[robocup-legged] Rule Changes and Poll

Mon Sep 25 07:01:25 EDT 2006

Though I fully agree with the principles invoked by Thomas, I think 
Oscar's proposal is correct and fits them better than removing poles...

Pedro

Oskar von Stryk wrote:
> Hi Thomas, hi all,
> 
> 2 remarks:
> 
> 1) 
> Who will argue for continuing the 4L if the last year of the competition 
> with Aibos was neither high quality nor entertaining?
> 
> 2)
> For a major innovation leap forward there are more appealing 
> and more challenging alternatives
> than discussing beacons/localization only, for example, a very new 
> tournament structure allowing only soccer games of joint teams of the 
> software of 2 teams in 2007 (take, e.g., the NUbots and UNSW demo of 2005 
> or the 11-11 demo game in 2006). 
> The round robin could be played in a variation of combinations
> e.g., teams A & B vs. teams C&D, then A&C vs. B&D and so on
> and each team getting their joint score as individual record
> for determing the round robin ranking.
> 
> Therefore the field and team size could be increased as well,
> e.g., field in length and breadth times 30% and teams of 6 players.
> 
> Such a change would be a real major innovation which other leagues 
> never thought of implementing yet which would show the 4L on the cutting 
> edge of multi-robot research. 
> 
> The 2007 year of change would be an ideal date for some more revolutionary 
> changes. I am sure there will be many more exciting ideas
> for major innovations in rule changes which would make the games in 2007
> more than a localization challenge with no beacons.
> 
> I believe the 4L should try a more revolutionary step which would also 
> make all other leagues very curious to watch the games in 2007
> (the change of beacons will not).
> 
> Thanks for your time.
> Cheers,
> Oskar
> 
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Thomas Röfer wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>
>>>I am afraid that under the current limitation of the Aibo's vision
>>>the variant "3) no beacons" (although very appealing) incorporates
>>>the highest risk of not to achieve the goal of major innovations and
>>>high quality games in 2007.
>>
>>I think there is a certain misperception about what makes our league
>>interesting in the eyes of the RoboCup trustees. It is basically the
>>research that is performed and how the work done contributes to the overall
>>goal of RoboCup. There is surely a certain interest in high quality games,
>>but it is most certainly not the intention of the RoboCup trustees to stop
>>the continuous change toward the 100x70 qm outdoor field in a soccer stadium
>>the 2050 humanoid robots will have to deal with. With removing the beacons
>>the quality of game play may be reduced in 2007, but I would not expect it
>>to drop dramatically.
>>
>>We need new challenges. In fact half of the talks given at the RoboCup
>>Symposium 2006 were coming from our league (congratulations!!!), but I had
>>the impression that most of the things presented did not make its way to the
>>actual games. For the AI magazine article on RoboCup 2006 I had to answer
>>the question "What are the improvements from 2005 to 2006?" and I had no
>>good answer to this question, for instance I found no answers in the TDPs of
>>the two finalists.
>>
>>Removing the beacons may ruin self-localization. So either we have to invent
>>methods to still be able to metrically self-localize without them (I think
>>that is still possible), our we have to rely on a more qualitative way of
>>self-localization (as human soccer player most certainly do). So this poses
>>challenges to most parts of the control software: image-processing (perceive
>>more/other objects), world-modeling, behavior control (play with more
>>uncertainty, without metric position), attention control, and multi-robot
>>collaboration (can teammates help the attacker in localization?).
>>
>>After 2007, we may change the robot platform to something new. Since it is
>>quite sure that the central sensor will still be a directed camera, the
>>research on localization without beacons is not in vain.
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Thomas Röfer
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>Dr. Thomas Röfer                   Office Address:
>>DFKI-Lab Bremen                    Universität Bremen
>>Safe and Secure Cognitive Systems  Cartesium 0.055
>>Robert-Hooke-Str. 5                Bibliothekstr. 1
>>28359 Bremen, Germany              28359 Bremen, Germany
>>http://www.dfki.de                 www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~roefer
>>
>>Phone: +49 (421) 218-64200
>>Fax:   +49 (421) 218-9864200
>>eMail: Thomas.Roefer at dfki.de
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>robocup-legged mailing list
>>robocup-legged at cc.gatech.edu
>>https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-legged
>>
> 
> 
> --
> Prof. Dr. Oskar von Stryk           E-Mail: stryk(at)sim.tu-darmstadt.de
> Simulation and Systems Optimization Phone:  ++49 (0) 6151-16-2513
> Technische Universitaet Darmstadt   Fax:    ++49 (0) 6151-16-6648
> Hochschulstr. 10                    http://www.sim.tu-darmstadt.de
> D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> robocup-legged mailing list
> robocup-legged at cc.gatech.edu
> https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-legged

-- 
Pedro U. Lima
Instituto de Sistemas e Robotica,
Instituto Superior Tecnico - Torre Norte
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1
1049-001 Lisboa
PORTUGAL

Tel. +351-21-8418274 (office)
Fax  +351-21-8418291(office)
http://www.isr.ist.utl.pt/~pal