Brandon Wang

[steveeeeeeeee]

I can't find anything about this year's University Challenge and Monday's final. As with any good year, there have been two absolute stand-out team members; Brandon for Imperial College and Wang for Corpus Christi Cambridge. Unlike Monkman and Saegull a couple of years ago, the two will meet in the final on Monday.

As much as I admire Wang's knowledge and incredibly democratic and encouraging captaincy, I must declare enormous admiration for Brandon, out of Jamaica, Queens, New York City. Much like Cristiano Ronaldo, he is arrogant and expressive, but that is because he is utterly brilliant at quizzing. Why people go into meltdown when confronted with self-belief and confidence is beyond me.

Anyway, if you didn't see the semi-final on Monday, treat yourself to an incredible individual performance. I've linked to the finest moment, one of the finest, most stylish starter for 10 recoveries of all time:

https://youtu.be/9inkm2AdELg?t=1448

[Jon]

Thanks for sharing, Steveeee. I'm now a fan. You had me when you compared him to Cristiano Ronaldo, a very good analogy.

[Mumpo]

He's good, obviously, but he does hog the limelight while aactually only soliciting answers from his teammates. Hoping Imperial beat Wang's lot in the final but I'm not confident. Thinking Corpus Christi's endless deliberating will stultify Imperial in the same way Peter Ebdon did Ronnie O'Sullivan with his tiresome gamesmanship.

[Doraemon]

One thing that slightly annoys me about University Challenge is that the final is shorter than the other rounds because they have longer introductions and the presentation ceremony to fit in. You would think that they would want to make the final a proper contest, possible even making it longer than previous rounds to get a true winner.

Anyway I quite like 'Not here to make friends' Brandon out of Jamaica Queens, partly as he annoys so many people on Twitter, but I don't mind who wins. In the Times today I discovered that Wang has a brother who appeared a few years ago and that he doesn't see why Oxbridge are allowed so many teams.

[Jon]

In the warm-up to this evening's University Challenge (I won't spoil it for those who have yet to see it) I watched the wholly inferior Mastermind. I think it was a semi-final. Something on it really irked me though. Two of the contestants did really well on their specialist subjects: Dusty Springfield and Grayson Perry. Both got all their answers correct with no passes. But the Dusty Springfield contestant had a lead of 2 or maybe 3 points over the Grayson Perry contestant to take into the general knowledge round. The reason why was purely because his questions were much shorter. You don't seem to be able to interrupt John Humphries as he reads the question out, meaning that if you get shorter questions you gain you a significant (and quite an unfair) advantage.

[Various Artist]

I was trying to keep count with those too Jon – the Dusty guy got 12 out of 12 right, the Grayson person got 10 out of 10 or 11, I forget which but it was definitely fewer.

It always feels like the questions are getting more frustratingly lengthy and discursive, as if to cater for an audience blessed with less general knowledge by the year, but as you say even if the thrust of the question is obvious 6 words in you can't dive in and interrupt until John Humphrys has finished going all around the houses.


My prediction for UC, meanwhile, was that Brandon and co's lightning-fast buzzer work would confound Wang and co's ability to 'farm the strike', as it were, as the latter simply wouldn't get enough questions in to compete, even if they did slow the game down with their usual highly collegiate (pun sort of intended) long discussions before answering them.

[Jon]

as you say even if the thrust of the question is obvious 6 words in you can't dive in and interrupt until John Humphrys has finished going all around the houses.

First question on Grayson Perry: What prestigious art prize did Perry win in December 2003,.... Surely you don't need to go on, do you? But no, John Humphries continues ..the judging panel admired his use of the traditions of ceramics and drawing in his uncompromising engagement with personal and social concerns?

This is an against the clock quiz, FFS.

[steveeeeeeeee]

**Possible Spoilers**

I was working on Monday evening, so had to watch it on catch-up. I guess the result was what many would predict, but the way it came about wasn't and hopefully it shut up a lot of the anti-Brandon idiots on Twitter.

[Benjm]

There's an interview with him on the Guardian website today that is worth a read. He takes his quizzing very seriously indeed but comes across as a likeable personality.

[Diable Rouge]

First question on Grayson Perry: What prestigious art prize did Perry win in December 2003,.... Surely you don't need to go on, do you? But no, John Humphries continues ..the judging panel admired his use of the traditions of ceramics and drawing in his uncompromising engagement with personal and social concerns?

This is an against the clock quiz, FFS.

I barely remember the original version when it used to be on RTE in the late Eighties/early Nineties, but presumably the very reason that contestants were able to score 20 per round, rather than overall, was precisely because Magnusson was far more brisk in his question delivery.

[Lang Spoon]

John Humphries is an all round terrible person. And Mastermind really is fairly piss easy these days. The Chase is more difficult.

[Various Artist]

First question on Grayson Perry: What prestigious art prize did Perry win in December 2003,.... Surely you don't need to go on, do you? But no, John Humphries continues ..the judging panel admired his use of the traditions of ceramics and drawing in his uncompromising engagement with personal and social concerns?

This is an against the clock quiz, FFS.

Hah, that's exactly the question that got me this week – as I say you could snip it literally 6 words in ("What prestigious art prize did Perry––") and have a 95% chance of getting it right; add your four extra words to include the date and it goes up to about 98%. The remaining three-quarters of the 'question' was just fluff and filler.

I'd really like to know, per DR's comment, whether questions were actually less ballasted with additional information back in the day because a higher standard of general knowledge was assumed on the part of the audience, or whether it's simply that Magnus Magnusson's enunciation was so brisk and clipped he was simply able to rattle them out faster while still being understood. (It's so long since I've seen any of his, though I grew up on them, my mental picture of his delivery now is to be honest more influenced by Ronnie Barker's impression of him in the Two Ronnies' famous Mastermind spoof.)

[tracteurgarcon]

I barely remember the original version when it used to be on RTE in the late Eighties/early Nineties, but presumably the very reason that contestants were able to score 20 per round, rather than overall, was precisely because Magnusson was far more brisk in his question delivery.

The main reason I watch or listen to quiz programmes is to hear as many questions as possible and yet most formats seem designed to minimise the actual quiz time.

[Diable Rouge]

And again tonight in the final, the contestants all seem competently drilled in both their specialist subjects and general knowledge, but because of Humphreys going round the houses, he can only squeeze 12-14 GK questions into the two and a half minutes allowed!

[Various Artist]

Oh golly yes. You could see the frustration in professional quiz-setter Dave, in particular, because he more than any of them blatantly wanted to just spit out the answers. After he got a couple of gettable ones wrong in the general knowledge round he clearly already figured he'd blown his chances – then what turned out to be the last question he faced dragged out for the entirety of the the on-screen countdown timer (which fortunately, as far as I know, the contestants aren't privy to) and that was something else. He so visibly wanted to cut the crap after the first few words, but it went on so long the time's up sound went before Humphrys had finished reading it: the expression on Dave's face at that point was a sight to behold.

[Mumpo]

Re. the length of questions on Mastermind - I definitely read/heard at the time of the original series that they meticulously timed the how long it took to read the questions. Of course, it would depend on the answering time of the contestant how many questions were actually asked. Perhaps they aren't so rigorous in the show's current incarnation. I'd be surprised if they weren't making some effort to keep the timings even.

[Various Artist]

Oh, yes I've heard that myself multiple times. I'm sure they attempt to keep things as balanced as possible, at least in theory.

The annoyance lies in a combination of spotting sets of questions that nonetheless seem blatantly snappier than the surrounding ones, and the general drawn-out-ness of the questioning. Instead of a question taking the simple form of, say, "What X did Y?", they have a bad tendency (if you just want to hear as many questions as possible) to wander off around the full perimeter of "What X did Y (the Z of A), who was B-ing the C during the period of D to E, due to F – according to G – upon the H of I?"... which is mostly just padding and intensely frustrating to sit through.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

I wonder - without having any relevant inside info - whether the length of the questions, with all their padding of superfluous incidental facts, is driven by either (a) an equalling up process, in that very occasionally some questions do need a lot of words to ask, so they lengthen the ones which wouldn't otherwise need to be long in order to have the fairness of equally long questions against the clock and/or (b) a desire to give more context, and thus perhaps more interesting informative content, to the wider viewing public whose level of general knowledge may not match up to the lofty average level of the learned OTF community and who might therefore not have a clue what a sparsely asked question is actually about (e.g. who wrote book X or who won battle Y might be dull for the general viewer if it's just matching one unfamiliar name to another from the viewer's perspective).

In terms of fairness in relation to numbers of questions asked, I'd be surprised if they didn't meticulously aim for equality of overall question lengths as between contestants. But, leaving aside the question of actual pauses by contestants, I believe it's been noted by quiz supremos that you can "game" the system by giving off psychological vibes to Humphreys with your answering style - if you answer in a terse and tense pushy manner you can make Humphreys speak faster, whereas if you sound pensive and chilled, even if you answer promptly, he will, albeit slightly, slow down. When I was on MM in 2015 I got one fewer question in my SS round than other contestants, and I'm pretty sure I answered all my questions without any material pauses, which I think was perhaps due to my manner.

Digressing slightly, my main gripe with the programme, apart from the identity of the host, is contestants being allowed to choose over-narrow and obscure SSs, novel series by utterly (and often no doubt justifiably) obscure writers being a particular yawn.

[Jon]

Digressing slightly, my main gripe with the programme, apart from the identity of the host, is contestants being allowed to choose over-narrow and obscure SSs, novel series by utterly (and often no doubt justifiably) obscure writers being a particular yawn.

Yes, that would be my main gripe too.

But do tell all, EEG, about your Mastermind experience.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Not much of interest to report from that thanks Jon, but here goes:

I applied online through the BBC website. My application seemed to disappear into the ether, I don't think I got any kind of acknowledgement and I heard nothing for ages. Then, months later, when I'd forgotten all about it and was in the middle of a busy working day, I got a call on my mobile from someone in the production team, who gave me a short telephone general knowledge quiz - around seven questions or so IIRC. Apparently I scored highly enough on that to get invited to interview - the production team tours the country giving intervews to applicants in their own regions, so I only had to travel a mile or so within Cambridge. The main part of the interview was a further general knowledge quiz - presumably they are trying to avoid the excruciating situation of having contestants on who would be hopeless at the GK round. I imagine they may screen a bit for any obvious warning signs on the personality front too, but they don't reveal that. The later part of the interview is discussing specialist subject choices with them (for 3 rounds including the final, even though most contestants appear in one round only) - they decide whether the subject is suitable and hasn't been done recently, and explain the rules about agreed source materials (in my case, for my first and only round, 3 books on my topic (the 30 Years War) from which they would select facts for their questions).

Subjects are ruled out if they've been done very recently, hence I wasn't allowed my first choice subject of Breaking Bad, but they don't go that far back obviously because another guy did the 30 years war (very unsuccessfully, poor chap) last year, just 4 years after me.

The recording is at the studios in Media City, Salford, so I had a day trip up there. One of my daughters, and one of my sisters, attended as guest members in the audience. You get separated from your guests when you go off to the green room. Green room was OK - food and drink available, other contestants quite agreeable to chat to. Humphreys doesn't bother putting in any green room appearance (unilke, as I understand it, some other quiz show hosts who take the time to say hello to contestants on their shows), your only interaction with him is the televised bit.

They record a few episodes a day and have a warm up comedian for the studio audience in between recordings.

The contestants, when in the waiting area, are told to focus their gaze on a small light in the distance, and that they could be in shot at any time. Hence the rather grim and humourless stares that MM contestants typically have when shown alongside each other on the telly - it's not that we're really all po-faced, that's just how the production machine has made us act.

Being in the chair (and, even worse, walking to the chair) is nerve-racking though perhaps a bit less so than one expects.

I came joint last (or, to put it as a friend did, 3rd equal hence a podium finish) with 19 points. The other contestants got 19. 20 and 24. In my SS round I got 12 questions - answered 11 right and passed on 1. In my GK round I got 8 points from, I think, around 16 questions, which was as many as I knew (at least on an instant basis) I don't think I got any wrong due to nerves alone. Watching the whole series that year I think my average score at home on GK rounds is around 10 so I was just a little bit unlucky with their question offering but it could have been worse.

The one bit of luck I had was an extraordinary freak coincidence. Waiting in the foyer of the studio building with my daughter and sister, I had Wilson's book on the 30 Years War with me for last minute revision. My sister, a history buff, asked me if it was a good book. I said I thought it was, and noted that it added little bits of cultural interest, e.g. mentioning if some episode in the war has been recorded in a famous painting and so on. At which point my sister mentioned having recently seen such a painting in the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, "you know, that striking building by Frank Gehry". "Ah," I joked, "I must memorise that, I'm really not good on architecture - Gehry, Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao!" I think you can guess what I got a GK question on a few hours later, so I owe it to my big sis that I came 3rd equal rather than 4th.

[Various Artist]

That's brilliant EEG – I'd love to have seen your face when you received that Gehry question, your mouth must have dropped open!

I missed your previous reply until now, so I hadn't seen you had experience on MM; that's fascinating to read all about it. I wonder if Humphrys not putting in a green-room appearance is just his personal preference not to mix with the plebs, or if he's just attempting to maintain the show's famously tense/gladiatorial atmosphere by deliberately not fraternising with the contestants so that their first encounter with him once seated in that chair is as suitably nerve-wracking as possible.

I have to say, mind, given the programme's reputation, the most startling thing by far I took away from your description is that they have a warm up comedian for the studio audience on Mastermind. That actually boggled me a bit on reading it.


You're absolutely right in your previous comments, of course – they indubitably have all the 'padding' in the questions to give them more context and thus make them more understandable to a wider audience. I'd just love to know whether this has had to be emphasised more and more as the years go by, or if it was ever thus. I suppose there must be some clips from, say, the 1980s on YouTube that might help give a clue, I should have a search. Your notion about there being an "equalling up process, in that very occasionally some questions do need a lot of words to ask, so they lengthen the ones which wouldn't otherwise need to be long in order to have the fairness of equally long questions against the clock" also holds a lot of water, I think, and I hadn't thought of that.

[Jon]

Fascinating. Thanks EEG. Interesting what you say about agreed source materials. I didn't know they did that. A while ago I was wondering what would be my specialist subject and I settled on Beyonce. Not that I've ever read a book about her but I've listened to virtually everything she's ever put out so I'd just go back and give each album a listen and then maybe read her Wikipedia page.

[Various Artist]

That makes one wonder how they decide a 'legitimate' subject Jon. Presumably it has to be the source of at least three books, so as to be able to have these agreed reference texts – which is actually not a bad measuring stick I suppose.

[Jon]

Yes, that surprised me, VA. As you say, not a bad measuring stick but I'm sure some of the specialist subjects chosen in the past haven't had 3 books written about them.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

I don't imagine that the 3 books rule applies to all potential SSs. I assume that it applies only to subjects where the source materials would most naturally be books, such as topics in history. Some people choose box set TV dramas for example - I would expect that the source materials for that kind of subject would simply be the actual drama episodes as broadcast, maybe with some supplementing from another source, I have no idea really. I expect they give themselves a fair bit of flexibility in agreeing a sensible set of materials with each contestant.

In my case, the source materials issue did cause one inconvenience - I'd chosen the 30 Years War in the first place (as my second choice after Breaking Bad) because I'd had C V Wedgwood's history of it sitting on my shelves for (no pun intended) 30 years or so, long meaning to read it, and thought it would be nice to kill two birds with one stone. But that book was rejected as source material because it was too old (written in the 1930s), and I guess they are concerned about the risk of embarrassment from asking a quiz question seeking a "fact" which has since been overturned by more recent scholarship. So I had to choose 3 other histories of the war, and ended up reading 4 because I was damn well going to read that Wedgwood book anyway.

Whenever the topic of Mastermind SSs comes up, I think of a newspaper feature I read a very long time ago about subjects which had been rejected by the MM people as unsuitable. The example that tickled me most was some bloke who had apparently wanted to answer questions on "how to get to anywhere in Britain by road from Stevenage".