Sunday 15 April 2012

Quizzing Circuit GP's

A small debate arose last week on facebook between some top uk quizzers. I was very interested to read it and want to ask TQA readers their take on the issue.

Basically, the issue was about the fairest way to contest major quizzing events and what is the truer test of knowledge. For anyone who is not aware the UK has a quizzing circuit which meets once a month and contests Grand Prix events. The format of the event is paper based questions. I have not yet attended an event but have purchased question sets so roughly know what I am talking about. 240 questions I believe are to be answered on paper.

The majority in the debate felt this was a fair way to test, stating it was a true test of knowledge as there was no pressure of say a mastermind style GK round or the frustration of being beat to the buzzer.

The subject was raised whether or not some sort of buzzer round should be added to the quiz GP’s. With nearly a hundred people attending these events this would be a logistical nightmare but I’m sure the folks who organise it could manage it. Would this add anything to the quiz? As much as I enjoy buzzer quizzers it is clear that they favour the people with the best recall and speed. You could play say a 50 question buzzer quiz and know the answer to every questions but be outbuzzed by others. Is this a fair test of knowledge? I would agree with those who say not. Of course to be a top class quizzer and compete in the main broadcast quiz shows you need good speed and recall but I do not see a place for it at GP’s. I think writing down the answers on a paper based “exam”, for want of a better word, is the true test of knowledge these GP’s are supposed to represent and also fairer in terms of the rankings etc.

Those arguing the other side of the case make a good point. First off I am denying the fast paced quizzing ability needed to compete on Mastermind is a superb test of knowledge. Of course it is! But the point raised by other people was that being in a situation such as a buzzer quiz demands more attention and concentration thus produces better results. I can certainly see where this point of view comes from and to add to that a few quizzers mentioned that if they were doing bad on one set of questions they were more likely to just “give up” than if in a buzzer quiz.

A combination of the above is obviously needed to be a top quizzer but in terms of the Quizzing Circuit GP’s I would agree with the argument that paper tests serve better. Any views?

3 comments:

  1. I'll just declare my position before I comment: I go to academic buzzer quizzes when I can but have never been to a GP, although I'd like to and I think I'd be more suited to that style. I'm going to explain why I believe that speed isn't necessarily all that important to winning a good buzzer quiz.

    I believe the buzzer quiz (or quiz bowl) to be the finest form of quizzing, largely because it has an entertaining format and questions tend to be of a high standard. I wouldn't deny that the exam set-up is a good way of ascertaining which individuals have the broadest knowledge, but quiz bowl sets out to do something else. It is quite possible, albeit very unusual, for a team of four very specialised people to win a tournament.

    Although the individual statistics from a quiz bowl tournament might not be a very good guide of who is the best quizzer (the quality of your team-mates and, in tournaments that aren't round-robins, your opponents affect the individual scores), it has an advantage over other quizzes in that the result of a single question tells you more.

    A good starter question (or toss-up) is pyramidally structured, so whoever knows the most about the subject wins the points, in-depth knowledge is rewarded. It is beneficial to have read the novel, listened to the symphony or studied whatever area the question is on. I once read an observation that "trivia knowledge is knowing who the 29th president is, Quiz Bowl knowledge is knowing what the 29th president did." (Although the article went on to explain what Taft did rather than what Harding did). Good question writers writing for a strong field will be able to avoid buzzer races most of the time. But if there are lots of buzzer races the bonus questions should separate the teams.

    American quiz bowl, an area where it differs from UC, has three bonus questions each worth 10 points, where one part should be converted by around 90% of the field, one by 50% and one by 10%. This is a good way of separating the teams by rewarding knowledge rather than speed. If, by some miracle, a team that knew very little was beating a knowledgeable team to the buzzer half the time it would still lose. In January, I was on a team which played Milhous Warriors (containing Kevin Ashman and Pat Gibson). Both teams got 10 toss-ups each (we were able to compete because we have some areas of specialisation which they didn't) but they beat us 280-205 because they were much better on the bonuses than us. We did very badly on them, we were a little unlucky with which bonuses we had but they would have beaten us however they had been arranged because they know more than we do.

    I know that some of the quizzers attending that tournament (the Oxford Open) complained about the questions being too hard and too narrow in subject, but the statistics show they weren't too hard and, although I like sport and films etc and answering questions about them, I don't that think they should account for many questions at an academic tournament.

    I'm not arguing that it should be considered a better test of general knowledge than a GP, merely that speed isn't all that valuable. Most important is knowledge, both breadth and depth, then, IMO, confidence and, to some extent, teamwork and tactics.

    And so ends my little essay on the merits of quiz bowl, I felt compelled to explain why I feel it is the best. I can't recommend it highly enough. This is not to belittle any other sort of quiz, as I said, I would like to enter some GPs. Also, I'm aware other formats exist for quizzes on buzzers but I've only commented on what I know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great read! Interesting point made about the buzzer bonuses

    ReplyDelete
  3. This may have triggered the discussion, if not I thought you might be interested. Although it seems to be very different from what I've outlined.

    ReplyDelete