Can you beat for the cricket guru title?

[Tapioca]

No serious tries yet. I don't want to hog this for too long.

Ever wondered about the similarity in the names of Eden Gardens in Calcutta and Eden Park in Auckland ?

Lord Auckland, formerly George Eden, was the Governor General of India in the 1840s. Eden Gardens was named after his sister Emily Eden.

The city of Auckland was founded and the city and Eden Park were named by Captain William Hobson, the first governor of New Zealand, after his boss at a time when Lord Auckland was serving as the head of the Admirality (before his governorship in India).

 

[shankar]

^Nice one

 

[SJS]

No serious tries yet. I don't want to hog this for too long.

Ever wondered about the similarity in the names of Eden Gardens in Calcutta and Eden Park in Auckland ?

Lord Auckland, formerly George Eden, was the Governor General of India in the 1840s. Eden Gardens was named after his sister Emily Eden.

The city of Auckland was founded and the city and Eden Park were named by Captain William Hobson, the first governor of New Zealand, after his boss at a time when Lord Auckland was serving as the head of the Admirality (before his governorship in India).

Great. As I said before, you are the true Guru

What do you mean you find it difficult to ask a good question !!

PS:- BTW, I took your advise and went looking for the bookshop you had mentioned. Didnt get a cricket book that I would have liked to buy. However I went to the Strand and bought "Don Bradman- Challenging the Myth" by Brett Hutchins.

 

[marc71178]

Great question, but IMO it would've benefitted from being left a little longer for people to try and get it.

 

[SJS]

Great question, but IMO it would've benefitted from being left a little longer for people to try and get it.

I have been wanting to suggest for sometime a change in the format of this thread if everyone agrees. What I have in mind is that instead of running after search engines or trying to get the answer by hitting in the dark, we allow everyone to ask questions from the QM. The condition being that the questions are answerable in YES or NO or NOT APPLICABLE.

This will increase the genuine participation of everyone. We need to, of course limit the number of such 'information-eliciting' questions, anything from 10 to 15 or 20.

If after the questions limit has been exhausted, the QM reveals the answer and asks the next question.

The questions can be much more vague and still one can get to them.

The only problem is that, the QM has to be available for answereing the queries but I feel we should give it a try .

What do you guys think ?

 

[shankar]

Possibly a good idea. But for it to work people have to ask questions with guessable answers and not pure trivia.

 

[SJS]

Possibly a good idea. But for it to work people have to ask questions with guessable answers and not pure trivia.

You will be surprised, how close you can get with smartly asked queries. We used to play this game as lkids and you could think of any thing, place or person and invariably within the 20 queries. allowed (starting from not even knowing if it was a olace , a person or a thing) most smart kids got to the answer.

Basically you start quickly reducing shrinking the 'circle' by eliminating options.

I am sure most of you have played similar games.

I think something must be done to reduce this from a mere engine searching excercise to a genuine guessing quiz/game .

 

[shankar]

ok I'll ask the next one:

His first-class career lasted from 1900 to 1907. In all he played 10 matches
for MCC - 18 innings, 6 not-outs, 231 runs, highest score 43, average 19.25. He
also took one wicket for 50 runs. Identify him.

 

[marc71178]

Is it a person famous for another thing other than Cricket?

 

[JASON]

ok I'll ask the next one:

His first-class career lasted from 1900 to 1907. In all he played 10 matches
for MCC - 18 innings, 6 not-outs, 231 runs, highest score 43, average 19.25. He
also took one wicket for 50 runs. Identify him.

Arthur Conan Doyle

Is it a person famous for another thing other than Cricket?

Off course !!(And I am certain you knew it !!)

I have been wanting to suggest for sometime a change in the format of this thread if everyone agrees. What I have in mind is that instead of running after search engines or trying to get the answer by hitting in the dark, we allow everyone to ask questions from the QM. The condition being that the questions are answerable in YES or NO or NOT APPLICABLE.

This will increase the genuine participation of everyone. We need to, of course limit the number of such 'information-eliciting' questions, anything from 10 to 15 or 20.

If after the questions limit has been exhausted, the QM reveals the answer and asks the next question.

The questions can be much more vague and still one can get to them.

The only problem is that, the QM has to be available for answereing the queries but I feel we should give it a try .

What do you guys think ?

I am all for it, because I think that way we will have more people actively participating in it and trying to answer the questions, than the usual group that seem to be involved in this thread ATM.

I would only suggest we start it as a new thread in such an event, and leave this thread be to run its own course !!

I think this thread in its current format is still viewed by a lot of people who visit the forum (and who obviously read the questions and answers). Only the questions being vague and sometimes obscure or occasionally hard has without doubt deterred people from making even educated guesses !! (I hope more people will consider posting guesses even - just so we know a lot of visitors are attempting to answer the questions).


Another suggestion would be to try and post questions that more people can attempt (with the intention being to get greater involvement), if one cannot post any question, rather than deliberately avoiding to post questions that we think people might answer !!

Because to me the thrill of this thread is in finding a person who attempts to answer your question or even contemplates your question as worthy of his participation !! (Not trying to show that I can post a question with the help of some books and search engines, wording it in such a way none can even get a hint) In fact if no-one comes close, I find it enjoyable in giving clues , so that some one will gain some pleasure by using the clue to get to the answer( the example is SJS's question about Macauley- see previous pages, where Sudeep used the clues to get the answer - commendations to both for that exercise ), rather than making out that no-one comes nearer to my unique way of thinking or my superior knowledge !!
I am only making these suggestions because, if you visit the early pages of this thread, the participation was very active and involved a large number of people answering a question. I didn't answer many then, because most were answered by way of clues (which the questioners generously gave to keep the interest active- BI can vouch for this too ) [Does not seem to be the case anymore (I regret to say), where the thrill it appears to me, for some of us, is in One-up man ship and trying to make the questions exclusive !! So only a small number can even try it.]

 

[SJS]

I am all for it, because I think that way we will have more people actively participating in it and trying to answer the questions, than the usual group that seem to be involved in this thread ATM.

I would only suggest we start it as a new thread in such an event, and leave this be to run its own course !!

Good. So someone has top lay down the basic rules. What type of questions, how many queries ( I suggest queries for each question are numbered by the query poser) and also what ever has been 'discovered' towards the answer is repeated.

Example :
QM : One of the worlds greatest fielders of his time ??

Query : Q1-Is he white ?

QM : Answer 1 : No. (One of the worlds greatest fielders of his time -not white)

Query : Is he Black ?

QO : Ans 2. Yes (One of the worlds greatest fielders of his time-Black)

and so on. This is important for obvious reasons.

I think we can start with twenty queries and change the number AND modify other rules (with agreement of course) if required as we go along.

Howzat

 

[Sudeep]

Arthur Conan Doyle



Off course !!(And I am certain you knew it !!)



I am all for it, because I think that way we will have more people actively participating in it and trying to answer the questions, than the usual group that seem to be involved in this thread ATM.

I would only suggest we start it as a new thread in such an event, and leave this thread be to run its own course !!

I think this thread in its current format is still viewed by a lot of people who visit the forum (and who obviously read the questions and answers). Only the questions being vague and sometimes obscure or occasionally hard has without doubt deterred people from making even educated guesses !! (I hope more people will consider posting guesses even - just so we know a lot of visitors are attempting to answer the questions).


Another suggestion would be to try and post questions that more people can attempt (with the intention being to get greater involvement), if one cannot post any question, rather than deliberately avoiding to post questions that we think people might answer !!

Because to me the thrill of this thread is in finding a person who attempts to answer your question or even contemplates your question as worthy of his participation !! (Not trying to show that I can post a question with the help of some books and search engines, wording it in such a way none can even get a hint) In fact if no-one comes close, I find it enjoyable in giving clues , so that some one will gain some pleasure by using the clue to get to the answer( the example is SJS's question about Macauley- see previous pages, where Sudeep used the clues to get the answer - commendations to both for that exercise ), rather than making out that no-one comes nearer to my unique way of thinking or my superior knowledge !!

I am only making these suggestions because, if you visit the early pages of this thread, the participation was very active and involved a large number of people answering a question. I didn't answer many then, because most were answered by way of clues (which the questioners generously gave to keep the interest active- BI can vouch for this too ) [Does not seem to be the case anymore (I regret to say), where the thrill it appears to me, for some of us, is in One-up man ship and trying to make the questions exclusive !! So only a small number can even try it.]

Agree with you completely, Jason.

 

[SJS]

Arthur Conan Doyle



Off course !!(And I am certain you knew it !!)



I am all for it, because I think that way we will have more people actively participating in it and trying to answer the questions, than the usual group that seem to be involved in this thread ATM.

I would only suggest we start it as a new thread in such an event, and leave this thread be to run its own course !!

I think this thread in its current format is still viewed by a lot of people who visit the forum (and who obviously read the questions and answers). Only the questions being vague and sometimes obscure or occasionally hard has without doubt deterred people from making even educated guesses !! (I hope more people will consider posting guesses even - just so we know a lot of visitors are attempting to answer the questions).


Another suggestion would be to try and post questions that more people can attempt (with the intention being to get greater involvement), if one cannot post any question, rather than deliberately avoiding to post questions that we think people might answer !!

Because to me the thrill of this thread is in finding a person who attempts to answer your question or even contemplates your question as worthy of his participation !! (Not trying to show that I can post a question with the help of some books and search engines, wording it in such a way none can even get a hint) In fact if no-one comes close, I find it enjoyable in giving clues , so that some one will gain some pleasure by using the clue to get to the answer( the example is SJS's question about Macauley- see previous pages, where Sudeep used the clues to get the answer - commendations to both for that exercise ), rather than making out that no-one comes nearer to my unique way of thinking or my superior knowledge !!
I am only making these suggestions because, if you visit the early pages of this thread, the participation was very active and involved a large number of people answering a question. I didn't answer many then, because most were answered by way of clues (which the questioners generously gave to keep the interest active- BI can vouch for this too ) [Does not seem to be the case anymore (I regret to say), where the thrill it appears to me, for some of us, is in One-up man ship and trying to make the questions exclusive !! So only a small number can even try it.]

I agree.

I think if we all just decide to try and guess rather than take the short cut of rushing to a search engine it might still be fun.

We could throw questions at the QM and let him try to answer honestly without completely giving it away. Even from an answer that dodges a question since it is getting uncomfortably close, can offer a clue.

What i am saying is, we look for the clues in the original question and the subsequent queries and their replies. This should be fun.

Of course, that we will scrupolously avoid search engines is upto us.

I also suggest that a way is found to give the answer (at the time of asking) to the moderators or who ever is going to be available from the owners of the site, so that even if the original Questioner is unavailable, the thread moves at a reasonable pace.

 

[shankar]

Agree with you completely, Jason.

Arthur Conan Doyle is right and the lone wicket was that of W.G.Grace.

SJS - In the 20 qns format, the QM should be allowed to not answer certain questions as he sees fit. Some qns may be of such a nature that answering them might take away the charm of guessing the answer.

 

[SJS]

Arthur Conan Doyle is right and the lone wicket was that of W.G.Grace.

SJS - In the 20 qns format, the QM should be allowed to not answer certain questions as he sees fit. Some qns may be of such a nature that answering them might take away the charm of guessing the answer.

You probably missed the firs post on this. The queries have to be ONLY those which can be answered in a Yes, No or Not Relevant

You cant ask a direct questionn ? You cant even ask, which decade did he start his test career in ? or did he start his test career in the 70's or 80'. Since both these can not be asked in yes or no.

So you will end up taking a longer route like , did he play in the 20th century, If yes followed by did he start his test career before the second world war, if no, then did he start his test career after Packer's Pyjama cricket and so on. So we have lost three queries and are still in a fairly large circle.

This can be fun and means the questions have to be smart.

You cant ask vague questions which can not be answered. For example, you may notice I have added test before the word career. If this was not done the question could have two answers - test career or first class career(not to forget ODI career).

 

[JASON]

I am grateful for your comments. Agree with the suggested format by SJS.

Question (for this thread)-

There are only 2 instances where a player in a Test Match has taken over as an Umpire in that Test (one has been previously discussed in this thread following a question, If I remember correctly by Deja Moo) . Name the two players.(instances)

There is also a third instance where an Umpire in a Test in a series, subsequently played as a player in the subsequent Test in the same series. Name the player.

[The latter instance (of the question in green) is also related to the answer to one of the above 2 instances !!]
Only Answer required is for Question in Purple!! (actually Dark Orchid is the real name of the colour )

 

[shankar]

SJS - My point is that even when the question is clear,relevant and of the Yes/No type, the QM should be able to say "I dont want to answer that question because It will give away the answer too easily".

 

[SJS]

SJS - My point is that even when the question is clear,relevant and of the Yes/No type, the QM should be able to say "I dont want to answer that question because It will give away the answer too easily".

Ok. We can agree to that. But not if the questioner has arrived at THE ANSWER. That would be like refusing to play just before being check mated.

If the query was, "Is it Constantine ?" The answer has to be 'yes' (in case that is the answer) even though it does somewhat give away the answer too easily

 

[shankar]

Ha ha of course!!!

 

[JASON]

Question -

There are only 2 instances where a player in a Test Match has taken over as an Umpire in that Test (one has been previously discussed in this thread following a question, If I remember correctly by Deja Moo) . Name the two players.(instances)

There is also a third instance where an Umpire in a Test in a series, subsequently played as a player in the subsequent Test in the same series. Name the player.

[The latter instance (of the question in green) is also related to the answer to one of the above 2 instances !!]
Only Answer required is for Question in Purple!! (actually Dark Orchid is the real name of the colour )

Clue - Answer to two of these is a single Test Match which is found in Page 103 of this thread !

The other instance of a player taking over as Umpire is only a couple of years after this .