Some people are lucky to have accomplished great things in life. Perhaps they have found a cure for diabetes or even AIDS. Others might have invented a space craft that could travel at light speed. And some others still might have invented the light saber and are able to use the force...
Some people are remembered for what they have achieved during their life time. And some of them are known as legends. I must confess that I don't know very many legends—let alone legends in the sports of football. Therefore, I shall not try too hard to impress my readers with my very limited knowledge of the sport.
But, really, is Roger Milla a football legend? Well, like I said, I am not a great fan of this sport; and I am therefore the worst kind of authority on this kind of question. However, it so happened that some of the hunters—master hunters—claim that they are football kaki. And according to them, Milla is not a legend. I suppose he did great things during his football career. But does that automatically make him a legend?
Q) Legend has it that he generally held the senior most title, they say.
Those of you who have been visiting my blog for a while would know that I am very, very familiar with this particular question sector. The estate is known as Lintas Square. In fact, this estate was also the source of some of my questions in a virtual hunt I posted last December. I have also brought the hunters to this estate in ALL my hunts so far without fail. Therefore, it will come as no surprise to you all that the moment I read the above question, I immediately thought of the word "egen", which was one of the answers in my December Virtual Hunt. The reason I thought of this word was of course due to the first three words in the question, i.e. "Legend has it...".
To the fairly experienced hunters, it won't be very difficult to see the word "egen" in "Legend has it...". I therefore invested a moment or two on "egen" to investigate its suitability as the answer for the above question. I did this even before we reached the estate! However, it didn't take me very long to dismiss "egen" as it was also fairly obvious to me that the setter was using "egen" as the red herring, i.e. a decoy for the intended answer. In fact, in my opinion, the setter was trying too hard to create a red herring in this case—so much so that he has left the door open for possible challenge from the hunters!
And true enough, there was an overwhelming objection to Roger Milla as a legend. I, alas, am hopeless when it comes to football. So I wouldn't dare to raise my objection to the title. My knowledge goes as far as Pele, Maradona and yes, Beckham—the latter due to his spicy wife instead of football.
OK, very quickly now—let's glance through the rest of the question:
The word "he" suggests that we are looking, possibly, for a proper name. Or perhaps something connected to the masculine gender, for example the word "gent".
"generally" is the dubious word which I have failed to fathom, and would therefore invite suggestions from the many grandmasters out there. I have not come to a satisfactory explanation for its existence in this question, but it is possible that there is a valid justification.
"held the senior most title" may be taken literally to mean having, well, the senior most title! For example, perhaps it has something to do with the word "oldest" and the likes.
"they say" is the sounds like indicator. It means that the answer we are looking for sounds like another word which is spelt differently.
And the answer is found on a signboard containing the word "MILA" for obvious reasons.
Sad to say that my team arrived at something with the word GOLDEN in it. "Legend has it" yields GEN; and then "held" the "senior most title" to derive GOLDEN. An answer which is lame and failed to convince even myself! But because of the lack of better alternatives, well, you know the rest...
16 comments:
yup, can some grandmaster shed some light on the point of having "generally" in the question? catch no ball here, not to forget the fact that roger milla being considered as milla. from my teammate who's more well-versed in football, he's the guy who's the most senior player or oldest player but IMHO it's only a record but tat doesn't qualify them as legend right? our team put YMM Sabah as the answer due to the fact YMM is Yang Maha Mulia is the senior most legend (title). However it's our self-fulfilling prophecy as it doesn't fit the "sounds like" clue.
ckoh, please allow me to voice my opinion.
First of all, I must clarify that I am not a grandmaster. This is just another newbie opinion.
I have very great interest in football. So, I thought this is the type of question I would like to give my view.
Q) Legend has it that he generally held the senior most title, they say.
Roger Milla is definitely not a football legend, generally.
But, Roger Milla is a World Cup legend. The reason he is a World Cup legend because he had a very great performance at his age of 38 on one of the World Cup scoring important goals to his country and at his age of 42 becomes the oldest player to play in a World Cup game, a record then. I am not sure since then he still kept the title or some goalkeeper from Tunisia beat him to be the oldest player to appear in World Cup. Never mind.
At least in the World Cup encyclopedia (hardcopy), there is a one page dedicated to Roger Milla as the World Cup legend, oldest player played in World Cup Final game.
In short, I see the logic behind the COC for this question. As a sounds like question (they said), Mila is a fit. And generally, he is considered a World Cup legend because he is the oldest player in the pitch at the age of 42.
However, I agree that the questions is not tight.
Reason:
1) 'World Cup' doesn't mentioned at all in the question. Generally, Milla is not a football legend just a World Cup legend.
2) This is not a World Cup hunt. If the hunt theme is World Cup, I see this question is perfect fit provided 'has it' is not used. Agree that 'has it' is just there to make it a red herring, whilst it is not needed at all.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you, ckloh, for your comment.
I shall not attempt to debate on whether Milla is or isn't a legend. As I said, I am no football expert, so I will leave it to the football kaki out there to debate if they want to.
I am not sure, however, that I can agree with your explanation of the purpose of that word "generally" in the question. If indeed the fellow holds the record of being the oldest goal scorer or player in the world cup, then there is nothing "generally" about it. It is merely a question of he is or isn't the oldest goal scorer/player.
Regarding you comment on the inclusion of "World Cup" in the question, I must say I disagree with you. I think if indeed Milla is a recognised legend, the CoC owed no duty to actually specify legend of what/which field or sports.
And this, folks, is an extract of an email I received from one of my many fans out there which is self-explanatory:
"Spoke to Dom who kindly explained the Mila mystery that has baffled us. If you google 'legend Milla (Roger Milla)' you will get various sites including the World Cup site that honours him win that accolade. Certainly all of Cameroun will tell you he's a legend, living legend. Can't argue that the world knows our very own lagenda - P.Ramlee. Dangerous eh? Hmm.... giving me naughty ideas for future hunt questions.... hahahahaha!!!!
As for the part on 'the senior most title' - Roger Milla hold till today as the most oldest person to score in a World Cup. He did that in 1990, scoring 4 goals at age 38 and broke his own record in 1994 at age 42 scoring a goal against Russia. Sigh....!!!"
dude, i think you should just accept Roger Milla as a legend. and do we really have to be so critical about the questions? it is already tough for the CoC to strike a balance between having tough enough questions to seperate the great from the good and yet maintain the interest of the newbies. the weightage on the games (physical) also provides "the-not-so-regular" a chance to be on the podium-lah... anyway, since kok seng and dato ramesh can still win it, i guess the distribution of the points between the true-blue treasure hunt type questions and the "other physical skills" is fine...
I hate to keep doing this, folks, because sooner or later some of you might accuse me of making all this up! But I swear, I really have been receiving all this emails I've been talking about; and I am just playing host to publish some of the comments without revealing the authors.
This one was also from a strong hunter [excerpt]:
"(The above explanation) is a bit hard to swallow. First, it is a homophone question. So you won't know even if you see it. Next, it could be a legend of unlimited fields, e.g. sports etc. Then unlimited countries. How to narrow down?...
To sum up, a bad question. Not a difficult one, but surely a badly-crafted one."
Whenever you have a hunt where many grandmasters are hunting, and clues unanswered, you must raise the question why wasn't there any successful answer. And there can only be 2 logical explanation. Either because the CoC was brilliant to have outwitted the hunters; or because the clue was poorly-crafted that renders it unsolvable.
I would like to add that the author of the above email also noted that when he reached this sector, he saw Grandmaster Chong puffing away with a blank face.
Now, to those of you who don't know Grandmaster Chong, he is the famous Kiwanis CoC in West Malaysia. Whenever you see him puffing away during a hunt, you will know that you have arrived at a killer question!
Oops! Sorry about that, I didn't expect a comment would come in while I was typing that last comment.
Anyway, thank you for your comment, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I have said from the beginning, I am not disputing whether Milla was a legend or not. I have repeatedly said that I have no basis to dispute, because I am hopeless when it comes to football!
And I am not being personal to this particular CoC. In fact, I consider them at TOS as good friends too!
What we are trying to do is to discuss on the accuracy of the questions/answers. Hopefully we will all benefit from all this and improve our game.
I am also aware of the difficulty of being a CoC. I have said before, we are all not immune from mistakes. If you check out some of my previous comments on other hunts I have participated in, you will know that I have been equally severe with my comments for those other hunts too. Nothing personal, really!
Although I myself enjoy well crafted questions, and enjoy the thrill of being the first one to break it even more, I must say I do welcome the CoC inserting a dubious-looking question in a hunt, one that stretches the imagination and creativity of a hunter to the max.
Mind you, some hunters have TOS questions for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If their questions were to be predictable, imagine the scores at the top of the table!
Let's take for instance the DBKK champs. At the end of the day, they were beaten by 1 dropped sign board, and 3 seemingly irregular and dubious questions. I fear finding out their end result, had the CoC stayed predictable on all 28 questions.
Just my couple of cents worth.
Interesting thoughts there, 2R1I.
I share your passion for mind-boggling and dubious-looking questions; those that can stretch one's imagination and creativity. But that is where it ends as far as sharing your passion is concerned.
"Dubious-looking" need not necessarily mean that those questions are indeed dubious! The "Semi Irama" question looked dubious to me during the hunt, but I derived a lot of satisfaction when the answer/explanation was revealed, even though I got it wrong.
I don't really care how the CoC wants to twist and turn the clue, but in the end, that clue must be solvable in a logical manner. If that is what you meant by "predictable" then so be it! The CoC will simply have to come up with new ideas to outwit the hunters. That's what makes a good CoC. At least that's what I try to do each time I clerk a hunt.
If "unpredictable" means coming up with mediocre solutions, then we need to start thinking where to draw the limits to that so-called unpredictability.
And therefore, yes, losing points due to an accurate answer against the inferior answer is a reflection of the CoC's incompetence.
Furthermore, winning and losing aside, it annoys me when something which is so obviously correct, e.g. the Rafflesia being the giant in the flower kingdom, is dismissed for an obviously inferior answer.
My point is that standard cryptic questions, no matter how twisted, no longer pose major headaches to the top teams.
Questions like "Semi Irama" has been churned out before in the West. All it takes is for tricks like these to be used once, and they become easy pickings for a team like the DBKK champs.
On one side we have a CoC who makes a living out of churning out cryptic questions, week in and week out, on the average 2000 questions in a year. Compare him against one who does it infrequently albeit once a quarter. No doubt, who will have the fresher ideas and the greater passion.
While I do enjoy fresh ideas, I've faced the fact that they don't spring out very often. I am appreciative of a beauty when I come across one.
The beauty about the "Mila" and "Bunga Raja" questions were that they were out to deceive the top teams into going for the less obvious answer. Although the end result could have been better worded. You could tell that the CoC had painstakingly laid traps to mislead teams to "Egen" for the "Mila" question.
Just to point out that the other alternative of using a larger signage as a red herring to a smaller signaage is no longer refreshing.
Corn, I was told there is an opening for a COC for next year's Ox Hunt! Sign up if you have the time - I bet you have some unique ideas that will keep the regulars wanting more!
2R1I, I have to reluctantly agree with you that it is not so easy to come up with "new" ideas all the time. And I can imagine that if I were to set up to 2000 questions in a year, there will come a time when all the questions might look the same! I therefore understand the CoC's predicament.
Masterpieces are masterpieces because they are rare by nature. And in each of my hunt, I try very, very hard to come up with a couple of them. And yes, it takes a lot of efforts to accomplish the task. The CoC, apart from having to come up with a new twist to the riddle, has to be sure that there are no loopholes for other alternative answers. But as I have said several times, we are only human and therefore not immune to mistakes. The question is how do we handle those mistakes?
Look at this question from Mike's Beautiful Gate Hunt:
Q) Fish gets inside.
My team, hunting under time pressure, found the intended answer, CARPENTRY, and was duly awarded the points.
Unfortunately, to me ENTRY does not fit, grammatically, the words "gets inside". If there was a CARPENTERS within that sector, perhaps it's a different story altogether.
Later, master Adrian Wong pointed out a more superior answer, which was the word CARPET. This answer was obviously a superior one, because that ET fits, cryptically, the words "gets inside".
Although my team found the intended (but inferior) answer, I still raised this mistake for the sake of discussion. Mike, the CoC of this hunt, readily admitted the better CARPET. It is often disagreeable to admit one's mistake, but it is even more disagreeable to uphold something, which is obviously wrong, as correct. Besides, because of the CoC's courage in admitting his mistake in this case, I have grown to respect him even more! It takes a very brave man to admit his mistakes!
Mercy, 2R1I! Thank you for your faith in me, my friend!
Unfortunately, not all the KL masters have experienced my hunt before. For the masters and grandmasters, what could you expect from a "2-year old kid" in the treasure hunting sports?
What's even worse, this "kid" has had only 11 hunts under his belt so far. I'm afraid employing me as the Ox Hunt CoC will result in a drastic drop in participation. We don't want that to happen, would we?... hehehe.
In my line of work, when given a choice to hire between a Freshie or a very experienced Engineer (given all else equal), who would I hire?
Simple choice, the Freshie of course. Why? Freshies tend to be more passionate, bursting with new ideas and have a foresight to see things differently while Experienced Engineers tend to be less flexible and fairly moulded into the culture & the way of doing things. Besides, given all things equal, the Freshie costs a whole lot less.
Do consider. A lot of hunters are eager to sample your questions having licked up the appetizers dished out on this blog.
I was approached but I feel that we need a Freshie to take charge to inject the energy back into treasure hunts. I am a willing accomplice, just give me the green light!
Don't worry about the numbers, that is the job for others.
2R1I, couldn't agree with you more... what you have posted is so very true...
Oh! 2R1I, how you give me strength!
And thanks to those who support the idea through emails. It will be an extremely huge undertaking like never before, but I will seriously consider it. Plenty of time till the next CNY for the KL masters and grandmasters to vote me out!... hahaha!
corny, think about it. i mean SERIOUSLY. just nike it.
2R1I u r so agreeable, both in the recruitment and the hunting scenario.
Post a Comment