DPRG mailing list archives: [DPRG] Re: Can-Can Rules

Tue Sep 11 09:31:30 CDT 2001

I do not think there is any intention of suppressing creativity.  

Prior to Fall 2000 when the course shrank, the fastest time was Roger Arrick.  His was a board with three wheels, (1 driving) a motor, switch and a battery. The "robot" barreled to the end, when it hit the wall, the switch was forced to the reverse position and it came back to the start.  No brains, no electronics, very simple.  

The goal in the change is to reward that which is more difficult.  That is why there are extra points for placing the cans in a pattern.  It rewards the robot that knows where it is and where it was.  We envisioned if a robot lined up the cans in a perfectly straight line (for example), exactly 4 inches apart (for example) then it should get extra points, because that is harder.

The original plan in Can-Can was to reward the more sophisticated robots. It is our hardest competition. We felt that recognizing a randomly placed can was hard, but recognizing a can and picking it up was harder. That was why it was scored as it is.  We did not think of scooping blindly with a 2 foot arm. Obviously that works.  But the degree of difficulty is not the same and as a result it should not be rewarded the same.

My question is should the robot that scoops up cans with a long arm, get points for recognizing a can, if it knows how many cans it scooped?  That is different than finding a can then scooping it up. I think it since it is somewhere in-between in difficulty, it should be somewhere in-between on points. What happens if its count is wrong (under or over)?  

Deciding contest rules and points is difficult.  Often it is trial and error, see what works and what does not work.  On one side we should not be too rigid in the interpretation, but it is just as bad to be too loose in the interpretation.  Finding the happy medium is hard.

Kip
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John R Caldwell 
  Cc: DPRGlist at dprg.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:38 AM
  Subject: [DPRG] Re: Can-Can Rules

  Rules should not stifle creativity. 

  For a long time Quick Trip was run two different ways: 
   . wall following 
   . go down, turn around, come back 

  The winner of the Fall 2000 contest used a third way, forward and reverse.  In Spring 2001, 10 out of 14 robots used forward and reverse.  5 of those robots had times that would have won in Fall 2000.  Creativity inspires competition and excitement. 

  The winner of Can-Can in Spring 2001 used a different way to retrieve the cans.  Since Can-Can has so few competitors, we should encourage new ideas, not suppress them. 

  That being said, we would support a change in the Can-Can rules for Spring 2002. 
   . 5 points for correctly signaling that a can was located 
   . 15 points for returning a can to Area A. 

  John & Robert Caldwell  (Team Lego) 
  DPRG Secretary 
  972.431.2040 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.dprg.org/pipermail/dprglist/attachments/20010911/b07bb1ea/attachment.html