Subject:
|
Re: Put-up or Shut-up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:45:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > Steve, when you build successful robots for: Monkeybars, ProjectX and
> > Blockstacking, then you can wonder. I would suggest you try them out on your
> > own time as a personal challenge.
>
> By successful, I assume you mean a robot that can complete the task. So, we
> can scratch Blockstacking off the list right away.
Well, you've got two more.
> > at a harder task. The goal is the challenge. If the easy task has depth, then
> > it's worth it to try it again and expand your horizons. But if it's the same
> > damn crap over and over again (sumo, line following) then why bother?
>
> You know, chess is really not all that complex. A half-dozen different pieces,
> each with a very limited possible number of moves. Yet, many of the world's
> greatest minds have taken on the challenge of playing. Repeatedly.
Yes, but you miss the part of "depth". Sure, chess is incredibly deep. There's
strategy, history, even personality in chess. That's why only until now have we
found software and hardware that can explore that depth at a reasonable pace.
Line following or sumo just doesn't give anyone here enough of a
challenge--there is no depth involved. At some point you hit the pure limit of
the materials.
We want to do things that are technically difficult. That are inspiring and
fresh. We don't want to rehash stuff over and over and over again. We used
to-marble sorting and blockstacking were two we overdid. And we won't ever
again, because it bores people to death. Even audience.
> Why? Not because of the game, but because of the opponent. The challenge
> from the person across the table.
Why challenge someone at something like sumo or line following then? Why not
lawn darts or armwrestling or anything else?
> Every year thousands of people spend millions of dollars to compete in drag
> racing. Duh, not that hard. Drive 1/4 mile in a straight line. I'm pretty
> sure I could do that WITH MY EYES CLOSED! But I'm not sure I could do it at 350
> mph. (560kph?)
And hence, slackjawed inebriated Americans love such "sport" :) Is there depth
in it? Well, perhaps there is with the engineering and science behind the cars.
Certainly there is a fair amount of depth in Formula racing or something more
advanced.
But take away the new ideas, take away the new challenges, and leave pure
competition in, and it wouldn't be rtlToronto, it'd be pro bowling or
competitive watermelon tossing. It's not what we're about up here.
> There's a difference between doing something, and doing it well. I don't
> approach LEGO challenges with an "rtlToronto" mindset. Please forgive me.
> The rtl rules say "The general idea of an rtlToronto design competition is
> not to win." hmm. A competition where you don't try to win.
>
> Why keep score?
For the pure amusement at the end. For a little bit of ego, and a little bit of
camaraderie. But it's not the goal to win--Excuse the cliche, but we're all
winners when we leave the event--we've all learned something, had our thoughts
directed, and that's great.
If it's not your cup of tea, that's cool, but it doesn't change rtlToronto, and
doesn't change the core of the group.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Put-up or Shut-up
|
| (...) By successful, I assume you mean a robot that can complete the task. So, we can scratch Blockstacking off the list right away. (...) You know, chess is really not all that complex. A half-dozen different pieces, each with a very limited (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
