 1st 2nd 3rd in Finals/Elims?
5. Resolution of ties?

Following are my suggestions:

1. Elims marks will be considered for all those who have half the cut-off marks. Points = Elims score/Topper x 50. i.e. elims toppers get 50 points.
2. Points in Finals directly added via a percentile system. i.e. winning team gets 100. Rest get score/topper X 100.
3. Since the points are via a percentile system I don't think a bonus giving system is necessary.
4. Finally same points will be given for team members with records being maintained for individuals.


Basic Duties

Following points will have to be taken care of:

1. Drawing up a list of participating quizzes, ensuring their standard, dates etc (one time)
2. Collecting individual scores of participants (repeated)
3. Tabulating scores and documenting results. (repeated)
4. Rating quizzes / Deciding best quiz / Best Quizmaster (necessary?) (repeated)
Logistics

Points to be considered : 1. Is it necessary to have a regulatory body?
2. If yes then how many members, their roles, their number ?
3. If no, then solution to solve the problems of performing 'basic duties' ?

My suggestions:

1. I think it is necessary to have a regulatory body. No of members - 3.
2. Roles -1 Scorer,1 Assessment In-charge. 1 Internet Co-ordinator.

Scorer - Ensuring collection of all the points of the members, Deciding final scoring patterns and settling disputes
Assessment In-charge - Rating quizzes, Ensuring quality etc./ backup for other two
Internet in-charge - Running message board, publicizing monthly updates, sending notices etc.

3. For deciding the best Quiz, QM there will be a general vote at the end of the season whose details can be discussed at a later time.

Other Ideas to Consider

1. A system of relegation of 1 quiz due to low standard and elevation of 1 due to good effort
2. A season ending BCQC organized Quizzing Extravaganza. Maybe a daylong quiz event.
3. Maybe making 'InFest' an official BCQC quiz event, with prizes and teams from other cities.
Finances

1. Is membership free ?
2. Are there monetary rewards for Best Quiz, Best QM , Best Quizzer?
3. Do participating quizzes make any monetary contribution ?
4. If no, then what about finances for season ending quiz and prizes?

My suggestion:

Membership will have a nominal fee of say Rs:50 to discourage floaters. Also participating quizzes will have to give a certain participating fee say 500 Rs. This will ensure some prize money for the 3 prizes. Also for the issue of BCQC quizzing event will have to be organized like any other normal event with funding from sponsors.


In all weaving existing quizzes in to a framework is not as difficult as it seems. It just the cohesive efforts of a group and i think BCQC should take up the mantle of taking Pune Quizzing forward.

:: Abhishek Nagaraj

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

PiQue 2005

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.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

B.C. Joshi Memorial Quiz and Owl in the Bowl

Army Institute of Technology conducted its annual open quiz Gen. B.C. Joshi Memorial Quiz and its solo quiz Owl-In-The-Bowl on 27th March 2005 in the Persistent Systems Auditorium.

Owl-in-the-Bowl Results:-

1st: Shivaji Marella (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

2nd: Salil Bijur (Life & Works of Jeffrey Archer)

Also: Gaurav Sabnis (PMs of India), J Ramanand (James Bond), Ganesh Hegde (Presidents of USA), Sanket Srivastav (Garfield)

B.C. Joshi Quiz Results:-

1st: Shivaji Marella & Abhishek Nagaraj (BJMC & COEP)

2nd: Kunal Sawardekar & Salil Bijur (FC & VIT)

Joint 3rd: Amit Garde & Hareeth Sridhar (PSPL), J. Ramanand & B.V. Harish Kumar (PSPL & Infosys), Gaurav Sabnis & Sarika Chuni (IBM & Times of India), Meghashyam Shirodkar & Ganesh Hegde (EXL & VIT)

(Apologies for the extreme delay in putting up this post, which was due to the inability of any of the contributors to write a satisfactory report. Since no one has come up with a report yet, we request you to put up your opinions/observations of the quiz in the Blogger comments.)

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

"PiQue" 2005

"PiQue", an open quiz organised by Persistent Systems, Pune

Features:

* General Open quiz
* Two member teams
* No restrictions on age or affiliation
* Venue: Dewang Mehta Auditorium, Bhageerath, Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd.
* Date & Reporting Time: 10:30 am on Saturday, 9th of April, 2005
* Contact: 25678900 ext 2366 (Ramanand), 25653900 ext 3517 (Amit Garde)
* No registration fees
* Prizes for all finalists
* Audience Prizes

Directions to Venue:

"Bhageerath" is the corporate headquarters of Persistent. It is situated on Senapati Bapat Road, next to the under-construction ICC Towers and Sigma House, and behind (the road-facing) Domino's Pizza
URL: http://www.persistent.co.in/

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Prahelika: The Quiz at PICT Concepts

Set By: Nikhil Kundargi and Neel Mehta

Results:

1st: J Ramanand & BV Harish Kumar (PSPL & Infosys)

2nd: Siddharth Dani & Kunal Sawardekar (VIT & FC)

3rd: Gaurav Sabnis & Sarika Chuni (IBM & Times of India)

Also: Salil Bijur & Ganesh Hegde (VIT), Meghashyam Shirodkar & Aniruddha Kasbekar (EXL & VIT), Arvind Iyengar and Aditya Pethe (MESCOE)


Remarks:

- The questions in this quiz, though good were quite easy. Also, some of them were not original. The elims were very high scoring, with the top qualifiers getting an astronomical 31/42, which shows you how easy the quiz was.

- There were a numner of technical Snafus, including the fact that one visual connect had the answers on the slide itself.

- There was a bit of controversy involving the name of Geriatrix's wife (the QMs said it wasn't ever revealed and someone said it was revealed to be Myopia in "The Secret Weapon"). However, the QMs stood fast, and research by your correspondent has proved them right (insofar as the name does not occur in "Secret Weapon", at least). We await comments by more dedicated Asterix readers on this one.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

MIT Intechsication Quiz

Organised by: Ruman Tambe & Kedar Toraskar


Results:

1st: Kunal Thakar & Siddharth Dani (VIT)

2nd: Kunal Sawardekar & Ulka Athale (FC)

3rd: Salil Bijur & Ganesh Hegde (VIT)

Also: Anupam Akolkar and Aniruddha Kasbekar (VIT), MIT Alandi, Srinivas Kulkarni & Aditya Pethe (MESCOE)


Remarks:


-The quiz was universally acknowledged as the best MIT Quiz ever. That's not saying much, but it must be said.

-There was an inexplicable preponderance of Astronomy and Astrology questions. About 1/5th of all questions were star-based.

-The quiz featured what is easily the most amazing question I have ever heard in a Pune quiz (I would have said any quiz, but how can you compete with Mood-I?).

Q: Connect Evelyn Waugh and Elvis Presley.

A: They both died in the bathroom.

-Although it did not live up to the expectations of the Quizzing Elite, I think the organisers deserve to be commended for a decent first attempt at setting a quiz.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Pragya - The quiz in Rennaissance at Bharati Vidyapeeth

This quiz will be right up there in the Hall Of Quizzing Disasters. We got some premonitions of what was awaiting us when the elimination paper had MCQs with gems such as "Where was the FICCI annual meeting held this year?"
a)Calcutta b) Madras c) Bombay d) Ahmedabad

I had teamed up with Anirudh Kasbekar and we got a call at ten PM saying that we had qualified. On reaching the venue, we found out that Dani and Ganesh's team hadn't qualified. They are the India specialists and their performance was definitely better than ours. In fact, no VIT team had qualified. We had written our college name as only PICT, although Anirudh hails from VIT. Maybe that was the reason we got through. A new innovation at the quiz was the selection of FIVE teams. The quizmasters seem to be devout numerologists. The teams were from PICT/VIT, MESCOE, 2 BVP and AFMC.

The first round progressed well. The next one was a buzzer audio, video round. The buzzers were the most technologically advanced ones available in the neighborhood sarkari office. Just push the plunger and it goes ting-tong. The priority resolution? No problemo. They had trained audio experts who had finely honed auditory powers that enabled them to decide who pressed first. Curiously, those who pressed with greater gusto seemed to prevail over those who pressed first. Over buzzer was the latest model where they had done away wit the tumblers also. It had a hole wherein you had to insert an old marker pen and press it down for it to buzz. When the auditory expert's decision seemed to consistently go against the AFMC team, they got irked and stormed to the well and were somehow placated. The next question, they and an other team pressed the buzzer simultaneously. And, the AFMC team, having blundered in thinking they had ringed first, blurted out the answer. The quizmaster was furious at this blasphemy and fined the AFMC guys TEN points. Their shell-shocked expressions would have provided them practice on how to react in the battlefield when shrapnel are flying all around them. The guy manning the computer had the habit of playing a new audio question without intimating us. This led to some teams (including us) thinking that the previous question was been played fully and not the next ones. Many times, we were jolted into reality only when the BVP buzzers rang out all around. The next blooper occurred at the end, when there was a tie for both the first and third places. The teams from MESCOE and BVP decided to play it safe and forgo the tiebreaker. The organizers initially agreed. Then they declared that the first prize will be shared by the two teams and the second prize and third prizes will go to the other two teams. Soon, we realized that the second placed team would get more than the winning teams. This was not at all what they wanted. The teams tied for the first place protested vigorously and the tiebreakers took place. The question in the tiebreaker was "Who was the second Prime minister of India." The winning team answered correctly but the QM was adamant that they were wrong. Then, he declared the President's name. Unfortunately, he named the second Prime minister of India. The question was scrapped after five minutes of passionate debate. Then was the turn of the AFMC and BVP playoff for the third place. The QM read "How many centuries did SRT score in…." and AFMC pressed the buzzer. The QM stopped midway and looked at them with an expectant and gloating face. Flabbergasted, AFMC requested that he complete the question. They were not heeded and had to answer. They said '34'. With a positively mirthful expression, the QM answered. "Wrong. I meant in International matches. And the answer is 31." I still have a nagging suspicion that if the QM had receive 31 as an answer, he would still have given it wrong and revealed gloatingly that he had wanted the no of total centuries. All in all, this was a quiz that will linger in my memory for a long time to come.

p.s The audience consisted of all eight people while there were six organizers on stage.

Nikhil Kundargi

Sunday, March 13, 2005

On Connects - II


Part I of this post appeared ages ago - apologies for such a large gap!

And if you don't answer, then the booted bony thing with five toes on the end of my leg will soon connect sharply with the soft dangly collection of objects in your trousers.
- Edmund Blackadder to Baldrick, "Ink and Incapability"

It is the function of creative man to perceive and to connect the seemingly unconnected."
William Plomer

Problems with Connects - Quality

A lot of people hate and dislike connects. I think this is because either they've seen a lot of bad connect questions or just don't have the flair for it. I think the former has more to do with this aversion than the latter.

Q. Connect a picture of a newspaper, a collection of people, someone looking for something, images and so on.
A. Google - Google News, Groups, Search, Images etc.
[Quoted by Sohel from one of his bad quizzing experiences]

With questions like these, it's easy to see why connects have such a bad reputation. Anyone, in any which warped way, can collect 2 or more items and label it a connect. Worse, it isn't apparent to them that the question sucks. The mistake others make is to think this is a generic issue with connect questions. I would venture to guess that even the other (original) questions of such a quiz-setter would not pass any version of quality control, so it should be a reflection on the setter's abilities. Business quizzes have suffered from a similar problem of perception - there are so many of them that inevitably quality suffers and the genre is badmouthed leading a lot of people to believe that business quizzes cannot be interesting (which would be untrue).

At the same time, I do think that some quizzers (including good ones) somehow aren't naturally good at solving connect questions and seem distinctly uncomfortable with them. As a reflection of this, you would also not see connects in quizzes they set. Speaking from experience, I think it comes easy to some rather than others. Again, this shouldn't discriminate against the good connect question (which some of these quizzers are usually liable to look upon as a second-rate novelty) just because it doesn't fit into their style. Just because I am not that good at buzzer rounds shouldn't mean that I don't accept situations where they make sense (but that's a different discussion :-) ).

Another instance where quality is likely to suffer is when you have formats like Pyramidal Connects where the answers to groups of questions are in turn connected to form new answers and so on for about 2 or 3 levels. My observation is that it gets really difficult to sustain the quality of some of the questions. For instance, in one case, I was trying a pyramidal connection with the ultimate objective of connecting 4 questions whose answers lead to the 4 Holmes novels. For "scarlet", I had no option but to go for "colours of the red" as an intermediate answer with some good questions leading to it. I just couldn't help filling up some of the holes with not-so-good questions. The same was observed at Chakravyuuh 2002.

Possible Solutions

Creating good connections takes practice and experience. Many people have set appalling connections along the way, but have learnt to refine them from criticisms. It would be best to try out these questions on fellow quizzers or at local "net sessions" like at the BCQC. But don't upset formal & competitive quizzes by including suspect connect questions - atleast give it more intense scrutiny than other questions.

Remember that you can't just take a couple of items and find some vague subjective relationship that only you can see. For e.g., connecting the films of Shahid Kapur and Kareena Kapoor only because they're dating each other is a strict no-no!

Problems with Connects - Overuse

Another problem that surfaced spectacularly at the 2004 Chakravyuuh quiz was that the connection question was overused, especially at the cost of other more straightforward questions. About 50% of that quiz was made up of connects and as could be expected when there was such a deluge of them, many of them weren't good.

The Chakravyuuh quizzes have had a history of including more connections than probably any other local quiz. Where the organisers of the 4th edition slipped was in believing that a good quiz had to have a number of connects. Which is not true. A good quiz fundamentally needs to have good questions, be they connections or other types of questions, even the usual straightforward ones. This condition is always paramount, and connections need to fit into this framework. IMO, this is where the organisers goofed up. I was happy to note that in this year's Chakravyuh the connect questions were present and adequately employed, and most of them were decent to good.

In this sense, the connect question is like a googly or the doosra in a spin-bowler's arsenal. The doosra is best used sparingly in addition to the stock delivery which should always be consistent. If he overdoes the doosra, he becomes predictable and even monotonous. The good googly provides a nippy surprise and adds to the spell rather than distracting from it.

Possible Solutions

You don't have to include connects in a quiz set if you can't or don't want to. If people (especially senior quizzers :-) ) give you the impression that connects are a must, neglect that - it's more important to set a good quiz rather than spoil it by adding poor connects to the mix. But as mentioned earlier, no harm in trying some out in lab conditions. New entrants to the so-called "college quizzing" formats are usually eager to try these out to show they've "arrived", but caution is advised here!

Problems with Connects - Points breakup

A problem that usually accompanies connect questions (and doesn't plague regular kinds) is usually one of splitting points among teams when it takes more than one team to give a satisfactory answer. This happens all the while in quizzes, so here's an illustration:

Q. Connect Nusli Wadia, Christopher Lee, Alyque Padamsee
A. Jinnah (grandson, actor who played him in the biopic, actor who played him in Gandhi)
Suppose a team answers "Jinnah" but isn't able to give all three relations. Another team then fills in the remaining details. Now who gets the points? Should it be split among the two or given solely to the second (who may not have initially known it was Jinnah, but just based it on the earlier team's response)? There are a lot of headaches here for the quizmaster and invariably, this leads to carping among any affected teams.

There are several variations of this case: one team provides the "funda" (or the central idea behind the connect), others fill in the exact relationship between the elements. Or there are too many elements and not a single team can provide all the connections.

In several cases, split points are awarded to the teams such that the combined value exceeds the original value of the question! If in the above example, the first team got 5 for the connection and team #2 got 10 for saying the connection and the rest of the stuff, the value of the answer now is 15 rather than the initial 10. If the quiz is being held in a situation where every other question is strictly worth 10, this could cause a problem.

Possible Solutions

Principally, this issue crops up either when the question is actually too bulky to be effectively solved by one team or if the quizmaster isn't clear as to what aspects are important in the question. Some predetermination in this regard will help a great deal. The person asking the question should already be clear as to what he wants, and correctly informing the teams will prevent any suggestions of bias or ineptitude. For instance, declaring that the "funda" gets half the worth and that a satisfactory explanation gets the other half will help these decisions. Or keeping an extremely wooden face (watching some film starring any supermodel would help hone this) when listening to the teams and only awarding full points to the best answer could be the solution (though this is quite difficult in practice!). Whatever be the approach, being consistent throughout is of primary importance.

In terms of elements in the connect, connections where teams are expected to give the connection and make a satisfactory explanation of the relationships, as a thumb-rule I suggest not having more than 3 or 4 elements at worst. Also, while setting the question it is worthwhile pondering over whether some of these elements are really necessary and if they're there just to make the numbers. If so, it is best to cull them.

Like in many other areas, principles of simplicity and reducing unnecessary redundancies apply here as well.

Additional notes on types of connects

I have mentioned some kinds of connects in the last post, but while thinking on this topic, I realised there was one more distinction to make. Over the last few years, quiz finals have typically had questions shown on screen, and as a result a greater number of audio-visuals and visual connects (earlier, quizmasters would read out questions from their notes and perhaps have a special a/v round). Some of these connects tend to be different in what I call their depth.

Essentially, Depth indicates how much does one need to know about an element in the connect to make the connection. An example will help here:

Q. Connect Linus Torvalds, Lucille Ball, Gerhard Schroeder, Benjamin Franklin (paraphrasing a question from Quiz-o-mania 2005)
A. "Peanuts" characters - Linus, Lucy, Schroeder, Franklin
Compare this to a question like:
Q. Connect a bird character from the Peanuts comics, Max Yasgur, Jimi Hendrix, Pt. Ravi Shankar (paraphrasing another question from Quiz-o-mania 2005)
A. Woodstock (a character from the comic, his dairy farm was the location, both played at the festival)
In the earlier question, one didn't have to know a great deal about Torvalds, Lucille Ball and the rest, for that wasn't the point here. Merely identifying them would do. While in the second case, simply identifying them wouldn't help - you needed to know a little more about the people. Actually the key difference is that Benjamin Franklin could have been replaced by James Franklin and it wouldn't have mattered.

Many connect questions are like this - in some, the answer has nothing to do with the people or items shown, only the labels or names contribute to the answer. In the latter case, you need to know a bit more about the actual elements in the question who are not at all substitutable. The first case is superficial - I would call it a lexical connection (instead of a pejorative "shallow") where the words by themselves are important, but not details of the elements the words are represented by. The second case is deeper, and rewards quizzers who have a deeper knowledge of the elements - perhaps it ought to be called a semantic connection.

When people say lateral connection (and I hear this term a lot), they usually seem to mean a "lexical" kind, because this isn't a straightforward one to answer if you've not realised its type. You spend a lot of brainpower trying to work out an improbably link between Torvalds and Lucille Ball (as we did :-)). I don't think it is necessary and even practical to announce this distinction while asking connect questions (unlike in the case of distinctions like "radial/cascading" where I feel the teams ought to be told), but atleast quizzers need to keep this in mind while attempting such questions. Another example pair to round this off, both by Gaurav and asked at Chakravyuuh 2001:

Q. Connect the films "First Blood" and "Junior" and the Olympics
A. Nicknames of Mark Waugh ("the forgotten Waugh/war", "Junior" and "Olympics" for his five ducks in a particular series)

Q. Connect the films "Paper Moon", "The Wedding Planner" and "Blue Lagoon"
A. Tennis wives, also actresses - Tatum O'Neal, Mrs. Sampras (!), Brooke Shields.

Summary

Well, reviled or not, connects are here to stay. People making connect questions are exhorted, for the sake of the mental health of quizzers & their own physical well-being, to invest the same (if not more) amount of diligence and care as they would for "normal" questions. Connects can be subjective beings, so get feedback if you can on their quality before you trust your own judgement. If you believe as I do that quiz questions are meant to be answered and not to show others what puny intellectual mortals they are, then approach connects such that they can be answered by teams on the basis of their knowledge and intelligence.

While asking connects, always expect stones. Always!

From now on, I'll connect the dots my own way.
- Calvin, "Calvin and Hobbes", Bill Watterson

Thursday, March 10, 2005

BVP Vidyut Quiz

Organised by: BVP College of Engineering Electrical Department.


Results:

1st: Rahul Gokhale and Mohit Chabra (SCOE)

2nd: Anish Bhat (SCOE) and Kunal Sawardekar (FC)

3rd: Sidharth Dani and Anupam Akolkar (VIT)

Also: Vasukeshav Sharma snd Chandrakant Nair (AFMC); Nikhil Kundargi and Neel Mehta (PICT); Ganesh Hegde and Aniruddha Kasbekar (VIT)

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

BTW...

I forgot to mention this in the Chakravyuuh post. Our team name that day was The Taatyaa Vinchu Code...

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

SCOE Osiris '05

Set by: Anish Bhat and Akshay Raut.


Results

1st: Kunal Thakar (VIT) & Kunal Sawardekar (FC)

2nd: Mihir Shah & Rahul Gokhale (SCOE)

3rd: Salil Bijur & Anupam Akolkar (VIT)

Also: Siddharth Dani & Ganesh Hegde (VIT), Srinivas Kulkarni & Aditya Pethe (MESCOE), Ashwin Date and Mohit Chabra (SCOE)


Remarks

The quiz, Headbang, was very rock music/Simpsons/Hitchiker's Guide/Calvin & Hobbes heavy, reflecting the QMs tastes to a very great extent. The elims were quite good, IMO, with some very workable questions, though they were again very partial to some topics. The finals, too were good, though some of the visual connects were a little weak. All in all, it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience, though some participants who were not quite with the Quizeitgeist might disagree.

Chakravuuh 2005

Held on the 6th of March

Results

1st: Amit Garde & Sudarshan Purohit
2nd: J. Ramanand and B.V.Harishkumar
3rd: Anand Sivashankar & Vibhendu Tiwari
Other finalists: Shivaji & Vivek, Meghashyam & Anupam, Shrikanth (spelling?)+1

Set and conducted by Siddharth Natarajan, Shabbir, Abhishek Nagaraj et al

Report

Finally, a Chakravyuuh quiz the way we used to know it! After the embarassing aberration of last year, Siddharth & gang gave us a good quiz. A few organising glitches as we just waited desultorily for the finals to begin, but none too major.

Tough elims but interesting questions. The finals had their usual share of connects as befits a Chakravyuuh, but this time they were more balanced and good. But I felt they put too many elements even in the simplest of radial connects because of which in many such questions, the explanation of all the elements with the central theme could not be given. Case in point for me was the Emirates question where the tough part was getting the Emirates connection, but not explaining the Arsenal stadium relation shouldn't have mattered. Anyway, the stadium element didn't add a great deal to the qn IMO. A case where they got the balance right was in the VAT connection which was well made, as was the Mandrake one. There were a couple of sitters, and also a reappearance of the cascade connections.

Amit & Sudarshan answered some very good questions to never be in doubt of finishing first towards the end. BVHK & I started well but then couldn't keep the tempo, and also fell foul of not be able to complete some of the connects. Special mention must be made of Anand-Vibhendu & Shivaji-Vivek who had their moments.

The "Chakravyuuh" round wouldn't have affected top spot, but there was enough to play for the remaining teams. Luckily, we got our first two qns right to seal the second spot. Shivaji-Vivek were not so fortunate, and lost 3rd spot to Anand-Vibhendu. I think the Chakravyuuh round should probably have at least one more level if you want to make it tempting for the teams to go further inside.

The turnout was a little less than what I had expected, and we also had a few of the regulars missing. Still, it was an enjoyable quiz and one befitting past editions. This is the first time no COEPian has figured among the winners, so that's a first. What didn't change was Harish & me completing a hat-trick of second places (3 out of 3 attempts). Ivan Lendl, the English cricket team at the World Cup, Martin Scorcese - we have some idea how you felt :-)

Past winners

2001 - Shrirang Raddi & Amalesh Mishra
2002 - Shrirang Raddi & Amalesh Mishra
2003 - Niranjan Pedanekar & Samrat Sengupta
2004 - Gaurav Sabnis & Neeraj Sane

Abhimanyu 2005

Held on the 6th of March

Results

1st: Akshay Palve ("Mahabharata")
2nd: Abhishek Nagaraj ("Company name etymologies")
Other finalists: Harshad Sardeshmukh ("World Cup Cricket"), Sharmad Joshi ("English Premier League") and Kapeesh Saraf ("The films of Amitabh Bachchan")

Set and conducted by: Ramanand & Harish

Abhimanyu is COEP's solo quiz for COEP students conducted in a Mastermind-like format. Conducted as part of the larger Chakravyuuh event, this year saw 45 participants in the elims of which 5 qualified for the finals. Akshay won both the elims & the finals though he was given a close fight by the rest, especially by Abhishek.

List of winners at "Abhimanyu"
2001 - Rahul Srinivas - Asterix comics
2002 - Sumeet Kulkarni - Formula-One
2003 - Siddharth Natarajan - Archie comics
2005 - Akshay Palve - The Mahabharata

Sunday, March 06, 2005

Phoenix '05, MESCOE

4th Mar 2005

Lord of the Rings: the Entertainment Quiz

Set and conducted by: Pratap Nagarkar

Results

1st: Aditya Udas (MESCOE) + Kunal Sawardekar (FC)

2nd: Kunal Thakar & Anand Ayyadurai (VIT)

3rd: Siddharth Dani & Salil Bijur (VIT)

4th: Arvind Iyengar & Aditya Pethe (MESCOE)

5th: Shriniwas Kulkarni (MESCOE) + Anupam Akolkar (VIT)

6th: Ganesh Hegde & Anirudh Kasbekar (VIT)

Report

'Lord of the Rings' was the quiz at Phoenix, organised by the Mech. dept. of MESCOE. Ent quizzes are popular in MESCOE; Hollywood & rock being the favourite topics. The quiz was set by one of their alumnus Pratap, known for his weakness for movie themes and OSTs.

The first round was 'Movie Dialogues' where Anand & Kunal T. of VIT got of to a flying start. It was followed by rounds on 'Music' and 'Movies'. The next one was the audio round where the MESCOE-FC combine of Aditya & Kunal S. dominated.

Next came the specialities round, the topics comprised Indian rock bands, OSTs, Serials (western), Books, Media Personalities and Comics. The selection was made by teams with scores in the ascending order, thereby the top two teams (KT-AA, AU-KS) left with little choice (books & OSTs in that order).

The last round, and the most controversial one was 'Hate thy Neighbour'. 6 questions per team. Negatives for all questions (even for pass). Weightage for questions decreasing from 25 to 5. The 1st two could be thrown to any team. Acting skills came in handy here for all, especially maintaining expressions/reactions. KT-AA and AU-KS were the favourite targets, yet managed to maintain their lead. The finish was close and the MESCOE-FC combine won narrowly by answering their last 3 make-or-break questions correctly.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Brand Equity Quiz 2005

Results

1st: Ranjan Banerjee and Ajay Kolhatkar (Renaissance)
2nd: Shrirang Raddi & Mohit (Infosys)
3rd: Savoir Faire
4th: Synechron
5th: Amit Garde & J. Ramanand (Persistent Systems)
6th: Wipro GE

Set and conducted: Derek O'Brien and Associates

Report

There was a less of a lot of things that the Brand Equity Quiz usually provides. First, the budgets seem to have taken a big hit with the participants not getting too many gifts (that they've grown accustomed to paying for in the entry fee). The advertising was low-key compared to usual BEQ standards, reflecting in both the reduced count of audience & teams. And as if it was all rubbing off, even Derek O'Brien was a tad subdued compared to past performances.

What didn't change, however, were the results and quality of the quiz. Renaissance further embellished their reputation as the best Business quizzers in town with their 2nd win in a row making it their 3rd in 4 years. Their closest competitor has always been the team of Shrirang-and-partner. Shrirang was squeezing in his favourite quiz before dashing off to catch a flight and providing a stiff challenge to the eventual winners. It went down to the last question, with Shrirang having lost points the penultimate question to squander a slender lead. Ranjan pressed the buzzer on the last qn without bothering to answer the question, and though Renaissance lost points, they prevented Shrirang from taking the prize (and he knew the answer) in a smart show of gamesmanship.

In the end the best team won despite a late Shrirang surge who was shaking off sluggish form earlier (he couldn't identify a thinly disguised Sabeer Bhatia). Renaissance, in our minds, are good enough to win the National finals but have narrowly missed making the finals twice in the past. This blog wishes them all fortune and looks forward to a finish befitting their talent.

The other consistent thing was us at Persistent finishing 5th. For the last three years, we have made the lower half of the finals our own! Just underscores the fact that between Amit, Samrat & me, we're decent enough general quizzers to make the finals, but not good enough at the Business specialty to do better. Harish & Manish Manke of Infy were seventh after the elims (which had only 5 questions and a crossword to solve - we were second at it to Shrirang & his colleague).

The questions were a lot of the usual kinds, not really my style. The theme this time was films, following cricket & politics in preceding years. The theme doesn't indicate the bent of questions, of course, just the surrounding gimmickry. Though I must say, they do a good job of production which goes down well with the audience.

I've saved the best for last. For years, Samrat held the position of sle@ze king in local quizzing (i.e. one who gets those kinds of questions right). His absence has now been filled by Harish who made a strong challenge yesterday night by correctly answering "The 1st Pl@yb0y Pl@ym@te" to a question. He was of course warmly feted in front of everyone, including his father and duly rewarded for his endeavour. This promises to be a "seminal" (a word much joked upon in BC circles) moment just like the one that made Samrat's name at AFMC 5 years ago.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

COEP Fervor Quiz

2nd march 2005 - Organised and set by Siddharth Natrajan


Results

Winners: Srinivas Kulkarni & Abhijeet Erande (MESCOE)

2nd: Siddharth Dani & Anupam Akolkar (VIT)

3rd: Ganesh Hegde & Aniruddha Kasbekar (VIT)

4th: Kunal Thakar & Salil Bijur (VIT)

5th: Mihir Shah & Rahul Gokhale (SCOE)

6th: Abhishek Nagraj + 1 (COEP/PIET/whatever its called today)


Report


  • Although a Sci/Tech quiz, the QM managed to keep the audience entertained, including the non-engineering junta, which consisted exclusively of me.

  • Audience participation in the quiz was amazing, especially by the non-engineering junta :-).

  • Following hallowed COEP traditions, creative answers and those that defied the laws of physics were rewarded with bananas. The finalists took care to ensure that none were wasted.

  • The audience were treated to a 10 minute monologue on turbocharging, supercharging and their ramifications on engine RPM, power, speed, the ozone layer and the national economy by one of the finalists. In an attempt to restore order and sanity to the proceedings, the QM awarded them their full 10 points.

  • The questions were generally good, though some of them were suspiciously similar to Chakravyuh 2004 questions.

Monday, February 28, 2005

Mechatrix 2005

26 Feb 2005 at VIT - set & conducted by Anupam Akolkar

Results

1st: B.V.Harishkumar & J. Ramanand
2nd: (jointly) Meghashyam Shirodkar & Anand Ayyadurai, Kunal Sawardekar & Siddharth Dani
4th: (jointly) Salil Bijur & Ganesh Hegde, Sudarshan Purohit & Srihari Suthamally
6th: Harsh Ketkar and Rashmi (could someone please patch her surname in?)

Report

Considering this was probably the first time Anupam has attempted a quiz of this scale, quite a creditable effort. The elims actually outshone the finals in my opinion. In the finals, there were some very good questions, then there were some questions where answers were too pedantic, and there were some that were not so good according to me. Also, there were some inconsistencies in what answers were expected and the QM gave away hints in the middle of passing - but these are defects that can be smoothened by experience.

For the record, we topped the elims, picked Team B again when asked to choose, called ourselves "V shall not sue VIT this time" and won narrowly. There were some great answers from some of the teams, especially the ones who came second. Also, for the record, there was a bit of healthy cribbing, and I was wrong about Nathuram Godse in the identify (I mistook Karkare for him in the absence of Savarkar making the number of people 7 in the photo instead of 8), but I was right about Gopal Godse.

Massive crib: what's with the prize distro? Waited a couple of hours for the ceremony only to get a cryptic chit asking us to pick up prizes from some secret location in VIT's Mech dept and mispelled certis (Shailesh instead of Sudarshan, Harish became Manish from PSPL)... I'm feeling a little like Cuba Gooding Jr. in Jerry Maguire after both my VIT excursions have led to suspended cashflows - "Show me the money!"

Friday, February 25, 2005

Virtual Memory Virtual Memory was the quiz held as a part of Digital Renaissance, an event organized by students of Comp. Dept. in MESCOE.

Results

1st: Vasukeshav Sharma & Chandrakant Nair (AFMC)

2nd: Kunal Thakar (VIT), Kunal Sawardekar (FC)

3rd: Anish Bhat & Hrishikesh Kavade (SCOE)

4th: Harshavardhan & Nitin (MESCOE)

Joint 5th: Ganesh Hegde & Anirudh Kasbekar (VIT); Sameer Valzade & Kurush (MESCOE)

Quiz setters & hosts Aditya Udas, Shriniwas Kulkarni, Aditya Pethe

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Girls in Quizzing

The whole Larry Summers saga coincides with a discussion that Rony, Rajk, Sarika and I had last weekend about why quizzing is such a male-dominated activity. The discussion didn't really throw up any answers.

Quizzing, at least in India, is a very "young" sport. It is different from other sports, in the sense that it requires no physical activity(tennis, football), no training or preparation(chess) and no investment(music lessons). Quizzing is all about one person asking questions, and others attempting to answer them.

Why then does quizzing in India have such a paltry female following?

It really is a mystery.

Any theories?

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Vishwatronix, VIT

Te-Quiz-La was the quiz held in VIT as part of Vishwatronix 2005, an event organised by IEEE and students of Electronics dept. A sci-tech-GK quiz with lot of questions based on scientific fundas.

Results:-

1st: Nikhil Kundargi & Neel Mehta (PICT)

2nd: Harshavardhan Ketkar & Arnab Pal (VIT)

Joint 3rd: Shriniwas Kulkarni & Abhijit (MESCOE), Aditya Pethe & Kartik (MESCOE)

Joint 4th: Ganesh Hegde & Anirudh Kasbekar (VIT), Anupam Akolkar & Anand Ayyadurai (VIT)

Quiz set by: Siddharth Dani & Sumedh Berde

OT: Quiz in MESCOE on 25th Feb. For more details contact Aditya 9890233360

Open Quiz at Mechatrix, VIT on 26th Feb. For more details contact Anupam 9890613484

Indian Quizzing Fanatics & the World's Best Quiz Questions

UK's Largest Quiz Organistation (or so they claim) picked up the BCQC story

Have seen this site earlier when Shrirang pointed out attempts to have a world quizzing championship a while ago. The site is interesting, given that the UK has a deep-rooted culture of quizzing (mostly of the trivia/pub nature). Saw this link to the search for the World's Best Quiz Question(s). Send in your entries to them.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Order, Order!!

One little-explored facet of an Infinite Rebound format quiz has been the order in which teams are seated. In most quizzes, the order is decided by randomly picking chits. However at Quiz-o-mania, the organisers tried an innovation in which the teams got to pick their position on the stage. This was done in the descending order of elims scores, i.e the team which topped the elims got to pick first, and so on.

Now the innovative idea here was to try and give the top scoring teams a reward by giving them a choice in seating. However, I am not sure if that indeed happened. In fact I am quite sure that the opposite is what happened. I'll explain how by citing my own example.

Sarika and I were 3rd (or 4th) in the elims. When it was our turn to choose, we decided to take the spot to the right of Ramanand and Harish, who topped the elims, and in my books, were favourites to win the quiz. My logic behind this choice was that except for their "directs", we would get a shot at every question, before them. So if there were any questions which both R&H as well as Sarika and I knew answers to, we would benefit. Of course, this benefit would apply only in the first half of the quiz, following which the order would be reversed, and they would get a similar benefit.

This is exactly what happened. Ramanand and Harish were trailing in the first half, not because they didn't know much, but because we gobbled up most of the answerable passes. In the second half, they caught up superbly, but our ability to answer our directs better than they answered theirs in the first half, saw us through.

Thus our being able to position our team relative to theirs helped us in the first half at least.

This happened because in an infinite rebound quiz, the teams might as well be seated in a circle. because after the first question, the "1" in "team 1" ceases to be a number, and becomes a name. In Direct-and-Pass formats, yes, Team 1 has an advantage because it will get the first question in every round. But in infinite rebound the absolute position is not important.

What is important is your position relative to the other teams. If you think you can position yourself before your potential closest competitor, and build a good lead in the pressure-free first half of the quiz, then you can do that. It is somewhat like batting first in an ODI.

So the team that is at an advantage is the team that has most knowledge about the position of their competition, and not the team choosing first. As a result, when R&H picked a spot, they benefitted the least from the system, rather than the most, as the organisers might have intended.

If organisers of future quizzes want to implement a system where the elims topper is rewarded, then they should ask the team with the least score to just write their name on a blank paper. the team higher than them should then write their name on that team's left or right. the next team can place themselves either between the two teams, or on their right or left. And so on, until the last team is the topper which can position itself at the edges, or between any team it wants. This order should then be reproduced on stage.

BCQC in the Indian Express


The In-Quiz-Itives Posted by Hello
(Photo: Indian Express, Pune edition - 21 Feb 2005)

(From left: Ganesh Hegde, Siddharth Dani, Kunal Thakar (at the back), Salil Bijur, Kunal Sawardekar (frontmost), Rajkamal (behind Salil), Nikhil Kundargi, Gaurav Sabnis (right-behind), Ramanand )

Earlier: The BCQC feature by the Pune Times of India

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Quiz-o-Mania 2005 (VIT)

Results

1st: Gaurav Sabnis & Sarika Chuni
2nd: (jointly) Anand Sivashankar & Vibhendu Tiwari, B.V.Harishkumar & J. Ramanand
Other finalists: Shivaji & Vivek, Kunal Sawardekar & Meghashyam Shirodkar, Anupam Akolkar & Anand Ayyadurai

Quiz setters & hosts

Salil Bijur, Ganesh Hegde, Siddharth Dani & Kunal Thakar

Report

Most good quizzes in Pune over the last few years have been extremely close races, and VIT's Quiz-o-mania was no different. Continuing from where they left off last year, the organisers put up an entertaining display. The elims (of 42 questions with the now obligatory DNA question wrapping it up) was well-crafted, especially in contrast to last year. Then many of the questions were unnecessarily longwinded, but this time they were to the point and many of them workable. The "Lagaan/Bhuvan Shome" question was particularly appreciated and we enjoyed unravelling the Pink Floyd one.

There was a most unusual interlude during the break - this must definitely be the first quiz ever to feature a special clip from a Mithun starrer "Gunda" where he proceeded to mow down an army of auto rickshaws (that's right, autos) with a bazooka. Followed by playing catch with a monkey using a baby instead of a ball.

Finalists were announced, lunch coupons distributed to them and the quiz began soon after lunch. Harish & I called ourselves the "World Karmic Congress" in attempting to lampoon the "V-is-for-Vishwakarma" bit and mock-threatened to sue the college for a pre-dated inspiration. Which in retrospect turned out to be a bad idea, for we would not score until the 22nd question, leading us to question whether to add an extra "I" or rename the name to "Karmic Congress of the World" and thus starting it with a "K" to in a bid to improve our karma. There was also a distinct Seinfeld angle, with "Yada Yada Yada" and "The Moops" being two other names ("The Moops" episode can tell you about the pitfalls of trivia quizzing).

Vibhendu & Anand were off to a flying start gobbling up all the India & Hindi F-M questions, while Sarika and Gaurav made sure they capitalised on their directs. BJMC, Kunal & Meghashyam & the VIT team made quiet starts, but in comparison Harish & I had a mute start and blank faces to accompany our score. A mix of bad luck in getting questions we had no clue about and not answering questions better than others kept us that way till a quarter of the quiz was over. This was a 80 question quiz, so we hoped we had the time to pull a comeback.

Comeback we did, but just pulled up short at the end. Anand-Vibhendu fell off in the 2nd half as the questions veered to the Eng F&M and tech sides. With round reversals, we were doing better as were BJMC. In the end, BJMC tied with Kunal & Meghashyam, and we tied with Anand-Vibhendu. But Gaurav & Sarika had a little extra to finish 10 points ahead, the smallest margin, with the "Round the World in 80 days" answer.

The turnout was considerably lower than last time for which a combination of Sunday timings, some quizzers being out of town and improbably a girls cricket competition outside can be blamed for.

Comments/Criticisms

* Too long: Not everyone likes 80 questions, especially audiences. The trend of late has been to have 40 to 50 questions in the final, so people aren't that patient these days. Personally, I didn't mind it only because it kept us in the hunt!

* Distribution of qns: Both halves were skewed in terms of question themes. So we had funny sequences of scoring. Could have been spread out better

* Good framing of questions, clean organisation, no hiccups in the presentations.

* A/V qns: Was there a conscious effort to avoid lots of connects and even audio/visual qns? Could have been a little more of it.

* There was some confusion over awarding half points, and what was expected of the answer in some cases.

Overall, an enjoyable experience and worth the distance.

Last year's results

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

SCOE Elements Quiz


Organised by: Sinhagad College of Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering

Conducted by: Mihir Shah, Rahul Gokhale and Mohit


Results:

Winners: Kunal Sawardekar (FC) and Anupam Akolkar (VIT)

Runners up: Akshay Raut and Akshay Panday (SCOE)

Second Runners up: Ganesh Hegde and Aniruddha Kasbekar (VIT)

Also: Kunal Thakar and Siddharth Dani (VIT), Vasukeshav Sharma and Chandrakant (AFMC), Ekalavya Bhattacharya and Shaheen Ahmed (FC)


Monday, February 07, 2005

Wall Street '05, Fergusson College

India Quiz

1st: Ganesh + Salil (VIT)

2nd: Vasukeshav + Chandrakant (AFMC)

3rd: Symbiosis Law

4th: AFMC

Joint 5th: Ashish + 1 (FC), AFMC

QM: Neel

Good, original questions. The visual round turned out to be a damp squib as most of them were the identify types, and couldn't be seen properly by participants & audience. Something better than IE should have been used.

Business Quiz

1st: Manish + 1 (SIBM)

2nd: SIFT

QMs: Neel, Shakti

The chosen format was based on CNBC's The Challenge, and given the topic, the finalists found it a cakewalk.

Entertainment Quiz

1st: Kunal T. + Siddharth (VIT)

2nd: Symbiosis Law

3rd: Ganesh (VIT) + Shivaji (BJMC)

4th: Nitin + Apu (MESCOE)

5th: Aditya (MESCOE) + Salil (VIT)

6th: Vasukeshav + Chandrakant (AFMC)

QM: Kunal S.

We understand the problems faced by the organisers - the time constraints, technicalities, etc. almost making it Mood I Ent Q-C'vyuh 04-esque. The questions were quite workable but the range of topics should have been expanded. A round reversal would had made things better.

Saturday, February 05, 2005

Illuminati, Unify '05

Unify '05 was the fest orginised by SICSR (Symbiosis Institute of Computer Studies and Research) where among other events (the main being a fashion show) was a quiz.

Results:-

1st: Vasukeshav & Chandrakant (AFMC)
2nd: Kunal & Puranjay (FC)
Joint 3rd: Salil & Siddharth (VIT), Kunal & Nitesh (VIT)

Now the less said about the questions, the better. It just confirms the rule about Symbi and quizzing.
The theme of the day was the Renaissance, with heavy inspiration from the Da Vinci Code (the abrupt break in the quiz for the Mona Lisa story). However, it was fun to see the hosts 'rehearsing' for an empty audience in the beginning, and Siddharth at his usual best, arguing on questions like 'With which foot did Armstrong step on the moon?' and 'Which is India's fastest land animal'. Also the quizmaster (an SICSR prof)'s request for decency in answering (Kunal S will expain that). There was also a visual round with distorted/morphed photos of celebrities from a variety of fields like Hrithik Roshan, Michael Schumacher and John Steinback. All in all, an entertaining quiz.

Friday, February 04, 2005


The "Chakravyuuh" logo [Designed by Niranjan Pedanekar] Posted by Hello

Thursday, February 03, 2005

The Genesis of Chakravyuh

This is a mail i had sent on the Inquizitive list a couple of years back, describing the birth of COEP's own quiz, Chakravyuh. The mail was written at a time when it looked as if Pune quizzing was dead, and the rejuvenation from VIT and Fergusson had not taken place.

I must be one of the luckiest quizzers in Pune, timewise. Boat Club (BC) quizzing was in a state of rapid evolution from the time I was in first year until the time I was in the final year. Those must definitely be the best 4 years (if not among the best) of quality quizzing in COEP and in Pune. There were great quizzes and quizzers in colleges like AIT, Fergusson, AFMC (grudgingly, I admit, they make the cut), COEP and of course PICT and a really good Verve quiz (very ephimeral, driven by just one exceptional individual - Hirak Parikh). Of late, the zenith has been reached with a Mastermind from our midst. But all other indicators suggest of a stagnation, if not a decline. I must wait to see the questions from BCJ and Chakravyuh 2003 before I can pass a final judgement on what is happening to Pune quizzing.

This is the story behind the birth of Chakravyuh. It was an age where men were men, women were women, children were children, and so on, but basically quizzers were quizzers. Every batch in COEP had at least 2 or 3 "dedicated" quizzers. Most of them were top class quizzers too, but most importantly, they were dedicated. Wherever we went, we always had the biggest contingent of quizzers (In fact, I suggest that BCJ registration be at a subsidised rate for us, since we have always come with at least 6 or 7 teams, even in the leanest year =-)). I still remember quizzing in my first and second year( 1999 and 2000). The teams of George and Kunal, Jitendra and Salil (whatever happened to those two??) and Sujay and Ramanand used to be there in almost every final of a quiz in Pune. We would either win or come second, since the only competition came in form of "Bhatta plus 1" from AFMC or the "big four" of AIT (Kapil, Samrat, Navneet and Shrikanth, for the uninitiated) in different permutations (I did my bit winning the Mood-I Conundrums in my Second Year). With such domination of the quizzing (which was to keep growing), we often wondered why COEP did not have its own quiz. Domkundwar was the Principal and George told a harrowing story of what happened when he had made an attempt to start one. When he had gone to Dommy with the idea for such a quiz, he was met with a barrage of hostile questions like "What is your attendance?" , "Show me your class notes", and "I shall speak to your project guide about how you work". Needless to say that the idea had been vetoed as emphatically as possible.

There was a general sense of resignation amongst us COEP-ians with everyone believing in the "It's a government college, nothing can change" adage. This was of course in my first and second year. What made us shake off this inertia when I reached Third Year (2000-2001) was a noticeable change in the quizzing culture of the BC that no one has quite spoken about at length. During this phase, there was a slow but steady paradigm shift in our quizzing, with the culture moving from a more "quiz oriented" to a "question oriented" direction. This means that while earlier, emphasis was laid on the fact that there was a quiz, with the minimal level of competency, now we laid more emphasis on the quality of questions. Making great questions was considered as much of an achievement as winning a quiz. While earlier getting questions from quiznet or the KCircle sites was acceptable, it now became a sacrilege. So the days of "two people getting 60 questions every saturday" to the Boat Club were gone, simply because the level had improved, and emphasis was placed on originality.

Since quizmastering became as reverred as quizzing, there was a renewed thrust towards efforts for a COEP quiz. Domkundwar was slated to retire and that helped too. So in my third year, when he finally made way for an interim Princi, Mrs. Jog, we tried again. This of course was the "Year of the Grandslam". It started with me and Neeraj winning the Fergusson Inquizzitions, and later, Sujay and Ramanand sweeping each and every major quiz in sight (Verve, BCJ, Mensa, Shyam Bhatt, and some more). The list of COEP quizzing achievements was nothing to be scoffed at. With this impressive list, I drafted a proposal in February for a quiz to be held in March, during the college gathering and went to meet Jog.

As is usual in COEP, students are given the last priority for meeting the Princi. I waited alone outside the office for hours together on many afternoons before I finally got to meet the grand dame. She took one look at the letter and shot it down saying "I am just a temporary principal, and there is already Fervour going on. I can not spare staff". I tried the arguments "It hardly needs any money, we don't need any staff, we need only the audi and nothing else", but to no avail. She was firm. She could not sanction an event at this stage. My frustration reached its peak and it showed on my face. This probably led to her saying "There is a Gathering Committee meeting next week, give me this proposal then, and we will think about it. But don't get your hopes too high".

As I reported this to the then quizzers, i.e, Sujay, Ramanand, Harish and Neeraj, there was again this general sense of resignation, like "Is college ka kuch nahi ho sakta". No one had any hopes from the Gathering Meeting since the committee was not really very sympathetic to our demands, interested more in spending 20,000 on a crummy music show than 3,000 (yes, that was our measly demand) on a quiz.

But the morning before the meeting as I was about to leave for college, I had a brainwave. I decided to redraft the covering letter for the proposal and rely on emotion to get us through. Earlier it was waxing eloquent on our achievements, like the long list of wins that year (about 10 or so, including smalltime quizzes). Now I decided to go for the lady's jugular. I filled it with a lot of emotion. I don't have the letter right now, it must be on my computer at home, but this is basically the gist of it -

"We have been dedicatedly practising our quizzing every Saturday. We work hard to maintain our standards. And this hard work has been rewarded with great results. We have won each and every quiz in sight, even done well in quizzes in Mumbai despite no financial assistance from the college. There is NO OTHER sport or field, be it debate, rowing, football, drama, in which the domination of COEP is so complete. Because of us, COEP's name is synonymous with success in the quizzing scene. Our list of victories speaks for itself. We do this despite having no annual budget allotted to us. Whatever is sanctioned is usurped by the Debate Club for their travels. Inspite of zero assistance from the college, we are doing so well.

And now we just wish to have our own quiz. We don't ask for any vast amount, just 3000 rupees. Is that too much to ask? When 20,000 are spent on an internal music show, 3000 is less than peanuts. We don't ask for any staff to help us. We will manage on our own with the small number of volunteers. All we want is the auditorium for some hours. And we are utterly dejected that such meagre demands are summarily rejected.

It is as if the college does not care whether we do well or not. There is no appreciation of our wins, and we get a step motherly treatment. We are very disappointed and the whole zest for quizzing may die out......."

blah blah blah, I whined on and on, hoping it would have an effect on the lady.

What happened in the meeting (I was not there) was that after all matters were discussed, Sujay, who was present there being the Football Secretary, said "Ma'am there is the matter of the quiz..." and she interrupted him. Then she spoke, under the effect of the letter, apparently, telling the committee about the "poor quizzers" who do se well despite the lack of any support and how they deserved to have the quiz since they were asking for just 3000 rupees and all. The committee of course agreed. In fact Jog talked of drawing up a resolution so that funds from the money that the college makes for transcripts be allotted to the quiz so that it will not be dependent on the Gathering. Wonder what happened to that.

So anyway, a friend of mine, who was the HAM Club secretary called me up from the college and conveyed the good news that the quiz had been sanctioned. After this we started working on war footing. Questions were never a problem, but we had little experience of how to publicise it properly. We decided that all five of us senior quizzers would make questions, i.e, Ramu, Sujay, Harish, Neeraj and moi so that we could not participate, and COEP winning would be unlikely (like AIT and unlike AFMC, we were wary about even the smallest hint of the R-word). It was decided to have an intra-COEP Mastermind like contest ( indicator of the future glory?) during the time when elims were checked so that COEP-ians did not feel excluded from the participants scene. We did all the running around, like getting an LCD projector allotted (no easy job, though the college had 3), getting the auditorium set up, the sound system working, and all.

It was decided to make it a seamless quiz, with nothing like a separate "audio" or "visual" round. That would be our USP, everything mixed. Each of us five made 30 questions and finally integrated it one midnight in the august company of mosquitoes on the Boat Club, where the Punt Formation practice was taking place. Getting a computer assigned from the college would have been a full day job and we were so sick and tired of all the bureaucractic hassles we had endured till then that we decided to use my comp. Neeraj got his car all the way from Vimannagar early morning and we lugged the PC to the college. The publicity could have been better, but really did not get much help from the FE and SE kids(indicators of the future non-glory?) except for the ever sincere Bimal and Nupur . Credit must however be given to Manish mahajan for coming up with the name - Chakravyuh. Just the five of us handling the questions, red tape and the publicity was too much. Still, about 40 teams turned up. This is where the difference made by the freshers helping out at BCJ shows. Anyway, March 16 dawned, and the quiz happened on time.

The quiz went pretty fine and a detailed report of the finals can be found on the inquizitive archives. The compering was shared by Sujay, Ramanand and Harish, and Neeraj and I handled the computer and other off-stage things. I don't exactly remember the entire line-up for the finals, but here's a shot at it. There was the Infy team of Shrirang and Amalesh, there was an ex-AIT team of Samrat and Navneet, we had Niranjan and Swapnil teaming up, and there was a COEP team of Amrish and..someone. The Infy team won it with a vast margin, and the ex-AITians came second, with Niranjan and Swapnil (named "Suvarnagram", a combo of the names of us 5 organisers, a great gesture) came third. Rahul Srinivas won "Abhimanyu",the intra-college Mastermind contest with the topic "Harry Potter Books".

By this time, though the interim Princi Jog had left, and the new Principal, Ghatol had just taken charge a day ago. We sent someone to invite him, and he actually turned up, stayed for the whole quiz, and was apparently loving it. When we invited him on stage to give away the prizes, he gushed a lot about what a great event the quiz was and how he was thinking hard for every question. He complimented us on having the best event of the gathering (he said this some days later at the closing ceremony of the gathering too).

Chakravyuh 2001 ended with the new Princi in the saddle being an admirer of the quiz (a fact that helped things the following year). Everyone appreciated the questions, the punctuality, and the organisation. Finally, COEP's own quiz had happened, and it was a smashing success.

It was great coming back to Chakravyuh in 2004 as a participant, and win it teamed up with Neeraj. Looking forward to Chakravyuh 2005

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Verve 2005

I'm sure the guys at EYF (Express Youth Forum) who organise Verve must have chanced upon the blog reviews before they woke up and decided to make a better quiz as last time. The result was a school quiz brought out on to the college level. But it was better than last time.

There is a strong hunch that the elims questions were lifted from Mastermind India. The finals had some better questions, with plenty of current affairs. The quizmistress/quizmiss (I don't recall her name) is supposedly in this field for many years, though it was pretty evident that the questions weren't hers. (It was also noted that she would blush whenever a wrong answer was given.)

Sample questions from elims:- Who are the chairman and MD of GAIL? Who is the ex-officio chairman of India? (authorised source, we're told)

Passing for the first 2 rounds was D&P. A request for a round reversal was granted, but to our dismay, the following rounds were non-passing: the topic round (with doubling or negative) and the speed round.

Srujan 2005, Tata Motors (the other Chakravyuh)

We were fearing that the long journey to Pimpri would result in another Verve. Thankfully, the quiz was a good one, being set by Abhinandan, a quizzer from Bangalore. There were old and new trivia alongwith the favourite workable connects (though some were real sitters), infinite rebounds. The event were extremely hospitable with a relaxed atmosphere. However there was no prize money, but a good quiz and dinner for all participants made the long trip worthwile.