Subject:
|
Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:36:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
574 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno writes:
> While talking with co-workers today someone came up with a "cheat" that
> is NOT in the spirit of the game.
> With this In mind your robot is NOT allowed to pick up the entire game
> board and shake all the blocks into a magazine then re-sort them into
> the "X" pattern.
Why is that a cheat? I disagree. It's harder to build a machine that tips
the board and collects the pieces, then drops them into position. In fact,
you'd have to build two devices: A tipper and collator/assembler at the
bottom edge, as well as a cartesian and a EOAT that grabs the pieces from
the assembler and then drops the pieces. Think about it-it's damned hard to
get all those pieces aligned in a way that can be indexed and positioned by
an arm tool-these aren't marbles!
> we have 4 month to nail down all the rules. Would it be callous to ask
> people that if they have some strategy that might violate "the spirit"
> of the game that they post it (or e-mail it to me) so that we can let
> you know.
Yes, the spirit of the game clauses are for the obvious cheats which are
either mechanically simple, outright cheating (ie, using sawing, melting,
violence etc) or some combination. Examples would be a robot that drives
across the top of the rungs for rtl9.
You can make rules based on facts (ie, Don't saw. Don't toss blocks out of
the field) but you should not make calls on the innovation of a solution.
In fact, I would make the guess a tray tipping robot would probably be more
complex and better designed than any cartesian system for the reasons
outlined above. Every rtl competition I've called for rules that allow for
a wide range of solutions for lateral thinking-and while the proposed rtl10
game is probably one of the most balanced on mechanics versus software, it
should always acommodate for other solutions than the one originally thought
of at the dinner table.
> The "spirit of the game" in this case can be defined as: We want to see
> a
> cartesian type robot (or robot arm) with the smarts to "see" a problem
> and change the pattern of blocks to the one specified.
> Always keep in mind that these games are designed to challenge our
> minds and building skills. with no real prize for winning, you would
> gain little by exploiting loop holes in the rules.
Then why restrict possible design alternatives? If you're aiming to
"challenge our minds" then you shouldn't restrict people to one design
possibility-meaning, why restrict people to build a cartesian type robot or
an arm robot only? You've already discounted Iain's design of picking all
of the pieces up first if you state the spirit says a robot that has "the
smarts to 'see' a problem" since Iain's wouldn't see the problem at all if
it grabs ALL the pieces ahead of time.
A tipper setup is just the same as collecting all the pieces up regardless
of position into a staging area on the side and redeploying them. Why limit
people to the solution YOU have come up with? Maybe YOU should challenge
your mind and see that there are other solutions available!
At rtl9, I heard comments that Trevyn's end-cap rotating robot was a novel
solution unlike the five or six arm hanging like robots out there. As was
Rob's pinwheel design. Both were different, novel and solved the problem in
a different way. I wouldn't discount those options for rtl10. Not everyone
is going to build a cartesian Iain emulator, as cool as that is.
Calum
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
| "Calum Tsang" <tsangc@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:GL9wCv.Fot@lugnet.com... (...) or (...) No no, Chris said it would be okay for me to collect them into a 2by8 nest off the main grid. (...) limit (...) I can't think of too many ways (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
| In one post Calum Rants: (...) then in a second post Calum drones on about: (...) Look, Calum, I understand you had a hard day at work, I heard that the subway system was screwy for a bit BUT that is no reason to go on and on. (smirk) OK, all (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: (tentative) new Toronto lego robot contest
|
| (...) While talking with co-workers today someone came up with a "cheat" that is NOT in the spirit of the game. With this In mind your robot is NOT allowed to pick up the entire game board and shake all the blocks into a magazine then re-sort them (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
