[robocup-humanoid] Rule Discussion for 2011

[Tang Qing]

Dear Oskar:

I didn't expect to enlarge the field in 2011. Maybe in 2012, 2013? But I don't quite understand if we can't change anything from the team leader's meeting in singapore, what we discuss for?

For point 2 and 3, your notes are quite specific. I just want to express that I am totally agree with these points. As I am looking forward to the 5vs5 demo games in 2011. 

You are quite right that the schedule is too tight to have three long presentations after the final. Especially when the competition time is shorten from 5 days to 4 days this year. I came up with this idea, because we did so in our university's robot competition. In our campus robot competition, teams enters the finals have to give a presentation before the finals to show there high level skills. Then we decide whether one of the teams could be awarded the highest honor - Outstanding Prize, which could be vacant, according to both the presentation and finals. Another reason that I came up with this idea is that I saw one of your team members show the ability of less swing after handly inclined the robot in front of the camera. I am afraid that lots of people are not as lucky as I am. Because we could hardly distiguish this skill in the game. So I think Open challenge is a good idea to show what ever you want.


2010-11-16 



Tang Qing 



发件人： Oskar von Stryk 
发送时间： 2010-11-16  06:13:53 
收件人： Tang Qing 
抄送： Humanoid League Mailing List 
主题： Re: [robocup-humanoid] Rule Discussion for 2011 
 
Dear Tang,
> 1. I prefer enlarging the kidSize field to reducing foot size from H^2/28
> to H^2/30. Nowadays, the main problem in kidSize teams is still about the
> walking abilities. A lot of teams couldn't walk quick and stable during
> the games. Decreaing the foot size won't help them on this problem. On
> the other hand, it might get worse. However, enlarging the field size
> might not only encourage teams to enhance their walking abilities, but
> also make teams consider much more on team works. General speaking the
> large field we play, the more important the team work will be. With a
> large field, we might no longer to worry about how to pass the opponent
> in a narrow space, instead, we could avoid the position the opponent has
> taken easily. It also encourages teams to identify and locate both teams'
> robots.
That is a good point. But when we discussed field size in the team 
leader meeting in Singapore there was no motion from the KidSize
team leaders for increasing the field size.
In addition there are overall organizational constraints from other 
leagues which share the same field size with HL KidSize (SPL, SSL).
> 2. The robot body color problem needn't hurry. The reason is that only a
> few team actually identify robots in the games.
May be my notes were not specific enough.
In Singapore we decided in the team leader meeting to allow
als main body color not only black and dark grey
but also aluminium and white assuming that the feet are colored black.
> 3. Removing poles are needed when majority teams had the ability of
> self-position.
Removing poles was not considered for 2011.
> 4. For the best humanoid robot prize, I think a vote is not enough. I
> advice that there should be a PPT presentation for each best humanoid
> robot candidates. Each candidates are limited to 15~20 munites. The
> topics are about one best technique they used in the game. RoboCup is a
> place for people sharing ideas and learning from each other. Strong teams
> which will win best humanoid robot prize later are encouraged to show
> their high quality control theories and share their ideas. Some of the
> teams' work couldn't be seen from the matches. For example, candidates
> could show how they did the robot's self position and the result of
> position precision and time cost during the position. I think it helps
> the other teams to grow stronger and is good for the humanoid league.
You raise another good point.
It is an interesting suggestion to increase feedback to other teams
in order to help to improve the overall capabilities of teams.
But to link this to the Best Humanoid Award is not practical
as in the schedule of this and last years was no time at all to
include such presentations after the final games.
Another possibility to increase exchange of developments betweens
is the Open Challenge. The SPL has conducting this for several years
and with very good results and is likely to continue this also
for next year.
For the Best Humanoid Award I suggest to simply use the aggregated
number of points the teams received from games and technical challenge
and rank them in the total ordero f points.
In case of equal points the team from the larger size class
gets advantage.
Best,
Oskar