|
[DPRG] Re: Can-Can Rules
Subject: [DPRG] Re: Can-Can Rules
From: Mike McCarty
jmccarty at ssd.usa.alcatel.com
Date: Tue Sep 11 12:10:32 CDT 2001
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Kipton Moravec wrote:
> I do not think there is any intention of suppressing creativity.
[snip]
> 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.
And without rules, there is no difficulty, either.
[snip]
> 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)?
One way out is for the robot to signal how many it found. Another way
is to divide the contest into different categories by size. Robots with
a maximum total extend not exceeding 1 foot would be in one category,
those whose maximum total extent exceeding 1 foot would be in another
category of competition (or perhaps excluded).
> 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.
Agreed.
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
|
