| |
Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > > So:
> > >
> > > "If a robot does not play exactly one chip in the game board before signaling
> > > 'End Of Turn', or the robot drops a chip outside the board, which interferes
> > > with the opponent, the offending robot will forfeit the game"
> >
> >
> > I can not see in my mind how not not placeing a chip can be an advantage. and
> > even if you can show me, the thought that someone might program for that
> > scenario just breaks the KISS rule.
> >
> > if people want to do that..... then so be it.
>
> Has this question been answered? Will robots be allowed to not make a play?
> (unintentionally or otherwise)
>
> And, has a method of communication been decided upon? (IR or sensor toggle)
I (still) think a sensor toggle would be the best route to go.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: C$
|
| (...) Single wire sensor (float/brake) toggle or else IR, imo. (Either is fine, since I'm using one brick -- might be more complicated for people with multibrick bots.) Although it would even be possible to do the double wire for me, just really (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: C$
|
| (...) Has this question been answered? Will robots be allowed to not make a play? (unintentionally or otherwise) And, has a method of communication been decided upon? (IR or sensor toggle) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
35 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
|
|
|
|
