As my friends will know, I am a huge fan of all things trivia and quiz related, so one of the highlights of my year is the World Quizzing Championships. This year marked the second time that I officially took part in the competition - I had previously been a competitor in 2006 while studying in England, deciding to make the trip to Cardiff (where it was held) despite the fact that my final PPE exam was just two days later. That experience, as well as trying out the 2008 and 2009 sets of questions underlined that the World Quizzing Championships provides high quality but extremely challenging questions.
I had planned to take part in the quiz in Manila, and the Philippines itself has the strongest quizzing culture in Southeast Asia (though a distant second in Asia to the quiz mad Indians) but I ended up organizing a small leg of the competition in Singapore instead (Malaysia also has a tiny leg with around 2-3 competitors). In the end, we held the Singapore leg at The Yard, a small quiet British pub on River Valley Road (with claims to be the oldest British pub in Singapore). Joining me in this trivia madness was Jake, an American friend of mine who has partnered me in many quizzes in the past, and Kenneth, whom I met at the weekly quiz at Brewerkz and who hopes to take part in College Bowl quizzes in America, where he is headed to study.
A bit on the rules of the competition. Basically, there are eight categories - Culture, Lifestyle, Media, Entertainment, Sport and Games, World, History, and Science. They are divided at random into two parts of four categories each. There are 30 questions in each category for a total of 240 overall. The quiz is done individually, with no conferring, and competitors get an hour for each part. Their total score is tabulated by dropping their worst category and adding together the scores for the remaining seven, for a maximum total of 210 points. If scores are tied the person with the higher score in their worst category is ranked first.
What makes the quiz very tough is the quality and difficulty of the questions and the question of speed. Having 1 hour for 4 categories works out to 60 minutes for 120 questions or 30 seconds per question including reading the question itself, trying to recall the answer (or in some cases trying to work it out) and of course trying not to second guess yourself. The questions are often much tougher than your average pub quiz. All in all it makes for quite a challenge.
I set myself a number of goals for this year's quiz. First, I hoped to crack 100 points. Seemingly modest considering that the highest possible score was 210 (eight categories of 30 questions each, with the lowest scoring category disregarded), so surely scoring 50% or 105 should be a easy right? I knew from past experience that attaining even 15 in any category was a major challenge though I did hope to break 100 and if possible score 50%.
Besides that, I hoped to be the top scoring competitor in Southeast Asia. For that reason, I had hoped to fly over to the Philippines, where the best competitors are to take part there. It would also be a good opportunity to meet other quizzers which would have been nice.
In the end, I accomplished neither. I ended up with a respectable 98 points, good enough for a 127th in the world. A Filipino quizzer by the name of Leonard Gapol scored an even 100 to beat me by a mere 2 points. To break the top 100, a score of 105 was needed (which was coincidentally exactly half the marks). To put the result in perspective, there were over 1200 competitors taking part in this year's WQC, so my placing puts me just fractionally outside the top 10%. Not bad, even if I failed to accomplish my two other targets.
As for the questions, I was particularly proud because I didn't drop that many questions and managed to work out those that I knew I knew but took some time remembering. In my case it was the British fashion designer that committed suicide (Alexander McQueen), the French city where there was an alternative papacy (Avignon), the standard measurement of distance in Ancient China (the li) or the very young British diver who one of the youngest competitors at the Beijing Olypics (Tom Daley). In a quiz of this difficulty there is nothing more irksome that to have an answer at the tip of a brain which you can't quite pull out.
Of the ones that got away I should have gotten the clue to the Tuileries Gardens in Paris (mixed it up with the Luxembourg Gardens), and a music clip clue from the musical Hairspray, but there weren't that many dropped points for me in this particular quiz.
This turned out to be especially important this year as it was a fairly tough quiz compared to the ones in 2008 and 2009. I struggled on Sciences (which includes the Social Sciences), which was expected, but I didn't even manage a score of 10 in History, which is surprising, given it is a subject I am normally quite decent at. In the end I managed 19 in Media, 16 in Sport and Culture, 14 in Entertainment, 13 in Lifestyle, 11 in World, 9 in History and 8 in Science. Here's to more quizzing and a better score next year!
Showing posts with label Quiz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quiz. Show all posts
15 June 2010
14 April 2010
Interesting Puzzle
I am glad that I rushed down to take part in the Brewerkz pub quiz after ringing Jake up mainly because we managed to win, with a team of just four people. That worked out to a cool 80 over dollars per person on the night, which was quite wonderful. I also won a free beer to boot after betting with Jake that Yokohama was the second largest city in terms of population in Japan after Tokyo, though Jake rightly pointed out that much of that depended on things like how you defined city and metropolitan limits.
I ended up having a long chat with the quiz masters afterwards, and it turned out that one of them was a banker, dealing with derivitives and thus analytical by nature. His background in gambling actually helped a great deal, at least in terms of securing him his job, because some of the interview questions were actually based on logic and probability. He challenged us with two specific puzzles which I only fully worked out afterwards, and it makes enormous intuitive sense, I thought I would share them.
The first puzzle involved a game of chance with a die. Let us say that you will pay in cash the amount equivalent to the die roll (e.g. if it lands on a six, the person wins six dollars). What price should you make a person pay in order to compete in the game? The answer is derived by using simple math. First, there is an equal probability of each outcome (the die landing on any number from one to six). So the average payout can be calculated by taking the total payout in each individual outcome (i.e. $1 in the case of die roll 1, $2, in the case of die roll 2) and dividing it by 6. So what you get is $1+$2+$3+$4+$5+$6= $21 in total, dividing by 6 gives you $3.50. So you should charge at a very minimum $3.50 for a roll.
He then added a more challenging twist. Say you give the gambler a chance at a second roll of the die. The number that then comes up on the second roll is the payout will be given (i.e. if you roll 3 on the first go and 2 on the second, the payout is $2). What price would you set for a person to compete in this 2 roll game? Would it be the same as in the first case, more expensive, or less expensive?
The answer of course is that you have to set it more expensive. Calculating the exact amount is a matter of logically predicting the behaviour of the gambler. To begin with, the gambler will not re-roll unless he has a even or better chance of improving his payout. Because there is always a risk that he will throw lower the second time around. So the gambler will probably hold if he rolls 4,5 or 6 the first time, and re-roll if he rolls 1,2,3. If he re-rolls the scenario exactly mirrors the first one above. However, given that the gambler has the option of holding on a high number and improving his payout on a low one, it logically means that the price has to be set higher.
How to calculate this? Very simple, first deal with the first roll which has a payout of 4+5+6 divided by 3 which is 5 - the gambler will re-roll otherwise. As calculated above, the average payout on a second roll (should the gambler roll 1,2 or 3) is 3.5. So the price set for a gambler to take part in this second game is the average of these two which is 8.5 divided by 2 which is 4.25. So you should make someone pay $4.25 in order to take part in the double roll game.
I ended up having a long chat with the quiz masters afterwards, and it turned out that one of them was a banker, dealing with derivitives and thus analytical by nature. His background in gambling actually helped a great deal, at least in terms of securing him his job, because some of the interview questions were actually based on logic and probability. He challenged us with two specific puzzles which I only fully worked out afterwards, and it makes enormous intuitive sense, I thought I would share them.
The first puzzle involved a game of chance with a die. Let us say that you will pay in cash the amount equivalent to the die roll (e.g. if it lands on a six, the person wins six dollars). What price should you make a person pay in order to compete in the game? The answer is derived by using simple math. First, there is an equal probability of each outcome (the die landing on any number from one to six). So the average payout can be calculated by taking the total payout in each individual outcome (i.e. $1 in the case of die roll 1, $2, in the case of die roll 2) and dividing it by 6. So what you get is $1+$2+$3+$4+$5+$6= $21 in total, dividing by 6 gives you $3.50. So you should charge at a very minimum $3.50 for a roll.
He then added a more challenging twist. Say you give the gambler a chance at a second roll of the die. The number that then comes up on the second roll is the payout will be given (i.e. if you roll 3 on the first go and 2 on the second, the payout is $2). What price would you set for a person to compete in this 2 roll game? Would it be the same as in the first case, more expensive, or less expensive?
The answer of course is that you have to set it more expensive. Calculating the exact amount is a matter of logically predicting the behaviour of the gambler. To begin with, the gambler will not re-roll unless he has a even or better chance of improving his payout. Because there is always a risk that he will throw lower the second time around. So the gambler will probably hold if he rolls 4,5 or 6 the first time, and re-roll if he rolls 1,2,3. If he re-rolls the scenario exactly mirrors the first one above. However, given that the gambler has the option of holding on a high number and improving his payout on a low one, it logically means that the price has to be set higher.
How to calculate this? Very simple, first deal with the first roll which has a payout of 4+5+6 divided by 3 which is 5 - the gambler will re-roll otherwise. As calculated above, the average payout on a second roll (should the gambler roll 1,2 or 3) is 3.5. So the price set for a gambler to take part in this second game is the average of these two which is 8.5 divided by 2 which is 4.25. So you should make someone pay $4.25 in order to take part in the double roll game.
3 January 2010
Old Brown Shoe Pub Quiz Record for 2009
I've been keeping a record of my participation in the Old Brown Shoe pub quiz over the years. So here's how it stand for 2009. Overall, I took part in 39 of the 52 quizzes for the year, a better than three quarter participation rate. The record reads at 22 wins, 8 second places, and 9 times taking the mantle of the quizmaster.
To go an entire year finishing in the top two is no mean feat, particularly given the evenings when some of the usual team mates hadn't been around for some reason or another. It has only served to underline how effective the team is - a potent mix of Britishness, youth (well, if I show up that is!) and a completely random range of interests.
I've especially enjoyed taking the helm as the quizmaster 9 times and I sincerely hope I will get the chance to be the quizmaster on regular occasions this year as well. It's not easy to set a good quiz, particularly a balanced one, but there is a real thrill to having created a good set of questions which everyone will enjoy.
To go an entire year finishing in the top two is no mean feat, particularly given the evenings when some of the usual team mates hadn't been around for some reason or another. It has only served to underline how effective the team is - a potent mix of Britishness, youth (well, if I show up that is!) and a completely random range of interests.
I've especially enjoyed taking the helm as the quizmaster 9 times and I sincerely hope I will get the chance to be the quizmaster on regular occasions this year as well. It's not easy to set a good quiz, particularly a balanced one, but there is a real thrill to having created a good set of questions which everyone will enjoy.
12 November 2009
More Quizzing Mayhem
I was asked to stand in for Peter again this week as quizmaster, and the choice of "black-eyed Pete's" [a riff off Black Eyed Peas] as a team name was a not too subtle allusion as to why. I was short of inspiration for that week's quiz so it took a fairly long time to set. In the end, I set rounds on Remembering '89 (in honour of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall); A Test of Character (teams had to name the film after I listed out some characters from it); and The Natural World (Animals, Plants, Physical Geography).
It was a full house - nine teams in total - and it made for a fairly good night. There was a bunch of first timers that definitely caught the eye no less because one of the members was a television personality who was a presenter on ESPN Sport Center. Attractive young ladies are a rarity at Old Brown Shoe quiz nights, so it was refreshing to see two of them that night, teammates of said television personality.
It turned out to be a fantastic quiz, perfectly pitched. By the end of the night, as many as 5 or 6 teams had a shot at winning it, and the top 5 were separated by a mere four points. The team with the attractive young ladies won, but sadly they had to forfeit their winnings for violating the long standing rule that each team could only have a maximum of six members. I still gave them a bottle of wine though, along with the third placed team. To give some idea of the balanced scoring, none of the nine teams scored a perfect 10 in any of the rounds; almost all teams scored at least a five in every round except for a team, self-styled as the "wooden spoons", which predictably struggled.
All in all, it was a very fascinating night, made even lovelier when I ended up speaking to Colette afterwards and was introduced to one of the girls - Emilie - who proved to be slightly tipsy. She proceeded to show her immense flexibility by placing both feet at either ends of the table top, and her considerable singing prowess by belting out some tunes from Annie. No doubt the alcohol had something to do with it, but I suspect she is generally random and slightly crazy, which is quite wonderful. A great pity then that I didn't get her number, one can only hopes she comes down to quiz again.
It was a full house - nine teams in total - and it made for a fairly good night. There was a bunch of first timers that definitely caught the eye no less because one of the members was a television personality who was a presenter on ESPN Sport Center. Attractive young ladies are a rarity at Old Brown Shoe quiz nights, so it was refreshing to see two of them that night, teammates of said television personality.
It turned out to be a fantastic quiz, perfectly pitched. By the end of the night, as many as 5 or 6 teams had a shot at winning it, and the top 5 were separated by a mere four points. The team with the attractive young ladies won, but sadly they had to forfeit their winnings for violating the long standing rule that each team could only have a maximum of six members. I still gave them a bottle of wine though, along with the third placed team. To give some idea of the balanced scoring, none of the nine teams scored a perfect 10 in any of the rounds; almost all teams scored at least a five in every round except for a team, self-styled as the "wooden spoons", which predictably struggled.
All in all, it was a very fascinating night, made even lovelier when I ended up speaking to Colette afterwards and was introduced to one of the girls - Emilie - who proved to be slightly tipsy. She proceeded to show her immense flexibility by placing both feet at either ends of the table top, and her considerable singing prowess by belting out some tunes from Annie. No doubt the alcohol had something to do with it, but I suspect she is generally random and slightly crazy, which is quite wonderful. A great pity then that I didn't get her number, one can only hopes she comes down to quiz again.
23 September 2009
Courting Controversy
I was asked by Pete to be the quizmaster this week as he had a load of marking to catch up on. I naturally agreed - I do love being the quizmaster and I pride myself on setting a fair quiz. For me, there have to be at least a couple of teams with a shout of winning the quiz for it to count as successful.
The last time I set the quiz there were complaints that it was slightly too intellectual with a round on first lines from novels, and one on famous last words (from both real and fictional people), so this time I decided to dumb it down considerably. So, I besides a more typical round on the 1920s, I dumbed things down considerably with a round on celebrity baby names. As if more proof were needed of the horrendous names that people give celebrities. I also set a random and interesting round on tricksters and scams, which was a bit of fun.
All in all it was a fairly well received quiz bar one moment. I asked a question about the recent Manchester derby football match, where there was a huge bone of contention over the amount of added time played, mainly because Michael Owen rifled in the winner with the clock showing 95:25. I of course, asked what minute in extra time the goal was scored and there was significant semantic controversy as to whether that constituted the 95th or 96th minute of added time. Obviously less than 6 minutes of added time had elapsed, but it was still IN the 96th minute itself. Confused? Well some of the teams were outraged. The problem was 2 teams had put 95th and three teams had put 96th, so in the end I accepted both answers.
Other than that, I was rather pleased that my usual team missed out on a question on the 'Lost Generation' (in the 1920s round) despite having 2 literature teachers in their ranks. And I was pleased, in keeping with my own ethos about exciting quizzes that the top three teams were only separated by 2 points at the end of the night.
The last time I set the quiz there were complaints that it was slightly too intellectual with a round on first lines from novels, and one on famous last words (from both real and fictional people), so this time I decided to dumb it down considerably. So, I besides a more typical round on the 1920s, I dumbed things down considerably with a round on celebrity baby names. As if more proof were needed of the horrendous names that people give celebrities. I also set a random and interesting round on tricksters and scams, which was a bit of fun.
All in all it was a fairly well received quiz bar one moment. I asked a question about the recent Manchester derby football match, where there was a huge bone of contention over the amount of added time played, mainly because Michael Owen rifled in the winner with the clock showing 95:25. I of course, asked what minute in extra time the goal was scored and there was significant semantic controversy as to whether that constituted the 95th or 96th minute of added time. Obviously less than 6 minutes of added time had elapsed, but it was still IN the 96th minute itself. Confused? Well some of the teams were outraged. The problem was 2 teams had put 95th and three teams had put 96th, so in the end I accepted both answers.
Other than that, I was rather pleased that my usual team missed out on a question on the 'Lost Generation' (in the 1920s round) despite having 2 literature teachers in their ranks. And I was pleased, in keeping with my own ethos about exciting quizzes that the top three teams were only separated by 2 points at the end of the night.
1 October 2008
The Return of the Prodigal Son
When my quiz team recruited me on that fateful day over a year ago now, they commented that I was a classic 'ringer' given my quizzing pedigree. Little did they know. I had missed the quiz on 17th September after my class overran and I heard later that my usual team had finished in an abysmal 5th position. The following week, I was asked to be the substitute quizmaster as Pete was suffering from some hip trouble. My team took part, without me, and finished 3rd, outside the prizes for the second week in the a row.
This might seem to be just a minor run of bad fortune, but it has to be put into perspective. With me in their side they have never finished outside the top two. Indeed, at one point our team was so dominant that the quizmaster was attempting to come up with a suitable handicap for us after we strung together five consecutive wins, and nine in ten weeks. Lo and behold, I fail to join them for two weeks, and they splutter into a fifth and a third placing!
I could hardly afford to abandon them this week though I was quick to point out, tongue firmly in cheek, how badly they needed me, so I went for the quiz. Things got a little more complicated when Iris, an old friend from my ACJC days, ambled into the pub quite unexpectedly, having made a reservation to do the quiz. It was her first time there and she professed herself fond of 'trivia nights' as they call it in Melbourne where she studies. Oh, if there were only more ladies like her! I was sorely tempted to abandon the lads and join her team, but my loyalty held, and I stuck with them. Bros before Hoes as they say.
Given the return of the prodigal son to the team, it was quite inevitable that we triumphed this week and quite handily at that. It was a comfortable victory, apart from a round where we were forced to guess if individuals were dead or alive - far more difficult than one would necessarily think. In that round I made the gaffe of thinking Sir Roger Bannister (first man to run the four minute mile) dead - I had mistakenly thought they had a memorial service for him when I was at Oxford!
Afterwards, Iris, her sister and her friends headed over to Lau Pa Sat for supper, and I was quite happy to follow. It enabled us to catch up on our assorted acquaintances from our Junior College days and reminisce about the good and not so good old times. Come to think of it Iris is just the last in a long string of old friends who seem to be wandering into the Shoe. First it was a couple of old ACS(I) friends, then it was Edwin, Julian Han and of all people Sheryl Tan (a classmate from my first three months in JC) who popped by the Shoe the week I was the quizmaster. It was wonderful to see them all again, especially Sheryl who seems far more talkative now than I ever remembered her to be (but then again she was the quietest person I knew). So old friends in a familiar setting, perfect all round.
30 June 2008
Old Brown Shoe vs Turnstyles Quiz
Tonight marked the inaugural Old Brown Shoe versus Turnstyles Challenge Quiz, with a special challenge trophy created for the occasion. The idea was that individual teams would represent their respective pubs and the three highest scoring teams for each pub would count towards the pub's total. The winning pub would be the one with the highest cumulative scores. Of course there would be prizes for the top two individual teams as well.
Given that there were many top-notch teams from the Turnstyles out in force, there was little surprise that the quiz itself was very closely fought. I mean, in all honesty, it takes a certain demented love of quizzing for you to turn out on a Monday night for a pub quiz. But the usual gang - Keith (this time with wife in tow), Dave and Vicky turned out hoping to do the Old Brown Shoe proud.
And we did, with the Shoe winning the face-off rather handily by more than ten points. In the individual team challenge, it was a different story, and we ended up in a tie-break at the end of regulation after a very solid Turnstyles team matched us by scoring an eight on their final round (which was coincidentally their joker round). We aced the three tie-break questions though, mainly due to Keith's surprising knowledge of different types of beetles, and Dave's predilection for 1970s music.
That resulted in Keith Prince going up and accepting the trophy and lifting it above his head as if it were the FA Cup which was utterly comical due to the fact that it was all of ten cm in height. Still, a spectacle of sorts, and a fitting end to an entertaining evening.
Given that there were many top-notch teams from the Turnstyles out in force, there was little surprise that the quiz itself was very closely fought. I mean, in all honesty, it takes a certain demented love of quizzing for you to turn out on a Monday night for a pub quiz. But the usual gang - Keith (this time with wife in tow), Dave and Vicky turned out hoping to do the Old Brown Shoe proud.
And we did, with the Shoe winning the face-off rather handily by more than ten points. In the individual team challenge, it was a different story, and we ended up in a tie-break at the end of regulation after a very solid Turnstyles team matched us by scoring an eight on their final round (which was coincidentally their joker round). We aced the three tie-break questions though, mainly due to Keith's surprising knowledge of different types of beetles, and Dave's predilection for 1970s music.
That resulted in Keith Prince going up and accepting the trophy and lifting it above his head as if it were the FA Cup which was utterly comical due to the fact that it was all of ten cm in height. Still, a spectacle of sorts, and a fitting end to an entertaining evening.
4 June 2008
The Eagle Has Landed
It was back to the Old Brown Shoe for me after a bit of a hiatus. Our team name in full was actually The Eagle Has Landed (and Ronaldo is a wanker). The first part was in reference to Jason, an American colleague of mind at the institute whom I invited down for the quiz. It was just as well that we invited Jason, given Dave was still in England on holiday and Vicky not present as a result.
But back to the quiz. We started with two decent rounds of 8 points, despite blowing a news question on the Chelsea Flower Show which we really should have got. But we were quite stunned to find ourselves a good 4 points behind because another team scored a perfect 20 in the first two rounds. That team - the Pussycat's Return was having an absolute stormer of a quiz, and by the end of three rounds, they had scored a perfect 40 points (after a full 10 on their joker). At that point it looked like our record points total of 57 was seriously under threat, let alone our chances of winning this week's edition of the quiz. We had scored a ten in the third round - our joker round - as well, but that still left us four points behind.
That lead was narrowed by a single point after the Pussycats finally showed signs of being human by dropping a point in the fourth round to our perfect 10 points. That left us heading into the Pot Luck round needing them to score only seven, assuming we could manage another perfect round. In the end, in a bugger of a round, both teams scored a respectable seven points, meaning that we lost to a phenomenal total of 56 points - just one off our very own record.
14 May 2008
Lazarus
It was pub quiz night again, and I ended up a bit late after a sojourn over to Borders which was having one of their usual discount sales. I ended up buying 4 books - Hidden Iran by Roy Takeyh, a cloth bound copy of the Mabinogon (Welsh myths), Hew Strachan's biography of Clausewitz's On War, and a book on European History titled The Pursuit of Power, covering the period from 1644-1815 or Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna.
The team name was apt because we hadn't participated in the quiz for the previous two weeks. Not quite coming back from the dead, but definitely a revival of sorts. It was also chosen with Dave's beloved Leeds United in mind - they lost 2-1 at Elland Road in the first leg of the playoffs against Carlisle and need to come back from the dead in the second leg to make the playoff finals.
It was fairly typical fare, with a round on pop music, communications and the 1990s. We chose the 1990s as our joker round, given that the 'decade' categories have usually been kind to us in the past. This one was rather random with 2 questions on computer viruses (surely the 1990s wasn't that boring, I grew up in them!). It was an excellent and very consistent performance overall, with 8s and 9s on most rounds and a safe seven points in the pot luck to round off the win.
And all that without the redoubtable Princey, who was still suffering after surgery on his bum knees. I am told he will be back next week to take part and I do hope he'll make it. I will be loathe to admit it but I am actually starting to miss the grumpy git.
Update: Our team name proved even more well-founded than we realized, when Leeds United scored an injury time winner to progress to the playoff final. Dave Sowden, who had planned a trip back to England anyway, managed to get himself a ticket to the playoff final at Wembley. Sadly Leeds were outplayed by Doncaster and lost.
The team name was apt because we hadn't participated in the quiz for the previous two weeks. Not quite coming back from the dead, but definitely a revival of sorts. It was also chosen with Dave's beloved Leeds United in mind - they lost 2-1 at Elland Road in the first leg of the playoffs against Carlisle and need to come back from the dead in the second leg to make the playoff finals.
It was fairly typical fare, with a round on pop music, communications and the 1990s. We chose the 1990s as our joker round, given that the 'decade' categories have usually been kind to us in the past. This one was rather random with 2 questions on computer viruses (surely the 1990s wasn't that boring, I grew up in them!). It was an excellent and very consistent performance overall, with 8s and 9s on most rounds and a safe seven points in the pot luck to round off the win.
And all that without the redoubtable Princey, who was still suffering after surgery on his bum knees. I am told he will be back next week to take part and I do hope he'll make it. I will be loathe to admit it but I am actually starting to miss the grumpy git.
Update: Our team name proved even more well-founded than we realized, when Leeds United scored an injury time winner to progress to the playoff final. Dave Sowden, who had planned a trip back to England anyway, managed to get himself a ticket to the playoff final at Wembley. Sadly Leeds were outplayed by Doncaster and lost.
5 March 2008
Deflated
It was a very quiet quiz night - only 5 teams in total, so our choice of team name was apt to the say the least. The main motivating factor behind it was the fact that Dave's car suffered a flat tire on the way to the pub rather than the lack of turnout at the quiz.
It was the full team again, and we had Film and Entertainment (with a special theme on Police movies), Food and Drink and Dingbats for the three other rounds. We were very lucky we put our joker on film and entertainment after a heated vote (Princey and Dave wanted Dingbats) as that was our only good round in the whole quiz and the main reason we won.
In sum, it was our lowest score of the entire year and we were very very lucky to win. We went into the final round three points up and scored only a seven and to add to the excitement, the team closest to us scored nine meaning that the final margin was only one point. We were exceptionally lucky to win - the other team actually outscored us in a majority of the rounds but found their undoing in the dingbats round where they could only manage a meagre three points.
I ended up going through Justin's draft first chapter for his manuscript, a proposed biography of his friend Winky, a real old-time pilot. I really liked the draft - Justin is absolutely right that Winky has an amazing story to tell. My main job as I saw it was to read through the draft a few times and look closely at how it could read better, and proposing a list of suggestions for changing the language. The prerogative still lies with Justin, as the author, in deciding whether or not to keep the changes.
A very late evening ended with yet another post-midnight indulgence in the terrible temptation that is McDonald's, along with Claire and Richard. What made it truly unconscionable, was the fact that it was my second burger of the night - I had a Shoe burger for dinner at the pub earlier. So another series of resolutions to add to my list - forebear from late night McDonald burgers and go home earlier after the pub quiz on Wednesday.
It was the full team again, and we had Film and Entertainment (with a special theme on Police movies), Food and Drink and Dingbats for the three other rounds. We were very lucky we put our joker on film and entertainment after a heated vote (Princey and Dave wanted Dingbats) as that was our only good round in the whole quiz and the main reason we won.
In sum, it was our lowest score of the entire year and we were very very lucky to win. We went into the final round three points up and scored only a seven and to add to the excitement, the team closest to us scored nine meaning that the final margin was only one point. We were exceptionally lucky to win - the other team actually outscored us in a majority of the rounds but found their undoing in the dingbats round where they could only manage a meagre three points.
I ended up going through Justin's draft first chapter for his manuscript, a proposed biography of his friend Winky, a real old-time pilot. I really liked the draft - Justin is absolutely right that Winky has an amazing story to tell. My main job as I saw it was to read through the draft a few times and look closely at how it could read better, and proposing a list of suggestions for changing the language. The prerogative still lies with Justin, as the author, in deciding whether or not to keep the changes.
A very late evening ended with yet another post-midnight indulgence in the terrible temptation that is McDonald's, along with Claire and Richard. What made it truly unconscionable, was the fact that it was my second burger of the night - I had a Shoe burger for dinner at the pub earlier. So another series of resolutions to add to my list - forebear from late night McDonald burgers and go home earlier after the pub quiz on Wednesday.
13 February 2008
Churlish
It was a more close run thing this time round, but the perfect record in 2008 for the Old Brown Shoe pub quiz has been maintained. So it is four wins out of four, and the 50 points scored today means that we have managed to score above 50 in every quiz so far this year. Churlish of us to keep winning? Perhaps, but I fully intend to.
The three other rounds this week were "starting with the letters MI", "history and geography" and a round where you had to decide whether something was to be "eaten, worn, flown, spent, drunk etc." We decided to put our joker on starting with MI, reasoning that knowing the first two letters of the answer would really help in guessing it, and other similar rounds had proven easy in the past. Again, we proved inspired on the joker, with that round being by far the easiest of the quiz (most teams scored at least eight, with lots of nines). We managed a full ten again for yet another twenty on the joker.
We scored a decent eight on history and geography which has proven tricky in the past. We were tripped up by a question asking what month JFK was assissinated in (despite Dave remembering that it was a cold one due to the fact that he went to get some coal that morning). We guessed February but it was November apparantly. Given that I wasn't yet born in 1963, I couldn't prove or disprove the popular notion that everyone can remember exactly what they were doing when they heard the news that JFK was shot. On a sidenote, I could draw a parallel to a similar shocking event in recent times, namely the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do I remember what I was doing? Actually, I was out on an army exercise when the news first broke, and I only realised when I received a text message from my parents after I got back into camp.
We ultimately went into the final round with 44 points, after scoring a 7 in a pretty tough news round and getting a good 9 in the wear it/eat it/fly it/drink it etc. round, thanks to Keith's usual genius at this. I was very pleased to know that a Sopwitch Camel is actually an airplane (and thus to be flown) - Justin will be proud of me. It was proving to be a close quiz though as we took a bare 2 point lead into the final round - it was our usual close rivals the Shoe People led by Nigel in hot pursuit.
It proved to be a bugger of a final round. We were well stumped by questions like what river runs through Berlin (the Spree), the national flower of Indonesia (the Jasmine or the Rafflesia), the animal responsible for Minnesota's state nickname (the Gopher) and the organ that produces immune cells (the Spleen). We weren't surprised when we only managed a six, and given our slender lead we were fully expecting a tie-break. Thankfully, the team two points behind only managed a six as well, meaning that we maintained our two point lead for a win.
The three other rounds this week were "starting with the letters MI", "history and geography" and a round where you had to decide whether something was to be "eaten, worn, flown, spent, drunk etc." We decided to put our joker on starting with MI, reasoning that knowing the first two letters of the answer would really help in guessing it, and other similar rounds had proven easy in the past. Again, we proved inspired on the joker, with that round being by far the easiest of the quiz (most teams scored at least eight, with lots of nines). We managed a full ten again for yet another twenty on the joker.
We scored a decent eight on history and geography which has proven tricky in the past. We were tripped up by a question asking what month JFK was assissinated in (despite Dave remembering that it was a cold one due to the fact that he went to get some coal that morning). We guessed February but it was November apparantly. Given that I wasn't yet born in 1963, I couldn't prove or disprove the popular notion that everyone can remember exactly what they were doing when they heard the news that JFK was shot. On a sidenote, I could draw a parallel to a similar shocking event in recent times, namely the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do I remember what I was doing? Actually, I was out on an army exercise when the news first broke, and I only realised when I received a text message from my parents after I got back into camp.
We ultimately went into the final round with 44 points, after scoring a 7 in a pretty tough news round and getting a good 9 in the wear it/eat it/fly it/drink it etc. round, thanks to Keith's usual genius at this. I was very pleased to know that a Sopwitch Camel is actually an airplane (and thus to be flown) - Justin will be proud of me. It was proving to be a close quiz though as we took a bare 2 point lead into the final round - it was our usual close rivals the Shoe People led by Nigel in hot pursuit.
It proved to be a bugger of a final round. We were well stumped by questions like what river runs through Berlin (the Spree), the national flower of Indonesia (the Jasmine or the Rafflesia), the animal responsible for Minnesota's state nickname (the Gopher) and the organ that produces immune cells (the Spleen). We weren't surprised when we only managed a six, and given our slender lead we were fully expecting a tie-break. Thankfully, the team two points behind only managed a six as well, meaning that we maintained our two point lead for a win.
30 January 2008
Dwarf
Our team name for this week's pub quiz is 'Dwarf' which was chosen by Dave not with reference to any individuals that are vertically challenged and round but as an acronym. Thus it should properly be D*W*A*R*F standing for "Dennis Wise is A Rat-assed F**ker". You see, Dave and Marty are fervent Leeds United supporters, and Dennis Wise who was until very recently the Leeds manager, decided to high-tail it to Newcastle United as the "Director of Football Operations" or some such random post. The team name was a rant as his two-faced traitorous behaviour.
It was a tough news round this week, with us only managing seven which was still top. There were a few very random questions in this one including one asking which "children's product was celebrating its 50th anniversary this year". We were along the right lines and guessed Barbie but the answer was Lego. On a random aside, the word 'Lego' was coined by its Danish inventor from the phrase "leg godt" which means "play well" in Danish, apparently. We also missed a question on the (unprouncable) name of some African mosquito which was just thoroughly random.
We soon recovered and scored an excellent ten points on a round on "Cats" which had been picked as the joker round. Of course, there weren't really any questions on cat breeds and the like but references to cats including the author of the book of poems "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats", the name of Postman Pat's cat, the name of the cub in "Born Free" and the panther in the "Jungle Book" and other such references. Between our wide range of knowledge we managed to get them all.
The next two rounds on Sport and Westerns were also pretty tricky though we managed eight each on the two of them collaboratively. We missed a question asking which country won the inaugural cricket world cup when I realised far too late that it was the West Indies. For the Westerns, one question that stood out asked who was the female lead in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". Despite having seen the film barely two weeks previously, I couldn't remember the answer, but Dave remembered that it was Kathryn Ross.
The Pot Luck round was a true collaborative effort when we managed an amazing 10 points with some inspired guessing. Dave got a couple including the usual anagram question. I somehow figured that the word "lemming" originated from the Norwegian language, and between the lot of us we guessed that Eva Peron died of cancer. So in the end another easy victory for the teachers as we are now called. At least there will be a more level playing field the following week from today, as we won't be taking part - Dave and Vicky will be in Australia, Marty in China, Keith somewhere else and it will be reunion dinner night for me.
It was also a happy and sad night both at the Shoe. Keith received some very good news today and had cause to celebrate. But it was also the last quiz night for Liz and Fletch who are set to depart tomorrow for England. Fittingly, their team was called "Archie Gemmill's last stand". We'll miss you Liz and Fletch.
It was a tough news round this week, with us only managing seven which was still top. There were a few very random questions in this one including one asking which "children's product was celebrating its 50th anniversary this year". We were along the right lines and guessed Barbie but the answer was Lego. On a random aside, the word 'Lego' was coined by its Danish inventor from the phrase "leg godt" which means "play well" in Danish, apparently. We also missed a question on the (unprouncable) name of some African mosquito which was just thoroughly random.
We soon recovered and scored an excellent ten points on a round on "Cats" which had been picked as the joker round. Of course, there weren't really any questions on cat breeds and the like but references to cats including the author of the book of poems "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats", the name of Postman Pat's cat, the name of the cub in "Born Free" and the panther in the "Jungle Book" and other such references. Between our wide range of knowledge we managed to get them all.
The next two rounds on Sport and Westerns were also pretty tricky though we managed eight each on the two of them collaboratively. We missed a question asking which country won the inaugural cricket world cup when I realised far too late that it was the West Indies. For the Westerns, one question that stood out asked who was the female lead in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". Despite having seen the film barely two weeks previously, I couldn't remember the answer, but Dave remembered that it was Kathryn Ross.
The Pot Luck round was a true collaborative effort when we managed an amazing 10 points with some inspired guessing. Dave got a couple including the usual anagram question. I somehow figured that the word "lemming" originated from the Norwegian language, and between the lot of us we guessed that Eva Peron died of cancer. So in the end another easy victory for the teachers as we are now called. At least there will be a more level playing field the following week from today, as we won't be taking part - Dave and Vicky will be in Australia, Marty in China, Keith somewhere else and it will be reunion dinner night for me.
It was also a happy and sad night both at the Shoe. Keith received some very good news today and had cause to celebrate. But it was also the last quiz night for Liz and Fletch who are set to depart tomorrow for England. Fittingly, their team was called "Archie Gemmill's last stand". We'll miss you Liz and Fletch.
23 January 2008
Agoraphobics Out!
The title of the post is actually the name that was chosen for our quiz team this week courtesy of the every witty Dave Sowden. For those of you who are somewhat puzzled, agoraphobia is the fear of being out in the open. Thus the wickedness of the title. Get it? Well, oh nevermind.
Anyhow, it was another good night, with the usual full team - Dave, Marty, Keith Prince and myself. Besides the weekly News and Pot Luck rounds, we were faced with 4-letter answers (all answers are four letters), History and Geography and a picture round featuring Movie Posters. We threw our joker in on Movie Posters based on Marty's confidence that the picture rounds are usually very easy (particularly the movie ones) - Keith and myself readily agreeing with him on that point.
We got off to a fantastic start with scores of 10, 9 and 9 respectively on the first three rounds. I was quite happy to nail the answer to the question "what is the only movie that is 4 letters long to win the Best Picture Oscar" - the others had guessed Crash and Rocky respectively when I pulled "Gigi" out of the hat. Gigi was a late 1950s movie, so definitely more of Dave and Keith's generation than mine.
A good joker round would nail it for us, and thankfully we had chosen well. Marty and Dave did the round separately from Keith and myself before we compared answers and we had a match on 9 out of 10 of the answers, with all of us unsure of the same one. But me and Marty both guessed that is looked like the poster for Tron, and that turned out correct for a maximum 20 on that round.
With a 5 point lead going into the final round, we scored a 7 (it could have been lower) and still managed a pretty comfortable win with a total of 55 points. If we had scored a full 10 in the Pot Luck we would have set a new record for points total (58). The elusive perfect 60 remains just within our grasp. On a personal note, I have decided to keep a record of my Old Brown Shoe pub quiz performances on this blog.
It turned out to be a very good evening thanks to the two free beers we won as part of the first place prize (along with all the dosh). It got even better for me when Keith Prince left without bringing his beers home with him - it meant a mild ethical dilemma for me (if you leave your beers behind does that mean it is a free for all) which was quickly resolved by my drinking them. Good times indeed.
Anyhow, it was another good night, with the usual full team - Dave, Marty, Keith Prince and myself. Besides the weekly News and Pot Luck rounds, we were faced with 4-letter answers (all answers are four letters), History and Geography and a picture round featuring Movie Posters. We threw our joker in on Movie Posters based on Marty's confidence that the picture rounds are usually very easy (particularly the movie ones) - Keith and myself readily agreeing with him on that point.
We got off to a fantastic start with scores of 10, 9 and 9 respectively on the first three rounds. I was quite happy to nail the answer to the question "what is the only movie that is 4 letters long to win the Best Picture Oscar" - the others had guessed Crash and Rocky respectively when I pulled "Gigi" out of the hat. Gigi was a late 1950s movie, so definitely more of Dave and Keith's generation than mine.
A good joker round would nail it for us, and thankfully we had chosen well. Marty and Dave did the round separately from Keith and myself before we compared answers and we had a match on 9 out of 10 of the answers, with all of us unsure of the same one. But me and Marty both guessed that is looked like the poster for Tron, and that turned out correct for a maximum 20 on that round.
With a 5 point lead going into the final round, we scored a 7 (it could have been lower) and still managed a pretty comfortable win with a total of 55 points. If we had scored a full 10 in the Pot Luck we would have set a new record for points total (58). The elusive perfect 60 remains just within our grasp. On a personal note, I have decided to keep a record of my Old Brown Shoe pub quiz performances on this blog.
It turned out to be a very good evening thanks to the two free beers we won as part of the first place prize (along with all the dosh). It got even better for me when Keith Prince left without bringing his beers home with him - it meant a mild ethical dilemma for me (if you leave your beers behind does that mean it is a free for all) which was quickly resolved by my drinking them. Good times indeed.
9 January 2008
A Tremendous Threesome
It was just Dave Sowden, Marty and me for the pub quiz this week (my first of 2007). Keith Prince was called in for emergency quiz master duties so he couldn't be part of the team - not that it mattered in the long run! There was a bit of a debate as to whether to play our joker (earning us double our points in that particular round) on the round featuring questions on "Movie Title Actors" or "Writers, Composers and Artists". Marty insisted that the movie questions were usually piss easy. Arty fellow that I am, I fancied my chances on the latter one. In the end, my arguments won out.
We lead most of the way, and the pressure was definitely on me after we scored a perfect 10 out of 10 on movie title actors (without having played our joker of course). With a slender lead, a good score on our joker round was essential, particularly as if we buggered that one up, I would be severely dealt with by my two team mates. Lucky for me the questions were piss easy, including such classics as: "who wrote the novel Pride and Prejudice" and "who painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel". The only remotely tricky one was the last question: "who composed Appalachian Spring"*. I quickly slammed down the answer sheet the minute the questions had been asked - an easy twenty points.
Ultimately though you have to beat what is there and two other teams had also scored highly. We struggled slightly with a 7 in the final round including one of those annoying anagrams which refused to get solved. Thankfully, that was enough for a one point win which meant a bottle of wine and $60 each for Marty, Dave and me. Definitely, a enjoyable evening!
*Appalachian Spring was composed by US composer Aaron Copland
We lead most of the way, and the pressure was definitely on me after we scored a perfect 10 out of 10 on movie title actors (without having played our joker of course). With a slender lead, a good score on our joker round was essential, particularly as if we buggered that one up, I would be severely dealt with by my two team mates. Lucky for me the questions were piss easy, including such classics as: "who wrote the novel Pride and Prejudice" and "who painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel". The only remotely tricky one was the last question: "who composed Appalachian Spring"*. I quickly slammed down the answer sheet the minute the questions had been asked - an easy twenty points.
Ultimately though you have to beat what is there and two other teams had also scored highly. We struggled slightly with a 7 in the final round including one of those annoying anagrams which refused to get solved. Thankfully, that was enough for a one point win which meant a bottle of wine and $60 each for Marty, Dave and me. Definitely, a enjoyable evening!
*Appalachian Spring was composed by US composer Aaron Copland
24 October 2007
Another Pub Quiz Night
It was my usual Wednesday night routine, which over the past couple of months has been embodied by the pub quiz at the Old Brown Shoe. It was the core team of Dave Sowden, Keith Prince and myself together for the first time in 2 weeks. The previous week, Keith and myself had managed to scrape a win on our own in spite of some bad guesses (the North Sea was formerly known as the German sea apparently, and Weiner Schnitzel is made from Veal) and the quizmaster being incredibly anal (he insisted that O2 was not the acceptable answer to a question seeking the chemical symbol for Oxygen even though I pointed out that technically a single Oxygen atom cannot exist on its own but is always in binary form).
With the main team back together again, things definitely went swimmingly as we racked up a score of 57 out of a possible 60 points, tying our previous best record. At this rate, it is quite possible that we will achieve that elusive perfect score one of these days. Also, it was great to see Justin (whom I had met at the Shoe previously) taking part in the quiz with his friend Pam. They were sporting participants despite coming in dead last!
It was also wonderful that Zea decided to come down to the Shoe, in part because she was intrigued by the notion of a pub quiz and my seeming fascination with the concept. Unfortunately, by the time she arrived, we were running through the last few questions of the quiz. That was no matter though, as there are many other ways to be entertained in the pub - namely alcohol and excellent company. These two are always in abundant supply at the Old Brown Shoe.
With the main team back together again, things definitely went swimmingly as we racked up a score of 57 out of a possible 60 points, tying our previous best record. At this rate, it is quite possible that we will achieve that elusive perfect score one of these days. Also, it was great to see Justin (whom I had met at the Shoe previously) taking part in the quiz with his friend Pam. They were sporting participants despite coming in dead last!
It was also wonderful that Zea decided to come down to the Shoe, in part because she was intrigued by the notion of a pub quiz and my seeming fascination with the concept. Unfortunately, by the time she arrived, we were running through the last few questions of the quiz. That was no matter though, as there are many other ways to be entertained in the pub - namely alcohol and excellent company. These two are always in abundant supply at the Old Brown Shoe.
27 June 2007
The First Pub Quiz
I managed to leave the office relatively early due to a farewell party organized for two departing colleagues leaving on overseas postings (going to London and Riyadh respectively). There was excellent otak, chee kueh and char siew food wise bought from Tiong Bahru market. Should definitely go back and buy the otak in bulk when I next have a gathering at my place/pot luck to attend.
I was hoping to head over to the Old Brown Shoe early to find a team to join. I was hanging about the bar counter when I rather fortuitously bumped into an expat teacher that I recognized from my time spent relief teaching at ACJC. He agreed to "give me a go" on their team subject to the agreement of his mates. After I had told him about my quizzing and gameshow experience, he decided that I was a 'ringer' and that it was vital that I was recruited for his team so I wouldn't end up with the opposition!
The format of this quiz was quite simple. 5 rounds of 10 questions each, with the first round usually set on what was "in the news" and the final round being "pot luck". An interesting additional element is that each team had a Wild Card which enabled them to double their score in any given category, but they had to choose which category to nominate before the start of the quiz. Obviously, the choice of wildcard could well prove crucial in deciding the winning team.
The round for the evening were: In the news, Myths and Legends, What Happened in 2005, On the Playlist (45 seconds of a tune from the Brown Shoe iPod) and Pot Luck. The rest of my teammates decided to play our wildcard on Pot Luck after reacting adversely to much of the other categories.
I was pleasantly surprised at how well we did over the first few rounds. We scored 9,10 and 10 in the first three categories respectively. I was especially surprised by how easy the Mythology questions were: stuff like who were the founders of Rome, what Jason and his Argonauts were after, is pretty much common knowledge, one would think. Still, a number of teams struggled on those questions.
In the end it was pretty much a two horse race with another team. The entire team surprised themselves by scoring a 9 on the music round. We went into the Pot Luck need a score of around 7 in order to be sure of the win. The questions were quite random, which was always the danger in any pot luck round but we scored 8 in the end to win quite comfortable (and getting 46 out of 50 questions correct with a total score of 54 points.
The best part about winning was the fact that we took home the entire pot of cash which worked out to slightly over $50 per person. However, that more or less disappeared after I paid my bill for 3 pints of beer and a burger (with my taxi fare home not included). Still, that meant that I had a evening of good beer and fun quizzing completely free of charge. Certainly can't complain about that. I promised to return next week as we attempt to defend our title and I must say that I'm definitely keen for more quizzing.
Afternote: I stayed quite late at the bar chatting. I also overheard a Norwegian bloke mentioning that he was negotiating a deal with Keppel Fels, which was the company that Vic's dad had a senior position in. Things surprisingly deteriorated however, with one of the Norwegians accusing me of initiating the conversation just to show off, and that it was unwise to go around tossing names of acquaintances of acquaintances. It was certainly quite bizarre as that had not been my intention at all. Besides which, I have known Vic and his family for more than 10 years now (including teaching his brother GP at ACJC!). I guess it must seem quite bizarre to have some random young guy claim to know someone who is a senior executive in a big company, but that is part of what Singapore is like. Everybody knows someone who knows someone else. It is best never to take that for granted.
I was hoping to head over to the Old Brown Shoe early to find a team to join. I was hanging about the bar counter when I rather fortuitously bumped into an expat teacher that I recognized from my time spent relief teaching at ACJC. He agreed to "give me a go" on their team subject to the agreement of his mates. After I had told him about my quizzing and gameshow experience, he decided that I was a 'ringer' and that it was vital that I was recruited for his team so I wouldn't end up with the opposition!
The format of this quiz was quite simple. 5 rounds of 10 questions each, with the first round usually set on what was "in the news" and the final round being "pot luck". An interesting additional element is that each team had a Wild Card which enabled them to double their score in any given category, but they had to choose which category to nominate before the start of the quiz. Obviously, the choice of wildcard could well prove crucial in deciding the winning team.
The round for the evening were: In the news, Myths and Legends, What Happened in 2005, On the Playlist (45 seconds of a tune from the Brown Shoe iPod) and Pot Luck. The rest of my teammates decided to play our wildcard on Pot Luck after reacting adversely to much of the other categories.
I was pleasantly surprised at how well we did over the first few rounds. We scored 9,10 and 10 in the first three categories respectively. I was especially surprised by how easy the Mythology questions were: stuff like who were the founders of Rome, what Jason and his Argonauts were after, is pretty much common knowledge, one would think. Still, a number of teams struggled on those questions.
In the end it was pretty much a two horse race with another team. The entire team surprised themselves by scoring a 9 on the music round. We went into the Pot Luck need a score of around 7 in order to be sure of the win. The questions were quite random, which was always the danger in any pot luck round but we scored 8 in the end to win quite comfortable (and getting 46 out of 50 questions correct with a total score of 54 points.
The best part about winning was the fact that we took home the entire pot of cash which worked out to slightly over $50 per person. However, that more or less disappeared after I paid my bill for 3 pints of beer and a burger (with my taxi fare home not included). Still, that meant that I had a evening of good beer and fun quizzing completely free of charge. Certainly can't complain about that. I promised to return next week as we attempt to defend our title and I must say that I'm definitely keen for more quizzing.
Afternote: I stayed quite late at the bar chatting. I also overheard a Norwegian bloke mentioning that he was negotiating a deal with Keppel Fels, which was the company that Vic's dad had a senior position in. Things surprisingly deteriorated however, with one of the Norwegians accusing me of initiating the conversation just to show off, and that it was unwise to go around tossing names of acquaintances of acquaintances. It was certainly quite bizarre as that had not been my intention at all. Besides which, I have known Vic and his family for more than 10 years now (including teaching his brother GP at ACJC!). I guess it must seem quite bizarre to have some random young guy claim to know someone who is a senior executive in a big company, but that is part of what Singapore is like. Everybody knows someone who knows someone else. It is best never to take that for granted.
18 June 2007
Pub Quiz
I have finally found a place that does pub quizzes in Singapore! While at Muddy Murphy's a couple of weeks ago, I spoke to the bar staff about whether they ran a regular pub quiz and even volunteered to run one myself. Apparently, they used to have a weekly quiz at the Penny Black, a second outlet at Boat Quay, but it fizzled out due to the lack of interest.
Thankfully, he recommended that I check out the Old Brown Shoe, a little British pub located on Bukit Timah Road, as they had a weekly pub quiz going every Wednesday. In fact, I recall seeing the Old Brown Shoe on a number of occasions whilst being driven down Bukit Timah Road, and commenting more than once that it looked like an interesting establishment that was worth checking out.
Anyhow, through a convoluted process of internet googleing, I managed to obtain the Old Brown Shoe's telephone number. I called the proprietor and was informed that they did have a pub quiz every Wednesday and that the place was "full to bursting" every week. She agreed to reserve me a spot at the bar next Wednesday so that I could take part in the quiz.
I'm definitely well pleased by this. I remember all those wonderful Tuesday evenings at the Turf Tavern in Oxford doing their pub quiz with great fondness. Yes, I'm obsessed. No, I don't need help. Quiz, beer, and a good English pub. Can't wait till Wednesday.
Thankfully, he recommended that I check out the Old Brown Shoe, a little British pub located on Bukit Timah Road, as they had a weekly pub quiz going every Wednesday. In fact, I recall seeing the Old Brown Shoe on a number of occasions whilst being driven down Bukit Timah Road, and commenting more than once that it looked like an interesting establishment that was worth checking out.
Anyhow, through a convoluted process of internet googleing, I managed to obtain the Old Brown Shoe's telephone number. I called the proprietor and was informed that they did have a pub quiz every Wednesday and that the place was "full to bursting" every week. She agreed to reserve me a spot at the bar next Wednesday so that I could take part in the quiz.
I'm definitely well pleased by this. I remember all those wonderful Tuesday evenings at the Turf Tavern in Oxford doing their pub quiz with great fondness. Yes, I'm obsessed. No, I don't need help. Quiz, beer, and a good English pub. Can't wait till Wednesday.
5 June 2007
World Quizzing Championships
I have been desperate to take part in the World Quizzing Championships, which is an annual event originating in the UK, but now taking place simultaneously in 20 odd countries. It is probably the most difficult test of trivia and knowledge of its kind. I was privileged to take part in last year's UK leg (which took place over the weekend before my final exam paper) and I ranked 180th or so among the 450 plus people who took part.
Taking part in the World Quizzing Championships is really quite a masochistic experience. There are eight categories in total: Culture, Entertainment, Media, Lifestyle, History, Science, Sport & Games and World with 30 questions per category. You have one hour to complete 4 cateogories and a further hour to complete the other 4 categories. That means you have around 30 seconds per question (including reading time) which really isn't a lot of time. The category with the lowest score gets dropped.
Just in case you were wondering, the questions are not easy. You really have to think to get the answer for some of them though they are for the most part generally quite fair. To get even 20 out of 30 for a single category is really quite difficult unless you are an exceptionally good quizzer. Last year, I failed to reach 15 in any of the categories though I did score a 14 and three 12s. This given that I am considered a general knowledge buff by almost everyone I know. Then again, what other kind of person would subject themselves to this kind of torture?
I had heard that there the World Quizzing Championships leg being organized in Singapore which would allow me to take part and was really disappointed when this completely failed to materialise. Thankfully, the organisers decided to allow me to do the quiz individually, by sending the questions directly to an appointed moderator. Hopefully, I can do better than next year. My rought target is to try and attain a score of 100 after managing only 81 last year.
Update: I eventually took the quiz and managed to score close to 100 though I didn't officially submit my results to the organizers.
Taking part in the World Quizzing Championships is really quite a masochistic experience. There are eight categories in total: Culture, Entertainment, Media, Lifestyle, History, Science, Sport & Games and World with 30 questions per category. You have one hour to complete 4 cateogories and a further hour to complete the other 4 categories. That means you have around 30 seconds per question (including reading time) which really isn't a lot of time. The category with the lowest score gets dropped.
Just in case you were wondering, the questions are not easy. You really have to think to get the answer for some of them though they are for the most part generally quite fair. To get even 20 out of 30 for a single category is really quite difficult unless you are an exceptionally good quizzer. Last year, I failed to reach 15 in any of the categories though I did score a 14 and three 12s. This given that I am considered a general knowledge buff by almost everyone I know. Then again, what other kind of person would subject themselves to this kind of torture?
I had heard that there the World Quizzing Championships leg being organized in Singapore which would allow me to take part and was really disappointed when this completely failed to materialise. Thankfully, the organisers decided to allow me to do the quiz individually, by sending the questions directly to an appointed moderator. Hopefully, I can do better than next year. My rought target is to try and attain a score of 100 after managing only 81 last year.
Update: I eventually took the quiz and managed to score close to 100 though I didn't officially submit my results to the organizers.
18 May 2007
A Not So Trivia(l) Matter
Over the past few weeks, 91.3FM has been running a competition called "faster than the speed of sound". It involves a lucky caller having the opportunity to answer as many questions in 90 seconds as possible without a wrong answer. Each person is allowed one pass. Up for grabs was a Breitling Blackbird Chronograph worth S$10,000. I have been trying desperately to get through and to have a shot at the watch but I haven't had any luck. Sadly, the competition is over and Ivan with 16 correct answers (a very good score) deservedly won.
The frustrating thing was having to sit in the car every morning listening to the people who did get a chance to win the watch foul up in the most stupendous fashion. I have discovered that the average Singaporean has an absolutely shocking lack of general knowledge (and I really am trying not to sound too snobby about this). Case in point: today's contestant. The final chance to dethrone Ivan who was sitting in the studio. One would hope that he would at least have a go at it. This is what happens. Question: What is the official language of Egypt? Answer: Egyptian. I nearly choked to death. To top it all off, the deejays decided to try a few more questions, strictly for fun: Question: In what year did the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor take place? Answer: (long pause for over 15 seconds) 1919? Not even the right World War, and even then, World War I was over by 1919.
This last contestant was probably a rather extreme example of daily proof that many Singaporeans have rather poor general knowledge. As a quiz fanatic and trivia afectionado, it has been rather painful to listen to. I know many others will have a different attitude from mine. They would question what is the use of knowing, say, that Pretoria (not Johannesburg or Cape Town) is the capitol of South Africa. Will it fundamentally improve your life? I really enjoyed teasing the Girlfriend about the fact that she had answered Adelaide when I had asked her what the capitol of Australia was and, panicking, claimed that Quebec was the capitol of Canada (she did get Ottawa after a minute or so which was a relief given that she went to Toronto on exchange for a term).
I guess I just take trivia and general knowledge a bit too seriously. Part of all the angst was due to the fact that I do really miss all the quizzing I was doing in the UK, whether as part of the Oxford University Quiz Squad or just random weekly pub quizzes from friends. I think I have been getting withdrawal symptoms. If anyone knows of fellow quiz fans, trivia whizzes, or pub quizzes in Singapore, I'm the first person you should call.
In case you wondered: the capitol of Australia is Canberra. Here is an old chestnut: what is the capitol of Brazil? And no, it's not Sao Paolo or Rio de Janerio
The frustrating thing was having to sit in the car every morning listening to the people who did get a chance to win the watch foul up in the most stupendous fashion. I have discovered that the average Singaporean has an absolutely shocking lack of general knowledge (and I really am trying not to sound too snobby about this). Case in point: today's contestant. The final chance to dethrone Ivan who was sitting in the studio. One would hope that he would at least have a go at it. This is what happens. Question: What is the official language of Egypt? Answer: Egyptian. I nearly choked to death. To top it all off, the deejays decided to try a few more questions, strictly for fun: Question: In what year did the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor take place? Answer: (long pause for over 15 seconds) 1919? Not even the right World War, and even then, World War I was over by 1919.
This last contestant was probably a rather extreme example of daily proof that many Singaporeans have rather poor general knowledge. As a quiz fanatic and trivia afectionado, it has been rather painful to listen to. I know many others will have a different attitude from mine. They would question what is the use of knowing, say, that Pretoria (not Johannesburg or Cape Town) is the capitol of South Africa. Will it fundamentally improve your life? I really enjoyed teasing the Girlfriend about the fact that she had answered Adelaide when I had asked her what the capitol of Australia was and, panicking, claimed that Quebec was the capitol of Canada (she did get Ottawa after a minute or so which was a relief given that she went to Toronto on exchange for a term).
I guess I just take trivia and general knowledge a bit too seriously. Part of all the angst was due to the fact that I do really miss all the quizzing I was doing in the UK, whether as part of the Oxford University Quiz Squad or just random weekly pub quizzes from friends. I think I have been getting withdrawal symptoms. If anyone knows of fellow quiz fans, trivia whizzes, or pub quizzes in Singapore, I'm the first person you should call.
In case you wondered: the capitol of Australia is Canberra. Here is an old chestnut: what is the capitol of Brazil? And no, it's not Sao Paolo or Rio de Janerio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
