Re: Blitzing

ZAMM_Phaedrus · Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:07:11 -0800

I think Eric has it right to some degree. I think
of blitzing as going beyond the normal
creator/creation, two related pieces of information rule. I would
suggest that it doesn't matter that often, though I have
nothing to base that on except that I don't recall anyone
ever giving more than two pieces of information in my
playing career. (I am aware that just because I don't
recall it doesn't mean it didn't happen.)

Even if
blitzing involves only two pieces of information, it tends
to be given by experienced players. Failure to give,
for example, creator/creation is a mark of someone
being either inexperienced in quizbowl, being knowledge
but bad at quizbowl skills (as some people are known
to be), or losing their senses.

There is a
skill to playing this game more than just knowing the
facts themselves. One of those skills is knowing when
to hold back, and yes I am aware of the irony in me
making that statement. It is a skill that I practice at
times, and which I fail to practice more often, and my
failure at this skill is why I always knew that there
would be limits to my abilities.

But getting
back to my point, which is that quizbowl involves
creating a schema of knowledge. Those who make a superior
schema are better players. They can successfully manage
their greater knowledge base even when playing "speed"
teams on easy questions, so long as those questions
follow the general approved forms of quizbowl, such as
pyramidal tossup construction. 

Knowing more means
that you will answer more questions in the long-run,
and that you will have more choices to choose from.
In the short term, this will cost a player a
question here and there that s/he would otherwise have
gotten without knowing more. In the long term, it's a
winning strategy. And if the questions are easier and you
can't adjust and keep overthinking, that's because you
lack quizbowl skills not because questions which are
easy at the _end_ are inherently bad. 

Blitzing
of more than two pieces of information was probably
thought up by a whiny bastard who thought he was screwed
out of a question because he couldn't hold back. Negs
happen. Every buzz is a calculated risk. These days, if
it was a truly misleading question, it would be
protestable, and your protest would probably win through. Or
at least, ideally, that would be the case.