Archives: 2010 |  2009 |  2008 |  2007 |  2006 |  2005 |  2004 |  2003 |  2002 |  2001 |  2000 |  1999

When news of the likely cancellation of the 4th Annual Age of Renaissance conference broke, it was Bill Crenshaw who complained the longest and loudest, pledging his troth as it were if only we could find a way to salvage the weekend. One would think the perennial contender had a vested interest in finally winning the thing ... perhaps he did.

Whatever the reason, Bill took advantage of the absence of the 2000 champion, Tom Taaffe, to win in convincing style with four wins in as many games. The feat was made all the more impressive by the fact that the last three came at the "winner's" table composed of the six game winners in the previous round and that his status as tournament leader was clear for all to see. All hail the grand master ...

Enlightenment uses a unique scoring system that keeps most players in contention for a prize throughout the weekend rather than being eliminated by a poor showing or relegated to the "losers' table". Every player scores points as a percentage of the winner's score. This provides a real incentive to play against the leader to prevent run-away victories. In subsequent rounds, players are grouped according to their finish in the previous game ... with all round 1 winners paired in round 2, all second-place players together, and so on. The winner for the weekend was that player with the highest total for any three of the four rounds.

Slow play is discouraged by awarding bonus points to all players at a table based on the number of other tables they beat to the finish. Thus, all players at the slowest table get no bonus points while all players at the fastest table would get five points in a six-table field. The second-fastest group to completion would get four points, etc.

The winners of each game also earn bonus points for the size of their victory. Each winner earned a bonus point for every other winner whose % of victory was smaller. Thus, the player with the closest win would earn no bonus points but the winner with the biggest runaway would earn five points in a six-game field. The potential high score in any game was thus 110 points.

The merits of this system are twofold. First, it pays to play against the leader. It is better to finish last than second if, in so doing , you reduce the leader's margin of victory. Players who embraced this principle fared far better in the standings than those who stepped on the also-rans to finish second. Co-operation among the have-nots is the key to winning.

Secondly, playing fast is amply rewarded. In contrast to the eight-hour final at WBC last year, no game at Enlightenment took over six hours. Most finished in under five and one in under four hours. The average game length was 4.5 hours. Most felt the quicker pace made the game more enjoyable than the non-stop negotiation marathons of past experience, although some expressed concern that the scoring system did not reward winning sufficiently. Even Crenshaw's overwhelming performance was in jeopordy when the final points were tallied.

The proof of that was quickly discerned when Crenshaw tied for first despite beating all comers! Although he won on position tie breakers anyway, it was evident that the scoring system needed some tinkering to restore some measure of integrity to winning. Regretfully, I have adjusted the formula for next year to include a bonus point for each player beaten so that the maximum score in any round is now 115 points. This will have the added benefit of addressing the greater difficulty of winning six-player games as opposed to five-player matches. Hopefully, the position bonus will not prove too much of a temptation for those who would abandon their chase of the leader for the sake of better position.

Despite the inconvenience of ongoing hotel renovations, the players proved a hardy bunch. One late arrival was balanced by one early departure for a constant field of 33 players ­ leaving us just three players short of an ideal field ­ with every round consisting of three six-player and three-five player games for a total of 24.

Name	Position	2001 Points	Rank	Speed Points	Name	2002 Points
Bill Crenshaw	1-1-1-1	315	1	11	Bill Crenshaw	329
James Jordan	2-6-1-2	315	2	19	James Jordan	327
Carl Damcke	4-2-1-3	303	3	15	Harald Henning	314
Harald Henning	1-4-2-1	302	4	6	Carl Damcke	314
Rodd Polsky	2-1-3-3	298	5	8	Rodd Polsky	309
Christopher Byrd	1-2-2-4	292	6	9	Christopher Byrd	305
Kevin Sudy	1-3-6-2	292	7	11	Phil Mason	304
Phil Mason	2-2-3-2	292	8	12	Kevin Sudy	302
Rich Curtin	3-3-4-2	289	9	11	Nick Henning	298
Nick Henning	2-3-2-3	288	10	13	Rich Curtin	297
Ken Gutermuth	2-4-1-4	284	11	15	Ken Gutermuth	293
Peter Staab	3-4-1-6	281	12	10	Peter Staab	291
James Pei	3-2-4-3	278	13	12	Kathy Stroh	287
Kathy Stroh	1-6-4-1	277	14	12	John Coussis	286
Ed Wrobel	3-5-1-5	277	15	5	James Pei	286
John Coussis	4-1-2-5	276	16	8	Eric Eshleman	285
Eric Eshleman	3-1-6-3	276	17	6	Ed Wrobel	283
Nick Smith	6-4-4-1	265	18	3	Nick Smith	271
Jeremy Lagasse	5-1-5-4	259	19	5	Don Greenwood	267
Sean McCullogh	4-5-5-1	257	20	14	Jeremy Lagasse	265
Don Greenwood	3-6-2-2	257	21	9	Sean McCullogh	263
Ted Simmons	5-4-3-1	243	22	9	Ted Simmons	250
Peter Stein	4-3-3-4	242	23	11	Peter Stein	248
Pierre LeBoeuf	5-1-4-5	236	24	8	Pierre LeBoeuf	242
Robert Flowers	0-3-3-6	235	25	6	Robert Flowers	240
Tom Cannon	6-2-6-5	230	26	5	Dennis Nicholson	236
Dennis Nicholson	1-5-3-5	228	27	10	Tom Cannon	233
Tim Kniker	2-5-5-2	225	28	16	Tom Kniker	232
Ted Mullally	5-2-5-3	223	29	15	Ted Mullally	229
Dennis Mason	4-4-5-5	202	30	14	Dennis Mason	204
Steve Simmons	6-5-4-4	201	31	8	Steve Simmons	203
Mark Neale	5-5-2-6	186	32	4	Mark Neale	190
Lee Fisher	5-3-5-4	160	33	11	Lee Fisher	164
Charles Hickok	4-0-0-0	86	34	1	Charles Hickok	88

The results certainly demonstrate how this scoring system keeps more players in prize contention for a longer period. You would certainly be hardpressed to find a system where an undefeated player comes so close to losing. But, in reality, the contest was even closer than this looks. The closest game was decided by a single dollar - and that, only after a recount revealed an extra $11 to allow Dennis Nicholson to edge James Jordan for first in their Round 1 game. That lone dollar was all that stood between Jordan and winning Enlightenment IV despite Crenshaw's undefeated performance. Thank Goodness for recounts!

But incredibly, even that game was not necessarily the closest contest. A mere $12 separated three players in the game won by Eric Eshleman over James Pei and Rich Curtin. In contrast, the biggest win went to Sean McCullogh who enjoyed a 37% edge over runnerup Tim Kniker in a quick game that netted him the maximum 110 points. The highest dollar score went to Sean McCulloch in a five-player game with $2540. One of Bill Crenshaw's four wins took honors for low score in a six-player, defensive game with less than half that total at $1159.

Country stats revealed a surprising leader with Paris having the best average place at 2.87 despite ten wins by Venice which also led in last place finishes. It would appear that Venice is a feast or famine proposition with little middle ground. Enlightenment IV yielded no Chaos casualties although a few tail enders - including yours truly - probably would have preferred the quicker exit to the long term beating they took.

Country	1st Place	2nd Place	3rd Place	4th Place	5th Place	6th Place	Average
Paris	4	7	6	3	3	1	2.87
Venice	10	3	0	2	6	3	3.00
Genoa	3	6	5	5	3	2	3.20
London	2	5	5	7	3	2	3.41
Barcelona	3	3	6	6	4	2	3.45
Hamburg	2	0	2	1	5	2	4.08

And finally our annual individual fictional awards for unique achievements:

The Speedy Gonzalez Award goes to James Jordan for proving he could drive any group of six players to finish in under five hours. In so doing, he brought his group in first three times and second once, earning 19 out of 20 speed bonus points, and single-handedly caused me to revise my scoring system.

The Nationality Award goes to 1999 champion James Pei who showed remarkable loyalty to the Union Jack by playing London all four times. He was the only player to play just one country although Dennis Nicholson was a strong runnerup by playing Hamburg in all three of his six-player games. Five players merit honorable mention for playing the same side three times: Kevin Sudy and Eric Eshelman (Barcelona), Phil Mason and Kathy Stroh (Paris .... leave it to a woman to prefer Paris), and Jeremy Lagasse (Genoa). Five players chose four different countries ... everyone else doubled up at least once.