AW: [robocup-small] End of Community discussions

[Raul Rojas]

> The time alloted for general discussion by the community is over. 

The discussion was just starting to warm up...  Let me briefly go over some
points. It is my personal feeling about all this:

1) All questions related to speed of ball/robots/chip kicks etc. can be
solved with automatic refereeing. The referee box gets the vision
coordinates
from any team through an Ethernet cable. The referee box can then compute
the energy spent by a robot running, kicking, etc. We assign costs to
running, kicking flat, kicking high, using some magic constants, and each
robot gets an energy budget. The referee box keeps track of costs and
signals
infractions. A team with good vision is selected at each field to deliver
the
coordinates of the robots during a game.

I think that we should not stipulate maximal velocities or restrict hardware
in ways which stop innovation. It should be possible to run fast, but at a
certain
cost. Then your AI has to make optimal decisions regarding the allocation of
energy resources. The whole problem becomes more interesting without killing
innovation.

Chip kicks could have a high virtual cost, for example, so that a new arms
race 
front is avoided.

The only thing needed is: a protocol to connect teams to the referee box
using
a fast connection, and extra code for the referee box to keep track of
virtual energies.

Automatic refereeing would be very nice. Two-defenders infractions, or who
touched
last, or who-pushed-my-goalie-while-I-was-not-looking could be solved in
many cases automatically. We could even have a robotic
referee that positions the ball on the field for free kicks, penalties, etc.

2) The small-size is not the entry league to RoboCup. That is just not
happening.
Smalls-size is more expensive than the AIBOs. The AIBO league is the entry
league,
and there are lots of code on the net for the standard robot they use. There
are
more and more AIBO teams because of this.

3) The small-size league must not exist forever, certainly not until 2050.
At
some point it will disappear, once it has run out of steam. I don't expect
the
small-size league to exist many more years.

4) I think that the research challenges have been exhausted with the current

format. The only two new challenges that could make small-size more exciting
again would be automatic refereeing, with minimal human intervention, and a 
larger field.

We play now on a field which is almost a factor four larger than in 1999. In
2000/01
there was much criticism that a larger field could not be used. We did and
we
progressed.

We could go again for a factor four of increase, to play in a mid-size
field. That would imply
that only four cameras are used and all teams get the same video signal, or
that
a standard vision system is used by all teams, so that a single set of four
cameras
is enough for all teams. I know it is difficult at first, but rewarding at
the
end. Global vision could be used additionally by any interested team.

5) 11 on 11 on a mid-size field would again make the field very crowded. My
back
of the envelope calculation is that 7 on 7 is ideal, and it keeps cost down.
Automatic
refereeing could also restrict how crowded the field is (you would not be
allowed,
for example, to move all robots at once to a point on the field, etc).

6) A very good commentary I read was that NASA does not rebuild Mars on
earth to send
robots there. The same goes for a large field. We play mid-size and our
mid-size
field in the basement is a small fraction of the size of the current
mid-size field.

Please note that the exodus has begun. Good teams are leaving because the
research
challenge has reached the point of "diminishing returns". If the small-size
league
is to survive for another few years (and no more than that), then the bar
has to
be raised again.

Having said this, I would ask for more time for teams to comment, we are not
in
a hurry to end the discussion just right now.

Raul Rojas
FU-Fighters Team