Though it is more indicative of my style to comment on the UKAT's web-page than to post to this list, the latest truckload of Duke posts have inspired me to deviate from my pattern briefly and offer my thoughts on the St. Louis Open III. Since I am in the unusual position of praising, rather than bathing in vitriol, I hope I may be forgiven if my prose is somewhat lacking; bear with me, as I'm new at this whole "being nice" thing. Simply put, the SLO III was a complete triumph. Not since the days of Don and Carol have I seen a tournament that was run with more efficiency: stats were posted after every round, there was no long delay between matches, and the rounds themselves ran with almost frictionless smoothness. The moderating was good, the prizes (take note: an utterly enlightened_eight_ All-Stars were awarded, along with two additional Div II. stars) were outstanding, and the Washington crew pulled everything off almost seamlessly. And, most of all, the questions were thoroughly good; I maintain that the best questions I've ever heard were Kelly's from the Wildcat last year, but the ones at the SLO rang with Waterford excellence. I allow that I might be drunk with post-victory elation, and may be thus biased, but as of now I can think of no constructive criticism to offer; as far as I'm concerned, this was the paradigm on which other tournaments should be modelled and the standard by which tournaments should be judged. My congratulations to Kanon, Cheryl, Paik, and the other WU folks whose names escape me for a great time: you guys did it the way it should be done. Hoping that my reputation as a jackass and an embarassment to my team is nevertheless preserved; SLK
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST