|
[DPRG] Rules
Subject: [DPRG] Rules
From: Mike McCarty
jmccarty at ssd.usa.alcatel.com
Date: Tue Sep 11 12:06:12 CDT 2001
Excellent observations, Robert.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Robert L. Jordan wrote:
> DPRGers,
>
> 1. I would suggest we score the can-can according to Kip's suggestion.
> After all he is the senior spokesman when it comes to these rules.
>
> What I heard Kip say was "No points for identifying cans unless
> "identified" clearly by the robot, or unless clearly "identified" by
> the robot due to the method the robot uses to collect a can.
> Example: Gripper, or a collecting mechanism that must be
> aimed or manipulated to collect the can.
>
> No locating points for blind scooping, sticky methods, or "trapping" cans.
Umm, the rules specifically state that a retrieved can is to be
considered located.
> 2. We have discussed this at group activities and on line (I believe)
> after the past two Roborama's, so I feel it is not a "new" or "changed"
> rule. Also, I believe we can document that this was clearly the
> intent of the rules makers.
I believe that a written Legislative Intent would go a long way to help
this out.
> 3. As best I can determine, this will not greatly effect the out
> come of the contest. The robots that scoop the most cans
> are still likely to win the contest. That is, unless a robot can
> locate and retrieve cans as per the rules. Then that robot
> gets the advantage in points and would most likely win.
> Visa Vi, the more talented robot wins.
Perhaps.
If one used automobile radio antennas which can extend to open out a
net over the entire area and then drop it over the cans, then beep,
then retract the arms and net, and drag them all to the retrieval area,
I think it would satisfy the rules I have seen both for location and
for retrieval. Even cans which rolled out from under the net would
still count as located. I don't see how one could detract points for
any cans not under the net, even if no cans were under it, since the
robot does not (and under the rules does not seem to be required to)
indicate how *many* cans have been located, nor indicate any particular
can as having been located. Nor does there seem to be any rule
prohibiting a robot from locating a can multiple times. If a robot
simply blunders around, and senses contacts with cans, stopping and
beeping each time, then does it score for each separate location of a
can, even if the can has been previously located? Suppose a robot
locates a can, accidentally drops it, searches around, and relocates
the can. Should it get points for that? That sounds like a significant
accomplishment to me. But a robot shouldn't be allowed deliberately to
drop and relocate cans, hoping for relocation points.
Anyway, I think that if you try to make the rules absolutely nail down
what scores a point and what does not, they will be miles long. OTOH, I
think a well written Legislative Intent would go a long way to
clarifying what the rules are supposed to mean.
Mike
--
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I don't speak for Alcatel <- They make me say that.
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
