Results – 2008

As soon as they are ready, we will publish full result tables, as well as provide analysis and reports from the EQC 2008.

National Teams – preliminary round

Nation	Quizers	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5	Round 6	Total
England	Kevin Ashman, Olav Bjortomt, Mark Bytheway, Pat Gibson	10	9	9	11	8	16	63
Belgium	Tom Trogh, Erik Derycke, Ronny Swiggers, Nicco Pattyn	10	10	5	11	6	16	58
Finland	Tero Kalliolevo,Tuomas Tumi, Jussi Suvanto	10	5	9	8	5	12	49
Norway	Harald Aastorp, Tore Dahl, Ole Martin Halck, Thomas Kolåsæter	11	6	4	8	5	12	46
Estonia	Ove Poder, Taunu Vahter	9	7	5	8	3	9	41
Wales	Gareth Kingston, David Edwards, Mark Grant	9	3	6	6	3	12	39
The Netherlands	Rinus Uijl, Peter Korrel, Derk de Graaf	4	8	3	7	4	4	30
Hungary	Gyorgy Kemeri, Novaky Bela, Dr.G Hacsek	8	4	4	3	1	7	27

Aspiration cup

Team	Quizers	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5	Round 6	Total
The Smurfs		9	7	3	8	6	15	48
England B		9	4	6	8	6	11	44
Norway B	Trine Aalborg, Dag Fjeldstad, Lars Heggland, Stig Sanner	8	6	5	9	6	8	42
Lars & the Medics		5	4	5	8	6	12	40
Belgium Hung Anarchy		6	4	5	9	2	13	39
Norbiochem		5	5	5	3	3	13	34
England C		6	4	4	4	5	9	32
Norway C	Jon Strøm, Knut Heggland, Mads Bergstrøm, Sigve Sørland	8	4	3	4	5	7	29
Norway D		6	3	5	5	3	7	29
Team USA		6	3	4	2	2	7	24
Dirty Jo		3	3	2	8	2	6	24
Northeast Anglia		4	2	4	5	4	3	22
Rest of the world		4	2	3	2	2	7	20
Polva		2	3	5	2	0	7	19
Danelaw		2	3	5	2	3	4	19

Individual Championship

Kevin Ashman had a comfortable lead going into the final of the Individual Championship. See the results after 10 rounds (before the final).

Kevin Ashman won the Individual Championship, an amasing 9 points ahead of Pat Gibson on second place. Olav Bjortomt finished third, 4 points behind Gibson. Se the Results from the final in the Individual Championships.

Albert November & Ronny Swiggers won the Pair championships ahead of David Stainer and Olav Bjortomt. The third place went to tiebreak between the Finnish duo Jussi Suvanto and Terro Kalliolevo vs Kevin Ashman and Mark Bytheway. Ashman answered the questions alone, and it worked well for him, as he got all 3 questions right, while the finnish duo missed a question about the name of the Italian Super heavyweight champion who won gold at the 2008-olympics.
See the Results from the Championships for pairs

In the club team quiz, The English team Broken Hearts (Ian Bayley, Olav Bjortomt, Mark Grant and David Stainer) won, scoring 15 points (of 20) in each of the first four rounds, and 14 in the last. The second place, only one point from first, was won by the Belgian team It’s grim oop North (Pat Gibson, Barry Simmons, Rob Hannah and David Edwards).
Third place had to be decided on tiebrake between Milhous Warriors (Tim Westcott, Kevin Ashman, Mark Bytheway and Sean O’Neill) and the team JFGI (Tero Kalliolevo, Jussi Suvanto, Ove Poder and Tauno Vahter). After 5 tiebrake questions it was still a tie with 3-3, but in the sixth question, JFGI took home the bronze when they answered correctly on a question about a bullfighter and Millhouse Warriors didn’t.

The complete results from the club competition are here .

Belgium won the National Teams Championships, beating England in the Final wher e it all came down to the last question. Finland won the Bronze final against Norway, despite being only 3 players.

More detailed results will follow.

You can find previous WQC-tables here (does not work in IE for some reason): WQC Tables

Profiles – 2008

In this year’s Quiz European Championships, there will be a «Final Table», where only the best 10 quizzers overall, after the initial 100 questions will participate. In addition to the 100 questions already answered, there will be 20 new (and probably harder) questions these ten will answer, and the winner will be the one with the highest aggregate score (120 questions in all).

This means that winning a seat at the Final Table will be a goal in itself, and in this presentation of some of the favourites, we estimate their chances of reaching that goal.
Keep in mind, not everyone presented here will be able to get to the Finale Table, which only has room for 10 quizzers (pending confirmation), but hopefully this short introduction will be of some value for determining the odds.

You can find the WQC-tables here (does not work in IE for some reason): WQC Tables

Jesse Honey and Dorjana Sirjola will not attend the EQC, and are therefore omitted from the profiling. Rumours say that the Netherlands will muster a new strong constellation: The Maris brothers, in their first Championship.

Mark Bytheway:

Deltakere

De følgende deltakerne har meldt seg på til EM. Feltet kan skilte med de åtte beste i sommerens VM, alle regjerende mestere og medaljører fra fjorårets mesterskap – og selvsagt en hærskare andre strålende quizere.

Belgia
Ronny Swiggers
Nico Pattyn
Bart Permentier
Steven De Ceuster
Erik Derycke
Chris Braxel
Tom Trogh
Kristel Blommaert
Marnix Baes
Stijn Vanacker
Luc Venstermans
Albert November
Paul Arts
Lars Van Moer
Bernard Kreps
Joke Cools
Staf Dujardin
Johan Vander Elst
Eric Hemelaers
Koen Vervremd

England
Chris Jones
David Stainer
Barry Simmons
Rob Hannah
Jamie Dodding
Stephen Dodding
Tim Westcott
Mark Bytheway
Keith Andrew
Kevin Ashman
Michael Mcgreavy
Dr «Iron» Bayley
William De Ath
Jenny Ryan
Neil Harrison
Pat Gibson
Olav Bjortomt
Phil Smith
Tony Gold
Dave Taylor
Jane Allen

Wales
David Edwards
Mark Grant
Sean O’Neill
Andrew Teale
Gareth Kingston

Nederland
Derk de Graaf
Rinus Uijl
Peter Korrel

Finland
Tero Kalliolevo
Jussi Suvanto
Tuomas Tumi

Estland
Arko Olesk
Andres Kund
Margus Maiste
Vallo Kask
Raul Raudsepp
Tõnis Poom
Tauno Vahter
Ove Põder
Heino Raivet
Indrek Salis
Tiit Naarits
Aare Olander
Ott Sandrak

Ungarn
Dr. Attila Verók
Dr. Gabor Gaspar
Dr. Nováky Béla
Dr. Gábor Hacsek
Zsófia Hacsek
György Kémeri

Tyskland
Ingo Matzat

Danmark
Christian Thorn

Norge
Roger Eldegard
Lars André Gundersen
Lars Heggland
Jon Strøm
Harald Aastorp
Thomas Kolåsæter
Knut Heggland
Marte Midttun
Toril Opsahl
Mats Bergstrøm
Sigve Sørland
Ivar Areklett
Christian Grindvold
Øystein Aadnevik
Tore Dahl
Karen Skjånes
Trond Brastad
Bjørn Revil
Trine Aalborg
Stig Sanner
Ragnhild Rein Bore
Dag Fjeldstad
Truls Flatberg
Tor Carlsen
Karianne Thune Hammerstrøm
Jan Gunnar Fredriksen
Jørgen Skjånes
Vibeke Haugsrud
Neil Dryland
Therese Falk
Morten Næss
Jan-Egil Aakernes
Jone Frafjord
Lise Jebsen
Vibeke Stang Lingås
Ole Martin Halck

Liberia
Phil Dixon

USA
Mark Ryder
David Legler
Paul Bailey
Ed Toutant
Dilip Chandran

India
Anurakshat Gupta

The Field – 2008

The following participants have booked their place at the EQC 2008. The field boasts the top eight players from this years World Quizzing Championships, and every reigning champion and medalist from last year’s EQC – plus of course a host of other brilliant quizzers.

Belgium
Ronny Swiggers
Nico Pattyn
Bart Permentier
Steven De Ceuster
Erik Derycke
Chris Braxel
Tom Trogh
Kristel Blommaert
Marnix Baes
Stijn Vanacker
Luc Venstermans
Albert November
Paul Arts
Lars Van Moer
Bernard Kreps
Joke Cools
Staf Dujardin
Johan Vander Elst
Eric Hemelaers
Koen Vervremd

England
Chris Jones
David Stainer
Barry Simmons
Rob Hannah
Jamie Dodding
Stephen Dodding
Tim Westcott
Mark Bytheway
Keith Andrew
Kevin Ashman
Michael Mcgreavy
Dr «Iron» Bayley
William De Ath
Jenny Ryan
Neil Harrison
Pat Gibson
Olav Bjortomt
Phil Smith
Tony Gold
Dave Taylor
Jane Allen

Wales
David Edwards
Mark Grant
Sean O’Neill
Andrew Teale
Gareth Kingston

The Netherlands
Derk de Graaf
Rinus Uijl
Peter Korrel

Finland
Tero Kalliolevo
Jussi Suvanto
Tuomas Tumi

Estonia
Arko Olesk
Andres Kund
Margus Maiste
Vallo Kask
Raul Raudsepp
Tõnis Poom
Tauno Vahter
Ove Põder
Heino Raivet
Indrek Salis
Tiit Naarits
Aare Olander
Ott Sandrak

Hungary
Dr. Attila Verók
Dr. Gabor Gaspar
Dr. Nováky Béla
Dr. Gábor Hacsek
Zsófia Hacsek
György Kémeri

Germany
Ingo Matzat

Denmark
Christian Thorn

Norway
Roger Eldegard
Lars André Gundersen
Lars Heggland
Jon Strøm
Harald Aastorp
Thomas Kolåsæter
Knut Heggland
Marte Midttun
Toril Opsahl
Mats Bergstrøm
Sigve Sørland
Ivar Areklett
Christian Grindvold
Øystein Aadnevik
Tore Dahl
Karen Skjånes
Trond Brastad
Bjørn Revil
Trine Aalborg
Stig Sanner
Ragnhild Rein Bore
Dag Fjeldstad
Truls Flatberg
Tor Carlsen
Karianne Thune Hammerstrøm
Jan Gunnar Fredriksen
Jørgen Skjånes
Vibeke Haugsrud
Neil Dryland
Therese Falk
Morten Næss
Jan-Egil Aakernes
Jone Frafjord
Lise Jebsen
Vibeke Stang Lingås
Ole Martin Halck

Liberia
Phil Dixon

USA
Mark Ryder
David Legler
Paul Bailey
Ed Toutant
Dilip Chandran

India
Anurakshat Gupta

Interview with Nico Pattyn – European Champion 2007

We bring you an interview with the reigning european champion in single, and former european champion for national teams, the formidable Nico Pattyn!

First of all, congratulations on your first win in the individual championship in Blackpool!

Thanks.

How has life been after winning the European Championships? Have you finally become such a national celebrity that you no longer can walk the streets of Brussels without being run down by hoards of screaming women throwing their underwear at you?

There was some attention by the radio, the newspapers and the local television. There even was a picture on the first page of the second Flemish newspaper together with a female journalist who was very successful in a quiz show on the television at the same time and was considered by some as a kind of babe. Most people I know heard of it in some way, but that’s all.

You are, of course, already European champion for national teams previously, but does this victory feel different for you?

Of course it does, although the team event remains the most important to me. During the individual event, you don’t have the impression you are winning, you just don’t know what the others are doing. The team event is very intense, it’s head to head and we’re not used to it. The victories in Tallinn and Paris are to me the most exciting quiz events I have ever played. But I’m very proud that I have beaten all those excellent players in Blackpool, that’s for sure.

You came very close to winning in Ghent in 2004, losing narrowly to Kevin Ashman, so I expect you are happy with finally winning; is this something you have been aiming for?

Not really. Actually, I was very busy the weeks before the championships as I knew at work my boss retired and I intended to succeed him. I heard the news I had achieved this just three days before the championships! Winning the individual event came as a surprise to me. My aim is always playing as good as I can. When the result is a worse than what I’m used to, than I am a little bit disappointed, but that’s all. There are four events during a European Championship, you have the occasion to look for a new challenge. In Belgium, I even play at least 50 quizzes a year. You win some, you lose some.

Could you tell us a little about your background? What kind of education do you have, what business are you in?

I studied Greek and Latin at high school, then psychology and later on history at the University of Ghent. I work as a psychologist and since the 1st of January I’m the managing director of the “CLB Mandel en Leie” which is a government organisation that gives support to schools in the region of Kortrijk, Roeselare and Menen.

When did you attend your first serious quiz? Did you win?

In 1997, at a football game, I and four friends of mine decided to attend a quiz in a competition in the region of Ghent. We ended ninth (out of about 22-23 teams). Nowadays I’m the only one of that team who is still frequently quizzing. My first individual quiz was about a year later. It was the individual championship of the same competition and I was third. Just until then, I had played no more than 15 quizzes, but I felt that I could easily improve and become a major competitor. Bernard Kreps was the strongest player in that competition at that time. About 2000, I had enough experience to be one of the top players myself.

Category scores in the World Championships reveals that albeit you are very strong in every category, you seem to be exceptionally strong in Arts and Culture. Is this a coincidence, or is this a favourite category of yours?

I’m not sure if culture is my strongest category. I have checked the results of the past World Championships, and I have twice won History, as only once Culture. At the first Championship, both were together in Art and culture, and then I have won too. World is also always a good category. To me, history, geography, art, literature and sports are my favourite subjects. And history is number one.

Are there any categories you dislike, or aren’t particularly interested in? In other words, do you have any weak spots?

Yes I have. Where I live, there are three cinema’s at walking distance, but I rarely go watching movies. And I even haven’t got a television since four years now. So, film and television are among my weakest categories, But my very weakest spot is certainly plants.

Do you read and remember facts mostly because you find learning about it interesting, or are there many subjects you read and learn about only because it might turn up on a quiz?

Fortunately, I’m interested in a lot of things. For instance, I would like to know more about plants. I read my daily newspaper and some magazines very carefully and I take notes. Those notes can handle about the new Miss Belgium, and I don’t care who is the reigning miss. So yes, I memorize things I’m not interested in, but not that much. If you are not interested in a lot of things, I guess you can’t be a top player in a subject when questions are measuring the knowledge in depth.

Do you sometimes make up rules or mnemonics to help memorizing names and lists?

Not at all. But I guess I trained myself as a child without knowing it. I made geographical maps, I was interested in history, sports, and so I knew a lot of geographical and other names in many languages. I guess that makes it easier to memorize new names. They sound familiar because I already know similar names, it’s just more easy to associate.

Do you learn new things mostly by reading books and newspapers or is the Internet your favourite source of wisdom?

Books, magazines and newspapers are the primary source, but I search the net a lot for more information about things I’ve read about. And news sites are also an important source.

Quizzing in Belgium, as far as we’ve been told, does not take place in pubs, but in other arenas like schools. Can you tell us a little about the formats utilized? Do you organize head to head matches in quiz leagues, or do you have competitions where several teams compete at once?

We mostly play with teams of 4 or 5 players. Individual events are very rare. You have some competitions. They often have a tradition for 20 or more years. Questions can be very though. Usually, there are strict rules about the categories of the questions. In some cases, they are organised in several divisions. Each team of a division has to organise a quiz, and at the end of the season the weakest team is relegated to the second division. Last years I play in two competitions. Together, that makes about 15 quizzes. There are also a lot of weekend quizzes. They are organised by schools, sport teams, but also quiz teams. Each year, me and my team organise two competition quizzes, our very difficult Café Den Hemel quiz (which is known in Norway since the European championship in Ghent), an easier quiz for a chess association and a very easy one for a school. Some quizzes in Belgium are very big, with almost 100 teams, but the average quiz has about 25 to 30 teams. A ranking is made by classifying the quizzes by the strength of the teams who were participating. We don’t have head to head matches, but we have some quizzes were you have to show the answer 30 seconds after each question.

Do you know how long such competitions have existed in Belgium?

Some quizzes exist since more than thirty years. It all started at the end of the fifties, when television was introduced.

As we understand it, quizzing takes part mainly in the Flemish regions, but are there no quiz activities among the French that you are aware of?

Really, I haven’t got the faintest idea. I’m not at all a Flemish nationalist and I regret the tendencies towards separation in our country. But it’s a fact that we live rather separated: we have different newspapers, television networks and obviously different quiz scenes. I always heard there isn’t a quiz tradition in the French speaking part of Belgium, but I can’t say I have checked this out.

Is the media paying any attention to the quizleagues?

Sometimes TV networks are newspapers have articles about quizzing. The reason can be some success by Belgian quizzers, but also an easy way to promote a knew quiz show on the telly.

Do you think you’ll ever get fed up with quizzes, or will we still see you at the European championships in the year 2030?

Why not? At that time, I will be 62, so I won’t be a competitor for the title anymore. But it will still be an interesting hobby. As a matter of fact, it is the result of several hobbies. As long as I keep my interest in a lot of things it will be fun to play quizzes, albeit for 10th or 100th place.

Regarding the national team. How is the Belgium team put together, do you try to balance it so every category is well covered, or are the 4 best individuals nominated?

We have a coach who makes the decisions. He usually starts from two allround players (myself and Eric Derycke) who have attended all the European Championships. If there is another player who is very strong in many subjects, like Marc Van Springel or Ronny Swiggers, he or she is also selected. But he definitely tries to make a well balanced team by selecting a fourth player who fills some gaps in the knowledge of the others. In Belgium we have a lot of strong players. Players like Omer Vandriessche or Jean Marivoet up till know haven’t played an individual quiz but are very strong. If we look at the Flemish quiz team ranking, only 5 of the 10 best teams had representatives in Blackpool. There wasn’t anyone present from Hego, the best team in Belgium since three years.

Have you ever competed on quiz shows on television? If so, how did you do?

My first quiz show on the television was in 2001. I have won three times, but lost the final event and so I lost all that I had won before. And a few years ago, I played a quiz show on the Dutch television with team mate Marc Roels, which I lost too. I never have won anything more than a flying ticket. But all the honours make me happy too. J

Lastly:
-Who would win a 1000-questions general quiz between you, Kevin Ashman and Pat Gibson?

Without any doubt: Kevin or Pat.

-Who would win the same quiz if all the questions were about art and culture? I guess Kevin or me. Generally, the more difficult the questions are, the better for me. Especially on subjects like history, geography and art.

Thank you very much!

Updated 21 October:

You will soon be in Oslo, not only to defend you title, but also to try and regain the title for national teams; could you tell us a little about the team’s preparation for this contest?

We do not things in particular in order to be well prepared for the EC. We do have a lot of quizzes every week in Belgium. A week ago, I played the Flemish Championships (240 questions) in the afternoon and a competition quiz in the evening in Dendermonde. Last Friday I played in Bruges with some friends without quizzing experience, on Saturday my team Café Den Hemel played and won the 25th Bosuilenquiz before Clockwork. The Bosuilenquiz for instance really is a high quality quiz, there’s no need to exercise when you can play such delightful quizzes. During the week, I haven’t much time, like almost everybody else I guess.

-What about your own preparations?

I will play a quiz on the Olympic Games on Saturday, so I will prepare myself a little bit on this subject. And I do intend to repeat some geography and history, my strongest subjects. We are playing with four all round players, but Eric for instance is the strongest in classical music, Tom in youth culture and Ronny in film. Off course I won’t reveal all our strengths and weaknesses, otherwise our coach Staf Dujardin would put me out of the selection.

-Hehe, I see, we wouldn’t want that, we’ll let you keep your innermost secrets. But could you tell us a little about how your team is selected?

Since our first international game in Bromley (2003), Staf Dujardin makes the official selection, based on our profiles. Up till now, he is more successful than our football manager. But still, he has to make a choice between the players present in Norway. Some very strong players, like Jean Marivoet our Omer Van Driessche, have never competed in an individual contest, although they are considered as belonging to the top in Belgium. Marc Van Springel has been fourth twice in the WC, but since then he hasn’t played an individual quiz. If they were present, they would all be contenders for the top.

Do you compete in special matches as a team to prepare for the special format of the match play in any way?

Before we went to Paris in 2006, we played once with the national selection, but all the other years we didn’t do anything in particular. As we play with the same team as last year, neither this year we won’t make any special preparations. We are confident we can win, although we know that not only the British, but also the Norwegian, the Finnish, the Dutch, the Estonian and the Welsh team are capable of beating us. I like the format very much, the national event is the most intense quiz event I have ever played. So I really look forward to compete in Oslo. See you!

Looking forward to it, and good luck with your preparations!

Interview with World Champion Mark Bytheway – 2008

In 2008, Mark Bytheway won the coveted World Quiz Championship. Mark has been kind enough to answer some questions we’ve asked him. Interview conducted by Tore Dahl.

How have you been after becoming world champion, have your life changed?

Not at all really, in Britain quizzing is a very strange “sport” or “game” everyone seems to play but the majority of people don’t “take it seriously”. Even snooker, darts or poker is regarded as a “serious” pursuit whereas quizzing is “just for fun”. This is evidenced by the turnout at the national events that Quizzing organise, at the very best the numbers are only close to the 80 mark.

Has there been any media interest in your win?

Minor, and probably for the reasons stated above. There was recently a TV programme to find the next Egghead and Pat Gibson, who was invited on to the show, was always being told to show why he could be the next Egghead, despite his obvious pedigree. It’s not about ability for a lot of the time; it’s about “entertainment”. Consequently the British media tends to concentrate on winners of reality TV or in quiz terms people that have won large amounts of money.

Could you tell us about how your competition went? Did you have a good feeling throughout? Any near misses you felt you should have answered correctly?

The competition went well, obviously, for me. But as is usual looking back there were around 15 that I should have got which I missed. I know this is often the way with other players but two or three stick in my mind as bad misses putting the Macarena instead of the Lambada , Waza-ari instead of Koka, and Avicenna instead of Averroes

When we first asked you for an interview, you expressed that a little luck was involved, could you tell us about what you meant? We of course know that if all 8 categories counted, the Belgian Ronny Swiggers would come out on top, but the rules are the rules, and clearly you deserve the title, but were there any other lucky instances that benefited you do you think?

Well obviously there is that, and I definitely feel for Ronny there – I’ve been on the other side of the rule of dropping a category a number of times. The problem, often in the past, with my scores is that they have been very flat with little to choose between them, I rarely have a clue going in to a competition which subject will be my lowest. I think generally when saying that that I meant a couple of things; firstly, the victory was so close that obviously a different question here or there could very easily have changed the result; and secondly, about three or four of the questions which came up were things that we were discussing on the journey to the venue the Kosovan flag, Alain Bernard, Asashoryu, Chet Baker and maybe a few others – certainly this helped with the recall of those particular answers.

How do you rate this victory vs other victories?

There may have been quizzes with larger fields, there may have been quizzes with more pressure (eg TV and radio) and there certainly have been quizzes with more monetary gain; but purely on the basis of the number and difficulty of questions, the strength of the opposition and the prestige within the community as a whole, there can be no greater win (for me) than the World Championships.

The top three in the WQC is new compared with previous years, do know anything about the two who came second and third, Ronny and Tero?

I know more about the Belgian players as a whole than other countries, mainly because of our annual Leuven trip where we participate in the Clockwork Quiz, a fantastic event, full of fiendishly difficult and extremely interesting questions and also a great opportunity to meet the Belgian players and exchange a few (thousand) questions over a few (dozen) beers. So Ronny is well known to me but Tero is more of an enigma, although I know him by sight we’ve never chatted at any length. Either way I have great respect for their abilities and the time must be approaching when a non-English (accepting Pat as honorary English) player will be World Champion.

What are your experience and thoughts about the different quizzes and quizzing styles in different countries?

I like quizzes in most of their forms. As a youngster buzzing was probably my favourite, and may still be, but there is not much of that in the UK and of course it doesn’t give everyone a chance to shine and show what they know. On the whole I think the fairest and best method to test knowledge is that used in the World’s purely because it gives time for recall, and encompasses a large number of questions across a variety of subjects. My least favourite is probably a quiz whereby the questions are read out and if you fail to miss a salient word you could easily get the question wrong, at least if they are written down it is there for you to notice and not down to the quality of your hearing or the clarity and projection of the person talking. Also on this tack, whilst I like the idea of meeting different people, getting up and dodging projector cables to get to another seat is not my idea of a quiz, I’d personally prefer to do the quiz and then meet those different people later in the bar. And I’m always happy to try new things, in Lesigny Lina’s presentation of Protmusis definitely held my attention.

We notice that back in 2005, you were between number 30 and 40 in the world. It seems likely that you have been working to better yourself, but could you tell us a little about what you have done to achive this? Have you worked more in some categories than in others?

Back in 2005 and earlier years I made the naïve assumption that one just turned up at a quiz and answered what one knew, and didn’t stoop to actually “revising”, unfortunately an archaic English take on the “Corinthian Spirit”. However it soon became apparent that to actually compete with the likes of Kevin and Pat and Nico and…that some effort would be necessary. It’s both a gift and a curse that most things are interesting to me in some way, so on the one hand I’m always reading about a variety of different subjects but consequently this means that my scores are very flat. In the last couple of years I have seen that to win the quiz, with the rules as they are, one or two very high scores are needed. To this end I have put more effort into history and films, both of which I did quite well in at the 2008 World’s, attempting to deliberately score higher on those at the expense of the other subjects.

Could you tell us a little about your background? What kind of education do you have, what business are you in?

At school I had mainly a science background, obtaining A levels in Mathematics, Further Mathematics, Physics and Psychology. At college I obtained my degree in the exciting world of Accounting and Finance and have worked in the equally exhilarating world of IT for over 20 since, starting as a programmer and “progressing” to be an IT Service Manager.

When did you attend your first serious quiz? How long did it take before you established yourself among the top quizzers?

My first serious quiz was probably in the mid 1990’s when I played in the Oxford Quiz League, which was a very difficult league full of highly qualified academics, and very strong teams. This though was only once a week, a number of younger players have probably played in a lot more quizzes than me, and I haven’t played in a weekly quiz league since the Oxford League finished over 5 years ago. I think breaking in to the top ten in 2006 was a big step for me and probably showed that I had embraced the idea of actually working for a big tournament. However I think because of the amount of really good players that we have, both in the UK and the World, you need to be beating someone like Kevin or Pat before people actually take notice of you, so to that end probably only this year.

Category scores in the World Championships reveals that albeit you are of course very strong in every category, you seem to be exceptionally strong in History. Is this a coincidence, or is this a favourite category of yours? We notice that you bumped your score from a somewhat mediocre 15 in the 2006 WQC to 27 in 2007 and 29 (!) this year. Have you been working on history especially, or do you do an equal amount of work in every category?

This has always been a real interest but I always seemed to let myself down for some reason, of late a lot of my efforts have gone in to historical work and my other perennial favourite films (obviously taking more of a look towards Europe and World than hitherto).

Are there any categories you dislike, or aren’t particularly interested in? In other words, do you have any weak spots?

I am cursed with the propensity to like almost every subject – a feature of English/British quizzing has always been that although we play in teams we strive to be generalists, indeed many of the quiz formats are based on four individuals playing as a team – e.g. Quiz League of London. To this end whenever a weak spot is discovered work usually goes in to fill the gap, this can lead to a series of very flat scores which given the current rule of dropping the lowest subject is really not helpful.

Do you read and remember facts mostly because you find learning about it interesting, or are there many subjects you read and learn about only because it might turn up on a quiz?

In my earlier days my work would be concentrated only on what I found interesting, but obviously there are occasions where a serious quiz player must look at subjects which one may feel have no intrinsic or inherent value. The most obvious example of this would be in English pub quizzes where it is essential to know about current soaps such as “Eastenders” or “Coronation Street”.

Do you sometimes make up rules or mnemonics to help memorizing names and lists?

Generally no, but occasionally for obvious lists like birthstones or Chinese Years I usually construct some idiosyncratic mnemonic.

Do you learn new things mostly by reading books and newspapers or is the Internet your favourite source of wisdom?

All sources are valid, but for ease of use the internet has revolutionised quizzing. Unfortunately that does sometimes lead to lazy setting where one internet source is thought to be sufficient to verify a question. I would personally say that experiencing something is the best way to “learn” it. Travel, playing, watching films etc… all fall in this category and are for me a more satisfying way that purely learning for learning’s sake.

The Quiz Leagues in the UK seem to be on a very high level. Are you a participant regularly in these events, and if so, how does your team do on average?

Unfortunately there are no quiz leagues close to us, pub quizzing has killed off many leagues and pub quizzing is a different type of animal; generally very oriented towards a low common denominator of pop music, soaps, TV, and celebrity news. Another flaw with pub quizzes is the aforementioned general dislike of “serious” quizzers. This has meant that on a number of occasions landlords have asked us not to play in their quiz, so as not to embarrass other teams, something I am certain would not happen in many other countries. I do however take part in a bi-weekly Sports Quiz League that is extremely challenging and arcane and has certainly helped me in this particular area.

Do you think you’ll ever get fed up with quizzes, or will we still see you at the European championships in the year 2030?

I enjoy quizzes as a test of knowledge and as an intellectual exercise; they are also an excellent way of travelling to new places and meeting new friends. Hopefully I’ll still be at the Euro’s in 2030, watching a new generation of players trying to beat Kevin.

Have you ever competed on quiz shows on television? If so, how did you do?

I have appeared as a team on a few TV shows most of which we won or were runners up, but generally TV is more for individual players in the UK and often the researchers are looking for what makes good television not what makes a good quiz. I have never played as an individual on a TV quiz but have played on the radio a few times in Brain of Britain, Brain of Brains and Top Brain, in these instances I was lucky enough to win the competitions.

I remember teaming up with you and Kevin Ashman on an icebreaker-quiz in the EQC in France, and being thoroughly impressed with your fast responses to questions regarding pop and rock music. Is this a pet subject of yours, or are you just genuinely interested in music? Do you keep up with artists in other genres, like hip-hop?

I remember the ice-breaker quiz, the English format, obviously something very familiar to us – as I recall we did have quite a few beers that night! Pop is something inherent to that format, as a man who has been to many pubs and pub quizzes I have always benefited from my love of music. When I was growing up I probably has more of an affinity with punk and heavy metal; but I generally like all styles (except the current R&B) from classical to punk to rap and so on.

What about your interest in other popular culture, like tv and movies. Any particular favourites?

Too many to name them all – I must admit to liking films probably above all but my tastes are so eclectic “Pan’s Labyrinth” “Das Lieben der Anderen”, “Sophie Scholl” all stand out as recent classics but I also have a weakness for J-Horror and anime – on TV “The Wire” was a superb series but equally well “Death Note” and “Bones” are also favourites. A British “failing” is our affinity with the US, we do tend to see a lot more of their efforts than those of Europe.

What are your plans for future quizzing? Will you attend the EQC in Oslo?

I am already booked and looking forward to it, the last time I visited Norway was a trip to Bergen, which was lovely – cold with a funicular and lots of giant trolls – this time I am hoping to get to see some of the sights of the capital as well as enjoy some top quality quizzing.

What about your thoughts on international quiz competitions, would you be interested in participating in more events, if available? Like some sort of Quiz Olympics, and yearly Grand Prix events?

The more the merrier – as I have said we are often starved of good competition in the UK (not true for people who play in the QLL or Merseyside leagues, but certainly so for the more provincial of us) – one of the highlights of the Quizzing year for me is the Leuven Quiz – and anything that helps us get a better understanding of the culture of other countries is always to be welcomed, and I think quizzing does this very well.

Mark, thank you for giving us this interview! Best of wishes for the EQC, looking forward to seeing you in Oslo!

Tore – it’s been my pleasure I look forward to the quiz, with a bit of luck getting a chance to represent my country again and having a drink with a lot of old friends and hopefully making a few new ones – to this end I’ve been saving up my pennies for the last couple of months and am now convinced that I can nearly afford a beer.

Follow up questions:

After Mark was confirmed to play for England A, we’ve asked him some additional questions:

We look forward to seeing you in Oslo, and notice that you’ve made the national team. Happy?

Very much so – with such a lot of competition it’s an honour to be selected – and I just hope I can help the other guys with a good performance. People like Dr Ian Aloysius Bayley, Barry Simmons, Mark Grant, William De’ath or David Stainer (who indeed played last year) are all excellent players and could slot in to the “A” team without any problem, as indeed could a number of other players.

Have you made any special preparations for the championships?

It’s very difficult to prepare for such a short individual quiz – I’ve put a little more effort in to trying to look at a few areas for the team competition, hopefully trying to fill in a few gaps where the team may be weak(er)

Have the team made any special preparations, are you training together, have you participated in any sort of match play or anything like that?

Well the boot camp has been up and running now for about 4 weeks now, every day the team are awoken at 04.00 and subjected to 1,000 fiendishly difficult questions before being allowed to eat or drink. The recent introduction of waterboarding is seen by some as rather severe, but if a things worth doing it’s worth doing well. Hypnotism and sleep learning are also new weapons in our armoury, other than that I wouldn’t like to give any secrets away.

How would you describe the balance of your team, with regard to the individual team members?

Well obviously it’s composed of 4 strong individual players, but each player has their own preferences and strengths and there is a good chance that someone in the team will at least have inkling as to the answer on most topics. With such a strong squad, there could always be alternative teams and I think both the B and C teams are also very strong.

Who will be your partner in the pairs competition? How will you rate this combination regarding your winning chances?

I will play with Kevin Ashman, in many ways an enviable position but of course it is more difficult to come up with answers that add to the “team” score when partnering such a strong player.

The single tournament is different from the format in the WQC, there are fewer questions of course, but there are also shorter rounds, perhaps less time to think; will this affect your play? Let me reformulate, is this format better or worse suited to you than the 240-question WQC tournament?

In the past the EQC hasn’t really suited my style of play, my hearing is not that great and I find that on a number of occasions I have completely got the wrong end of the question and answered what I thought I had heard, not that I would necessarily have got it right if I had heard correctly of course. The lack of time to let the brain mull over possible answers is something certainly that I will miss, often I change my mind three or four times during the course of, say, the WQC papers. Finally I have always thought that as a nation we are far more America centric than Euro centric – partly of course through language, partly through geography and partly through history. A quick glance at the scores by English players, on average, in the last round in Blackpool compared with the average scores in Belgium readily confirms this belief (top 10 Belgian finishers scored 6 on average, top 10 English scored 4, and the situation is more marked lower down)

How do you regard your chances of making the Final Table in the singles tournament (consisting of the 10 best players after the initial 100 question round)?

Probably about a 1 in 3 shot. In reality of course there are probably three or four “certainties” for the top table and then 20 people vying for the last 6 spaces. With so few questions a couple of lucky guesses and/or a few mistakes and the picture changes radically. I had, I believe, the 13th highest score going in to the last round in 2007, so a little improvement is certainly required

Do you think the high beer prices in Norway will put you so much off your game that you won’t even be able to reach the final table?

This of course is the crux of the whole thing, not enough beer and the brain cells refuse to work and obviously with too much beer it might be difficult to actually see the final table, it’s a balancing act and one that is rarely achieved.

Thank you for answering our questions, Mark, and best of luck in the tournament (as if you needed luck!)

Thanks a lot – and if there’s one thing a quiz player always needs it’s luck. Just ask me really hard questions that I know the answers to and I’ll be a happy man.

EQC 2008 Pairs Championships

Report

The pairs competition consisted of 100 questions divided into five rounds of 20 questions each. All questions were handed out in writing, with a time limit of 15 minutes per round. Among the favourites were Mark Bytheway/Kevin Ashman, Albert November/Ronny Swiggers, Dr. Ian Bayley/Pat Gibson, Jussi Suvanto/Tero Kalliolevo and, not least, the title holders Tom Trogh/Erik Derycke. 49 pairs took part in the competition – well, that should actually be 48 and a half: There was an odd number of quizzers present, and Stijn Vanacker of Belgium entered on his own, giving an excellent solo performance and beating several pairs!

Round 1

Round 1 was probably among the easier rounds of the quiz, but certainly wasn’t without its difficulties. The question about a lake in Canada with a mammal in its name (Reindeer Lake) was correctly answered by only five pairs (November/Swiggers, Permentier/Baes, Pattyn/Braxel, Bayley/Gibson and Kémeri/Nováky). The second most difficult question was on an American band with a parody of «Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds»; ten pairs got this. At the other end of the scale, the question on the American financial institutions Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was the easiest, and 44 of 49 pairs got this one right. Of the five pairs missing this question, two were Estonian and two Hungarian, so there may be some cultural differences on what is reported back home?

Not unsurprisingly, the opening round was very close, but the duo November/Swiggers impressed with getting 12 out of the first 12 questions, before stumbling when asked what meconium is. Even with a strong finish they were overtaken by another Belgian duo, Pattyn/Braxel, who took the lead after the first round with 18 points, closely followed by November/Swiggers, Stainer/Bjortomt and Bayley/Gibson on 17 points, and a several pairs with 16 points.

Round 2

In round 2, the first-round leaders Pattyn/Braxel had a tough outing, and only managed 11 points, which led to them being passed by five pairs. After 30 questions, November/Swiggers were back in the lead, equal with Stainer/Bjortomt on 25 points. The latter team went into a solo lead with 29 points after 35 questions, but when the second round was over, the lead was again shared. The best score in this round was 16 points, achieved by the two leading pairs. They were followed by the surprise combination of Halck/L. Heggland, who had 31 points after 16 and 15 respectively in the two first rounds, a point up on the 2006 champions Bayley/Gibson.

The top six after two rounds:
Albert November & Ronny Swiggers 33
David Stainer & Olav Bjortomt 33
Ole Martin Halck & Lars Heggland 31
Ian Bayley & Pat Gibson 30
Bart Permentier & Marnix Baes 29
Kevin Ashman & Mark Bytheway 29

Round 3

In the third round, November/Swiggers raced to the front after 45 questions, but now the Norwegian duo Halck/L. Heggland was suddenly hot on their heels, just one point behind! They managed to keep up with the Belgians for the next five questions, while Stainer/Bjortomt got into a spot of trouble and lost contact somewhat. This would turn out to be the Norwegians’ round, because after five more questions they were even with the Belgian leaders, on 43 out of 55 points, three points up on Stainer/Bjortomt who held the third place alone. The English pair delivered a great finish with 5 out of 5 points, however, but couldn’t stop the Norwegian pair in taking the lead alone with 47 points (16-15-16), one point ahead of November/Swiggers. Could the Norwegians manage to keep it up to the end? If so, that would be a bit of a sensation. With 14 points, the Finns Suvanto/Kalliolevo was second best in this round, but still six points behind the lead. But the competition was still far from over…

The top six after three rounds:
Ole Martin Halck & Lars Heggland 47
Albert November & Ronny Swiggers 46
David Stainer & Olav Bjortomt 45
Bart Permentier & Marnix Baes 44
Nico Pattyn & Chris Braxel 42
Erik Derycke & Tom Trogh 42

Round 4

Round 4 would prove tough for the Norwegian home favourites, and with only one point from the first five questions they fell away from the lead. November/Swiggers now led with 50 out of 65, one point ahead of Stainer/Bjortomt who in turn were one point ahead of Halck/L. Heggland. The Belgians increased their lead by one further point over the next five questions, but were equaled in this round by the individual world champions Bytheway and Ashman. The English pair were only in equal seventh after three rounds with 41 points, but struck in the fourth with 17 points and in the list. This was the highest fourth-round score, shared with Suvanto/Kalliolevo, whose closed in on the top with their two consecutive strong rounds.

Of the other Belgian favourites, Pattyn/Braxel had lost enough terrain to exclude them from the fight for the gold, and were six points behind the leaders. Permentier/Baes and Derycke/Trogh were still in it, however, and were also accompanied by Bayley/Gibson in the top eight after four rounds:

Albert November & Ronny Swiggers 61
David Stainer & Olav Bjortomt 60
Ole Martin Halck & Lars Heggland 59
Bart Permentier & Marnix Baes 59
Kevin Ashman & Mark Bytheway 58
Jussi Suvanto & Tero Kalliolevo 58
Erik Derycke & Tom Trogh 58
Ian Bayley & Pat Gibson 58

Round 5

Fittingly, the fifth and last round was the hardest, with only seven pairs managing a score of more than 50%. After 85 questions, the Belgians were two points ahead of their closest rivals Stainer/Bjortomt, a lead that increased to five points after 90 questions – now, Ashman/Bytheway were closest, three points behind. Five questions on, and five from the end, Stainer/Bjortomt had mounted a minor comeback, and both of the English pairs were now three points behind the Belgians. November/Swiggers held them off, and with 14 points won the round as well as the Championship, their 75 points a solid three points ahead of Stainer/Bjortomt.

The bronze medal would have to be decided on tie-breaker questions, as Ashman/Bytheway and Suvanto/Kalliolevo both ended up with 71 points. After 87 questions the Finns had been four points behind Ashman/Bytheway, but managed to close the gap in the final 13 questions. Still, this turned out not to be enough, as Kevin Ashman won the playoffs alone, as Mark Bytheway apparently didn’t make it back on time.

Final results

The final, official list of results runs as follows:

Analysis

1. Difficulty

A total of 2181 points were taken in the quiz out of 4900 possible, a percentage of 44.5. In detail, the difficulty profile, ie the number of questions at each observed difficulty (measured by the number of pairs answering correctly) looks as follows:

We observe that no question was so easy that everyone got it right, nor were there any questions missed by just one pair. The easiest question was answered correctly by 47 out of 49 pairs: question 28, on a more well-known name of a Rembrandt painting. 44 pairs got question 12 («personal» names of US mortgage corporations), while questions 67 and 78 (Brunhoff’s elephant character and shear-stress resistance of fluid) were answered correctly by 43 pairs, and questions 6 and 23 (sea-floor animals and Athenian statesman) by 42 pairs.

On the other end of the scale, four questions were not correctly answered by anyone. These were questions 27 (film by Feng Xiaogang), 44 (long-living lightbulb), 47 (the job of «Les Barbouzes») and 94 (Italian manierist painter). The two hardest questions with correct answers each gave points to three pairs: number 30 (photographic award, points to Blommaert/Venstermans, Stainer/Bjortomt and Kolåsæter/Aalborg) and number 91 (inflammatory nerve disorder; Kreps/Dujardin, Toutant/Ryder and Bailey/Chandran).

Six questions were correctly answered by five pairs:
11 (Canadian lake with mammal name): November/Swiggers, Permentier/Baes, Pattyn/Braxel, Bayley/Gibson, Kémeri/Nováky
31 (Pokémon character): Permentier/Baes, G. Hacsek/Z. Hacsek, Korrel/Uijl, Midttun/Opsahl, Kolåsæter/Aalborg
35 (Michelin-starred chef): Stainer/Bjortomt, Ashman/Bytheway, Suvanto/Kalliolevo, Toutant/Ryder, Vanacker
46 (First-person shooter computer game): November/Swiggers, Permentier/Baes, Derycke/Trogh, Aastorp/Dahl, Halck/L. Heggland
76 (Chinese sisters): Ashman/Bytheway, Põder/Vahter, Suvanto/Kalliolevo, Halck/L. Heggland, Toutant/Ryder
98 (Montevideo-born journalist): Põder/Vahter, Suvanto/Kalliolevo, Sørland/Skjånes, Kolåsæter/Aalborg, Kund/Tumi

The table below shows how difficult was the most difficult question answered correctly by each pair (plus some extra data for the top ten pairs). «AC» means «answered correctly by», so «AC8» after a pair means that their most difficult point was also answered correctly by seven other pairs:

For the elite pairs, it is also interesting to note their easiest misses. Stainer/Bjortomt missed the question mentioned above about an Athenian statesman, which 42 other pairs got. November/Swiggers stumbled on the Coney Island fast-food question (29 correct), while Ashman/Bytheway missed out on the Aldi brothers’ surname – but so did almost half of all the pairs (26 correct). The country with an African-based religion, Suvanto/Kalliolevo’s easiest miss, wasn’t exactly child’s play either, but 29 pairs got a point here. Trogh/Derycke went without a point on the very first question (Ornithology jazzman, 30 correct). Finally, Bayley/Gibson had the most difficult easiest miss of them all: the nationality of a disqualified sprinter (25 correct).

2. Regional Specialties

Now a look at the strong and weak points of the different nations’ quiz cultures. (For the purposes of this analysis, Belgium and the Netherlands have been pooled together, as have Finland/Estonia and England/Wales, due to a few two-nation pairs.)

Belgium/Netherlands: Question 68 (Patagonian glacier) was answered correctly by 45.5% of BEL/NED pairs, but only by 2.6% of the rest, a ratio of over 17! The next questions among Low Countries specialties are number 11 (Canadian mammal lake, 27.3% vs 5.3%), number 38 (hospitality network, 54.5% vs 10.5%) and number 46 (shooter game, 27.3% vs 5.3%). Weak spots were number 98 (Montevidean journalist, 0% vs 26.3%), 76 (Chinese sisters, 0% vs 13.2%), 60 (most of the Universe, 0% vs 13.2%) and 70 (Ukrainian chess-player, 9.1% vs 36.8%).

Estonia/Finland: Question 98 (that journalist again) was correctly answered by 42.9% of EST/FIN pairs, versus 4.8% among the rest, followed by number 85 (French politician during the Revolution, 71.4%(!) vs 16.7%). Several questions were misses for all EST/FIN pairs, the easiest one was number 68 due to the high Belgian percentage here.

England/Wales: Question 82 (American singer really called D’Amato) gave a point to 50% of ENG/WAL pairs, versus 7.7% for the rest. The Serbian climate cycles of question 64 paid 70%(!) to the Brits, and 23.1% to non-Brits. The two easiest questions where the British drew blanks were number 41 (Italian female singer, 35.9% among the rest) and number 48 (Malay pirate, 33.3% among the rest).

Hungary: With only three pairs, data is a bit thin here. Still, all Hungarian pairs got number 48 (see England/Wales above), versus 21.7% of the rest. The easiest question without a Hungarian point was number 99 (computer-graphic movie of 1972), which 78.2% of Non-Hungarian pairs knew.

Norway: Norway has the lowest «specialist ratio» of all country groups considered here; the most Norwegian-friendly question – number 57 (movie by Moodyson) – yielded points for 84.6% of Norwegian pairs, versus 33.3% for the rest, a ratio of 2.54. The only other question where twice as many Norwegians as non-Norwegians (relatively speaking) answered correctly was number 90 (TV series by von Trier, 100% vs 50%). The easiest Norwegian zeroes were number 85 (French politician again, 33.3% among the rest) and number 2 («Lucy in the Sky» parodist, 27.8%).

Rest of the World: Dominated by Americans, the four pairs of the ROTW team also showed some special strengths. Question 91 (nerve disorder) was a point for 50% of the ROTWers, versus 2.2% of the rest (ie only three teams got it at all), while, unsurprisingly, the never-winning NBA team of question 77 was also in their favour (75% vs 15.6%). Two questions were answered correctly by more than 80% of Europeans but by no ROTW pair: number 18 (Parfüm author, 86.7%) and number 22 (Brazilian football, excuse me, soccer player, 82.2%).

3. Combinations

The winning score was 75 points. How well could a team of four do? The following list shows the twelve best combinations of two pairs, counting points that either or both pairs took:

 

It is striking that all but one of these best hypothetical teams consist of pairs from different countries, underlining the regional differences indicated above.

Not surprisingly, November/Swiggers would be the best partners for such a team for most pairs. The list for every pair in the competition is as follows:

Several superteams of three pairs had 92 points, and several superteams of four pairs had 95, lacking just one point for the fullest score possible (given the four zero-point questions), meaning that five pairs would be needed to take it all. Here, too, international hypothetical cooperation seems fruitful – in fact, one of the 96-points five-pairs combinations has representatives from seven countries (November/Swiggers + Vervremd/de Graaf + Kolåsæter/Aalborg + Toutant/Ryder + Kund/Tumi)!

EQC 2008 National Teams Championships

Report

May contain spoilers

The first contest of EQC 2008, the National Teams qualifier on Friday afternoon, was in a sense the most critical, at least for many of the national teams. England and Belgium were expected to occupy two of the four top positions and go through to the semifinals, leaving only two places for the remaining six teams. Last year’s championships saw a fierce fight to make the cut, when only one point separated fourth-placed Norway from the next team. This year, at least four teams – Finland, Wales, Estonia and Norway – were expected to mount serious challenges for the semifinals and a chance of doing some giant-killing versus England or Belgium. Also, simultaneously with the National Teams qualifiers, 15 teams (of which four were Norwegian) were up for a chance to win the Aspirational Cup, a kind of «UEFA Cup» for non-national teams.

Partly due to last year’s photo-finish, the 2008 qualifying round was expanded from 60 to 100 questions, in five rounds of 15 and one round of 25 questions. The following is an eyewitness report from within the Norwegian team…

Round 1

The championships kicked off briskly with a question about the name of Enola Gay’s pilot. This was a good start for the Norwegian national team – 1 correct out of 1 possible! Iblis, Islam’s version of Lucifer, however, was a mystery, but then followed a few questions that weren’t impossible at all, and Norway managed to amass a total of 11 out of 15 points in the first round, giving us the lead! England, Belgium and Finland were hot on our heels with 10 points. A couple of Aspirational teams impressed as well: England C and Belgian-Hungarian Anarchy were the only teams to know the name of Kandinsky’s fiancée. The Smurfs and England C were in the lead with 9 points, the smallest possible margin ahead of Norway B and C.

Round 2

If round 1 was promising for the Norwegian teams, round 2 turned out a bit of a reality check. The national team, like the B team, finished with a mere six points out of 15. England and Belgium showed how it should be done, with 10 and 9 points respectively. Our only comfort was that the Finns were having a hard time as well – their three-man team had to settle for five points. Estonia, on the other hand, were only one point behind.

Some strong answers in the second round: The Smurfs took the evening’s first solo point, as they were the only team to know the name of the bird related to the kagu, while England were alone with a Melbourne Cup-winning racehorse. England, Finland and Estonia all knew the Swahili word for Africa’s centuries of suffering through slavery and colonialism.

Round 3

The third round was another shocker for Norway; only four points didn’t bode well for a place in the semis. Finland grabbed the opportunity for passing us, and with their nine points they won the round alongside England. Both Belgium and Estonia stopped at five, while Wales achieved the round’s third best score with six points, closing in somewhat at the top five teams.

Belgium and North East Anglia were alone in recognizing the poker player Chip Reese. England, Norway B and Team USA got the best-selling fiction writer behind the character Mike Danger, while three Aspirational teams – England B, Belgian-Hungarian Anarchy and Põlva – were the only ones to come up with the chemical compound xylene.

The table after three rounds:
England 28
Belgium 25
Finland 24
Estonia 21
Norway 21
Wales 18 Hungary 16 The Netherlands 15

Round 4

After the great start everything seemed to have collapsed a bit for the Norwegians, locked in a tough fight against Estonia for the fourth semifinal place. In the fourth round we appeared to get back on track a bit, with eight points, including within-team solo points from all four members. But Estonia refused to be shaken off, and posted the same score! England and Belgium were in a class of their own with 11, while Finland equalled Norway and Estonia’s eight. Wales, The Netherlands and Hungary got 6, 7 and 3 respectively, and now only Finland, Estonia and Norway appeared in contention for the two «vacant» semifinal spots. In the Aspirational Cup, Belgian-Hungarian Anarchy and Norway B both posted excellent scores of 9, the latter beating the A team in this round.

The Netherlands got the third solo point of the evening, being the only ones who dared to give an «obvious» answer to the animal supplying us with provolone cheese. The Princeton astronomer with an eponymous space observatory was recognized by England and Norway B, while an inkjet art-printing technique was only known by Belgium and Estonia. The female hip-hop artist with the album Chyna Doll was also a toughie, giving points only to England, Finland and Lars & The Medics.

The table after four rounds:
England 39
Belgium 36
Finland 32
Estonia 29
Norway 29
Wales 24
The Netherlands 22
Hungary 19

Round 5

The close Norwegian-Estonian race continues in the fifth round, with some margin the toughest round of them all. Norway fear the semifinal slipping away with the apparently low score of five points – but Estonia turn out to be even worse off, only scoring three. England wins the round with eight points, while Belgium end up with six. So do Norway B, who are now equal with their A team, and who appear to qualify to the Aspirational semifinals alongside The Smurfs, England B and Lars & The Medics.

Estonia get on the solo list with the country whose tram system was hacked by a fourteen-year-old boy. In a question that tricked many into giving the answer Semiramis, Norway and Danelaw knew the queen for whom the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were made, while the common name ofCarthamus tinctorus proved a Belgian specialty, being given by Belgium and The Smurfs. Belgium also knew the name of a certain brother of Hannibal, as did Nordbiochem and Dirty Jo – and the charming musician who wrote «Cease to Exist» was remembered by Finland, England B and North East Anglia.

The table after five rounds:
England 47
Belgium 42
Finland 37
Estonia 34
Norway 32
Wales 27
The Netherlands 26
Hungary 20

As the last round consisted of 25 questions, only England and Belgium could feel totally confident of qualifying for the semis. Both finished in style, with 16 points each. Finland kept their buffer scoring the same as Norway: 12 points, meaning that Estonia needed 14 to overtake Norway, since the rules stated that the last round would count in case of a tie. But the Estonian team had a troublesome last round, ending up with only nine points, whereas Wales equalled Norway and Finland, and ended up just two points behind the Baltic team.

There were no solo points in the last round. Norway and The Smurfs knew the Polish writer Dabrowska, and the top two national teams managed the question on Glenn Ford. The Smurfs, Nordbiochem and Põlva knew the largest freshwater lake in North-East Asia, and Finland, Norway and Wales knew of a Chilean-Swedish tenor and child molester.

Final results

Qualifier

The official list of results for the qualifier is:

Semifinals

The results in the round of semifinals were:

*) We regret that the detailed scores from this match appear to have gone missing, and would be glad to receive them if anyone has them.

Final and placement finals

Analysis of the qualifier

A total of 820 points were taken in the quiz out of 2300 possible, a percentage of 35.7. The numbers show that this contest was the toughest of the EQC – with some margin. In detail, the difficulty profile, ie the number of questions at each observed difficulty (measured by the number of teams answering correctly) looks as follows:

No question was so easy that everyone got it right, but one question – number 91, on the SI unit for electrical conductance with the same name as a company, was taken by all but one team. Only three teams missed out on each of question 7 (the Olympic sport of father and daughter Elvstrøm) and 88 (the geological period closing the Paleozoic Era). Nineteen out of twenty-three teams got questions 1 (Enola Gay’s pilot), 27 (novel describing a fictional book by Emmanuel Goldstein), 76 (auditing firm formed by a merger in 1998) and 79 (the president of Gabon).

All solo, duo and trio points are mentioned in the report above. In addition, the harder segment of the quiz included as many as nine questions yielding no correct answer. These were:

15 (Italian violin prodigy who wrote the original of «You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me»);
21 (Nigerian author of Jagua Nana);
25 (process of turning liquid into gas under constant temperature);
38 (French physician known for chest-tapping);
39 (sunken city of Nordfriesland);
62 (pseudonym of Queen Elisabeth of Romania);
68 (first discoverer of photoelectric effect);
93 (Japanese avant-garde art group 1954-1972);
97 (seminal 1941 work on psychopathy).

The easiest misses for each of the national teams who reached the semifinal were:

England: 31 (French minister of finance under Louis XIV), answered correctly by 17 teams;
Belgium: 61 (Italy’s leading scorer in football), answered correctly by 13 teams;
Finland: 76 (auditing firm), answered correctly by 19 teams;
Norway: 40 (third largest emirate in the UAE), answered correctly by 14 teams.

EQC 2008 Individual Championships

Final results

The final official list of results runs as follows:

Analysis of the regular rounds

1. Difficulty

A total of 3898 points were taken in the quiz out of 8990 possible (one player missed the first round), a percentage of 43.4. In detail, the difficulty profile, ie the number of questions at each observed difficulty (measured by the number of players answering correctly) looks as follows:

Making the distribution look a bit less fragmented, here is the same data pooled into nine difficulty segments:

No question was even close to being answered correctly by all players; the easiest eight questions, taken by over 75% of the field, were:
36 (title character of Carlo Collodi story): 80 of 90;
29 (Moscow ballet company): 76 of 90;
42 (mammal also kalled turtlerabbits and Panzerschwein): 73 of 90;
62 (smallest city with teams in MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL): 71 of 90;
47 (medical name for ringing in the ears): 70 of 90;
91 (characteristically shaped confectionary in duty-free shops): 69 of 90;
6 (an official language of the Philippines): 68 of 90;
58 (language used in Linguae Vascorum Primitiae by Bernard Etxepare): 68 of 90.

Also, no question was left unanswered, and there were no solos. Three questions were however each answered correctly by two people only – six people representing five different countries:
37 (popularizer of Beaujolais nouveau): point for Koen Vervremd and Trond Brastad.
45 (work of fiction where protagonist is poisoned by a snake): point for Tero Kalliolevo and Jussi Suvanto.
100 (river on 20 yuan banknote): point for Ove Põder and Peter Korrel.

One question gave a point to three players: number 23 (EU country with 1987 referendum ban on nuclear energy), taken by Kevin Ashman, Paul Arts and Tim Westcott.

Two questions were answered correctly by four…
33 (Mozambique guerrilla force): Kevin Ashman, Tero Kalliolevo, William De Ath and Derk de Graaf;
44 (conspirator who defeated the Partians): Staf Dujardin, Jon Strøm, Gábor Hacsek and Gábor Gaspar;

…one question by five…
50 (work by Chekhov with dead woman in the forest): Pat Gibson, Bernard Kreps, Lars Van Moer, Johan Vander Elst and Joke Cools;

…and one question by six:
86 (non-Olympic type of fishing): Pat Gibson, Indrek Salis, William De Ath, Truls Flatberg, Mark Ryder and Andres Kund.

It speaks for the overall level of the field that these 28 difficult points were spread over 24 of the 90 quizzers! Also, only four of the ten finalists were represented at all, suggesting that their main strength lies in their breadth of knowledge at least as much as in obscure niches.

Talking of the finalists, the easiest question each of them missed was…
Thomas Kolåsæter and David Stainer: 89 (secret agent played by Richard Dean Anderson), 67 correct answers;
Olav Bjortomt: 24 (father of Esau and Jacob), 66 correct answers;
Kevin Ashman: 48 (doubles partner of Pam Shriver), 63 correct answers;
Pat Gibson, Mark Bytheway and Ian Bayley: 54 (Hebrew place name meaning Altneuland), 62 correct answers;
Tero Kalliolevo and Jussi Suvanto: 5 (island group with La Gomera), 61 correct answers;
Ronny Swiggers: 80 (Scandinavian introducing male and female symbols), 60 correct answers.

Splitting the field into the top 45 and the bottom 45, we can find the questions which favoured the elite the most:
Question 8 (complete the film title starting with The Mysterious Yearning Secretive Sad etc): point for 33 of the top half vs 5 of the bottom half;
Question 41 (Talking Heads concert movie): 32 vs 7;
Question 49 (jazz composer and bandleader from Saturn): 32 vs 9;
Question 1 (US singer with «I Think We’re Alone Now» in 1987): 30 vs 8.

Maybe a bit surprising, in that all of these are from popular culture of sorts. This may be due to a certain bias in how this is more present in the quizzing culture of countries like Belgium and England, and/or indicate that the questions in these categories are pushed a bit more in the direction of the difficult than other categories are.

There were also four questions where the bottom half scored better than the top half:
Question 43 (what Polska Partia Przyjaciól Piwa were friends of): 23 vs 25;
Question 46 (half-uncle (?) of the wife of Kofi Annan): 5 vs 7;
Question 80 (Scandinavian introducing male and female symbols): 29 vs 31;
Question 4 (century when Emperor Songtsan Gampo lived): 4 vs 5.

2. Combinations

Over the 100 questions, Kevin Ashman had the highest score with 78 points. If the quiz was for pairs (and no-one ever argued their team-mate out of a correct answer, yeah right), the top pairs would be:
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto 91
Kevin Ashman+Thomas Kolåsæter 90
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson 89
Kevin Ashman+Bernard Kreps 89
Kevin Ashman+Olav Bjortomt 88
Kevin Ashman+Harald Aastorp 88
Kevin Ashman+Gábor Hacsek 88
Kevin Ashman+Mark Ryder 88
Kevin Ashman+Trine Aalborg 87
Kevin Ashman+Tero Kalliolevo 87
Kevin Ashman+Ole Martin Halck 87
Kevin Ashman+Lars Heggland 87
Kevin Ashman+Lars Van Moer 87
Kevin Ashman+Tuomas Tumi 87
Pat Gibson+Ronny Swiggers 87
Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto 87
Kevin Ashman+Paul Arts 86
Kevin Ashman+Mark Bytheway 86
Kevin Ashman+Marnix Baes 86
Kevin Ashman+Nico Pattyn 86
Kevin Ashman+Ronny Swiggers 86
Kevin Ashman+Ove Põder 86
Kevin Ashman+David Stainer 86
Kevin Ashman+William De Ath 86
Kevin Ashman+Dag Fjeldstad 86
Kevin Ashman+Tore Dahl 86
Kevin Ashman+Staf Dujardin 86
Kevin Ashman+Bart Permentier 86
Kevin Ashman+Stig Sanner 86
Kevin Ashman+Knut Heggland 86
Kevin Ashman+Jon Strøm 86

Nearly everyone had Kevin as their best partner. The exceptions were Kevin himself, obviously (Jussi Suvanto was his best partner), Barry Simmons (Kevin or Jussi), Ronny Swiggers (Pat Gibson), Ian Bayley (Jussi), Mark Grant (Kevin or Ronny Swiggers or Mark Ryder), Derk de Graaf (Kevin or Pat), and David Edwards (Olav Bjortomt).

The best triples would be:
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto 95
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Gábor Hacsek 95
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Bernard Kreps 95
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Mark Ryder 95
Kevin Ashman+Trine Aalborg+Gábor Hacsek 94
Kevin Ashman+Ove Põder+Thomas Kolåsæter 94
Kevin Ashman+Ove Põder+Mark Ryder 94
Kevin Ashman+Tero Kalliolevo+Jussi Suvanto 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+David Stainer 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Ole Martin Halck 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Indrek Salis 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Thomas Kolåsæter 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Tom Trogh 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Staf Dujardin 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Truls Flatberg 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Stig Sanner 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Jon Strøm 94
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Gábor Hacsek 94
Kevin Ashman+William De Ath+Bernard Kreps 94
Kevin Ashman+Bernard Kreps+Trond Brastad 94
Kevin Ashman+Harald Aastorp+Mark Ryder 94
Kevin Ashman+Gábor Hacsek+Mark Ryder 94

To belabour a point possibly: 17 of 22 triples comprise players from different countries.

Five points left for full score; adding one more player only yields two of them. These combinations have 97 points:
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto+Dag Fjeldstad 97
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto+Staf Dujardin 97
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto+Jon Strøm 97
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto+Aare Olander 97
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Jussi Suvanto+Gábor Hacsek 97
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Dag Fjeldstad+Gábor Hacsek 97
Kevin Ashman+Pat Gibson+Gábor Hacsek+Tõnis Poom 97
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Bernard Kreps+Mark Ryder 97
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Bernard Kreps+Andres Kund 97
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Staf Dujardin+Mark Ryder 97
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Jon Strøm+Mark Ryder 97
Kevin Ashman+Jussi Suvanto+Gábor Hacsek+Mark Ryder 97

EQC 2008 Club Teams Championships

Final results

The final official list of results runs as follows:

Analysis

1. Difficulty

A total of 1347 points were taken in the quiz out of 2700 possible, a percentage of 49.9. In detail, the difficulty profile, ie the number of questions at each observed difficulty (measured by the number of teams answering correctly) looks as follows:

We see a reasonably even distribution of difficulties between 6 and 20 correct answers, with fewer questions ending up at the difficult and easy extremes. In particular, one question was correctly answered by every team, number 2 about a Czechoslovak 800-meter runner with a world record still standing. Four questions were answered correctly by every team except one: questions 41 (card game with four main varieties and a name from «basket» in Spanish), 61 (Israeli foreign minister), 71 (host of America’s Next Top Model) and 91 (city also known as Dar Beïda). Questions 39and 79 were mastered by 25 of 27 teams; the questions were about the home country of Denmark’s Crown Princess Mary, and Kane’s last word in the movie Citizen Kane.

One question was too difficult for everyone, number 38 on a Russian entomologist and his namesake honey-bee gland. Two solo points were taken: Milhous Warriors answered question 55 on the Italian who wrote the treatise The Command of the Air, and De Knøsjes knew the answer to question 65 on a North African/Middle eastern cooking oil made from goat or sheep butter.

Three questions were correctly answered by two teams…
53 (Czech hockey player who defected and played in the NHL): Naapurivisa; Hovedstyret av 1914
70 (Spanish water polo player often considered best of all time): Naapurivisa; Café den Hemel
98 (South American rodent with name meaning «false paca»): JFGI; It’s Grim Oop North

…three questions by three teams…
10 (Bulgarian philosopher and literary theorist): Clockwork; JFGI; Nameless and Shameless
25 (the two football teams in the politically-charged 1941 German Championship final): Milhous Warriors; The Quizzers Who Say NI!; Cuthbert, Dibble & Grubb
89 (Spanish painter from Valencia with a variant of Impressionism): Clockwork; El Diablo en el Ojo; Viseo

…and two questions by four teams:
56 (first name of the son of the Buddha and also of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi): Café den Hemel; Tasmanian Nerds; More Cowbell; Nameless and Shameless
66 (five-letter name connecting footballer Kemal, artist Alain Gourdon et al): Põlva; Club Seals; It’s Grim Oop North; The Pitbulls & The Lipstick

Note that as many as 18 out of the 27 teams are represented among these 11 most difficult questions.

2. Combinations

Broken Hearts’ winning score was 73 points out of 100 possible. The best combined score by two teams was 85, as shown by this table:

 

The most complementary team for each participating team, ie the one with the most extra points compared to their own, can be seen in this table:

 

Even if the British teams dominated this competition, they need foreign help to break 90 points, as seen in the table of best triples:

 

(Note also that the winners, Broken Hearts, only feature towards the end of this list.)

Four teams together could have taken 96 of the 99 points awarded, through the combination of Naapurivisa, Clockwork, Milhous Warriors and one of Tasmanian Nerds, It’s Grim Oop North and More Cowbell. In order to make a superteam taking all 99 points, six teams were needed.