Subject:
|
Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.laflrc
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:25:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
869 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, September 22, 2005 10:52 am, Brian Davis wrote:
> In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
>
> > Ok, I've been thinking about the Tic-Tac-Toe game.
>
> The only issue I have with it is, unlike C4, the "winner" (or lack of one) is
> a foregone conclusion... *IF* the robot can actually play (as Steve & C4
> demonstrated). Note I'm still in favor of doing it, just pointing that out.
This would be a timed game. The winner would be the robot with the lowest average
time-per-move.
Actually, I was just thinking about it. Even that may not be a good comparison. I
think robots should play each other twice, with each going first one time. The
winner is the robot that wins the most games, or has the fastest total move time,
over two games.
> > 1) What size is the game? We can play the regular
> > game of 3-in-a-row on a 3x3 board, or we could bump
> > the board to 4x4 (and still get 3-in-a-row)
>
> 3-in-a-row on a 4x4 board should take Kerby about 5 seconds
> Has anyone ever heard of a game called "Pente"?
There are lots of other games we could play, with much more complex strategies. I
think 3T... (the name for this game?!) ...is a game that everyone can understand
the logic, and it should be playable with standard firmware.
The challenge is not playing the game, it's building a robot to play it, and play it
quickly.
> > Should the cubes be 4x4x4 or 6x6x6?
>
> Why not 3x3 cubes? I mention it because that does seem to work really well
> for Project-X (and in any case, studs-down works well for self-centering).
I like the idea of having cube-shaped cubes. I was thinking it would be cool to
have a contest that sort of required everyone to build big robots. Those are more
fun to look at. So, 6x6x6 would fit that. But, I'm starting to think 4x4x4 would
be OK.
Anyone else?...
> > Using 6x6x6 cubes on a 32x32 board, with an 8x8 area
> > for putting your blocks, the board is 28 studs wide,
> > leaving about 2 studs on the outside, one of which is
> > used to attach your robot.
>
> That sounds elegant - essentially a stand-along playfield out of common
> elements (like 32x32 baseplates; I'd prefer that over 48x48 from the standpoint
> of availibility and portability). But perhaps we should also talk about it in
> terms of spacing between the blocks. Either there has to be enough spacing
> between them for an EOAT to get "in between", or the EOAT has to latch (&
> unlatch) from the top of a block. Again, smaller blocks might be helpful.
I do like the idea of using a 32x32 board. It's easy to transport.
> > hmm... I wonder what he SHOULD have been doing
> > in that class... :)
>
> I don't know, but it sounds like he's doing the same thing in his classes
> that I did in mine :-).
Let's not talk about that. I need to get back to work.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
| (...) What about Othello? That requires the robot to be able to place AND reverse the pieces. Not sure if 8x8 would produce very interesting matches, maybe a smaller board? Even 4x4 may produce interesting strategies... ROSCO (19 years ago, 29-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
| | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
| 3T - good name... 32x32 plate for the game sounds exceptional...you could break it into 10x10 squares with a 1 stud width divider...no edge markers (would add a little to the challenge maybe) Size of the cube: Using odd size cubes (3x3, 5x5, 7x7) is (...) (19 years ago, 30-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
| (...) The only issue I have with it is, unlike C4, the "winner" (or lack of one) is a foregone conclusion... *IF* the robot can actually play (as Steve & C4 demonstrated). Note I'm still in favor of doing it, just pointing that out. (...) 3-in-a-row (...) (19 years ago, 22-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
