 | | Re: tic-tac-toe - Clearing the board
|
|
(...) This is kind of tough. My initial thought was to "tip the scale" towards a robot that can not only play, but also clear the board. However, I doubt anyone will be able to build a robot, then go back and add-on the "Clear-the-board" feature. It (...) (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe - Clearing the board
|
|
(...) I'm really on the fence. I just think it may limit either the number of entrants, or the number of competitive entrants. On competition day I'd like to see many (a dozen?) competitive robots, not 3 or 4 that are head and shoulders above the (...) (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe - Clearing the board
|
|
(...) Ok, I'll assume I didn't say this in the message you replied to: On Fri, November 4, 2005 9:45 am, Steve Hassenplug wrote: (...) Here's my suggestion for scoring: 1) The event winner will be the robot that wins the most matches. 2) Each match (...) (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe - Clearing the board
|
|
(...) How exactly are we defining clearing, and are both robots going to be attempting such clearing at the same time? I have visions of the "clearing" phase being a place we can all apply our Sumo robots... Perhaps a "self-reseting" system should (...) (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | tic-tac-toe - Clearing the board
|
|
Ok, let me pose this question. In our Tic-Tac-Toe game, Should we offer a time bonus (subtract some time) for a robot that can clear the board after the game is over? Assuming robots will play two games against each other robot, that means each (...) (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe bots
|
|
(...) I'm ok with that. :) But, of course, you guys know I'll spend the time & resources to build such a robot. (...) I'm OK with that. Anyone else? Steve (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe bots
|
|
(...) It just seems like we would probably be handing 1st place (or the top few spots) to builders who had the time & resources to build 2 rcx robots or 2 separate robots. I'm not sure we should do this. Yes, most people who are likely to (...) (19 years ago, 4-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe bots
|
|
Kerby accidentally sent this to me... On Thu, November 3, 2005 4:07 pm, Kerby Hughes wrote: I kind of have mixed views about this. (Keep in mind that I haven't actually tried to build anything for 3T yet) If I was trying to build a robot that could (...) (19 years ago, 3-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe bots
|
|
(...) To address the first point, take a look at the large number of solutions to the "Project X" challeng in the rtlToronto newsgroup. One of the first things I built as a new Mindstorms user was a Project X 'bot, *because* I was curious how to do (...) (19 years ago, 3-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| |
| | Re: tic-tac-toe bots
|
|
(...) Actually, planning for future events (like 3T) is also good. So, thanks. (...) ... (...) Why does it need to be limited to a single RCX? Of all the people who are likely to participate, can you think of any that are limited to one RCX? Also, (...) (19 years ago, 3-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
