AW: [robocup-small] End of Community discussions

[Vorapong Suppakitpaisarn]

Well, before writing any thing, I am only a third-year under-graduate 
student, so may be my knowledge is limited by something I saw during my 
competition at OSAKA. If it’s wrong, please accept my apologies.


>
>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.
>

So, how can you know which team has better vision???????????
Using vision from some team may bring an inequality to the competition. The 
team that the referee gets the coordinate from can compute every thing that 
they want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another topics is that, if there aren’t any teams that can compute such a 
thing like chip kicking (there are no team that use 3-d vision) or there are 
no team that can compute the velocity of the ball that the robot kick (may 
caused by the fast of the ball after it’s kicked) , how can you manage 
that??????????????????

So, I don’t agree with the using the better team’s vision. Building neutral 
vision is more preferable but is it impossible?????????

>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.

I have and idea that why we don’t provide the standard code for SSL. Even 
though, there are many papers published by the competitors. But if there are 
something provide for new competitor that help them implement more easily, 
it may convince and encourage them to join our competition.

>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.

I don’t know about this topic too much but I think there is still a great 
challenge in front of us that we still can’t find out.

>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.

I agree with larger field, I think it will decrease the time that game 
stops.(My little brother always complains that he is so boring during 
watching our competition’s video because he thinks it’s lack of continuity 
:):):):):):)). I also agree with the idea of increasing robot but to 7 is 
more preferable to 11. First, increasing robot to 11 can gain a lot of cost, 
that our teams may difficult to find such a lot of money like that. 
:):):):):) Secondly, I agree with you that it is too crowded. And the last, 
if we want to play for 11 robots, each robot may have to different 
physically-----to make our defender, midfield, forward. :):):):):) So I 
think It might be too difficult to reach that level.

Another idea is to change the ball to the other type. Golf is the ball that 
always moves very fast and can kick for a long way (So it makes the game 
lack of continuity and makes the tactic of our games differ from the 
reality). Why we don’t use the slower-moving ball.
But what would it be?????????? I don’t know