[robocup-humanoid] robocup-humanoid Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4

Wed Nov 17 15:58:07 EST 2010

Dear Humanoid team leader / Oskar,

I hope that you are fine, I'm Hamidreza Kasaei team leader of PERSIA humanoid 
team.
In my opinion reducing foot size from H^2/28  to H^2/30 isn't good idea for 
Robocup2011, because the main problem in kidSize teams  is still about the fast 
walking abilities, and if they want to exert this rule, they should expense a 
lot of time, so they can't have good performance for Robocup2011.

In the other hand, we have same problem in Middle Size league, changing main 
rule in every year, cause that teams can't or weak participant in this league, 
now this league is in critical state and every year team lower than last year...

so for prevention same situation in Humanoid league, i recommend that we specify 
the main rule for 3 years but the changing rule for next stage (3 year) specify 
as one of the technical challenge, with this schedule, teams can have long time 
schedule for exert new rules and have efficient cooperative together for solve 
the problem.

Best Regards
PERSIA Humanoid Team

S.Hamidreza Kasaei
URL: http://www.iranadro.com

Contact information:

Mobile: +98 9133048469
Fax: +98 311 2613033
E_Mails: 
- H.Kasaee at khuisf.ac.ir
- Hamidreza_Kasaee at Yahoo.com

________________________________
From: "robocup-humanoid-request at cc.gatech.edu" 
<robocup-humanoid-request at cc.gatech.edu>
To: robocup-humanoid at cc.gatech.edu
Sent: Tue, November 16, 2010 8:30:01 PM
Subject: robocup-humanoid Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4

Send robocup-humanoid mailing list submissions to
    robocup-humanoid at cc.gatech.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-humanoid
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    robocup-humanoid-request at cc.gatech.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
    robocup-humanoid-owner at cc.gatech.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of robocup-humanoid digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Rule Discussion for 2011 (Oskar von Stryk)
   2. Re: Rule Discussion for 2011 ( Tang Qing )

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 23:12:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Oskar von Stryk <stryk at sim.tu-darmstadt.de>
Subject: Re: [robocup-humanoid] Rule Discussion for 2011
To: Tang Qing <tangq at iipc.zju.edu.cn>
Cc: Humanoid League Mailing List <robocup-humanoid at cc.gatech.edu>
Message-ID:
    <alpine.DEB.1.10.1011152246590.18859 at mail.sim.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:58:57 +0800
From: " Tang Qing " <tangq at iipc.zju.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [robocup-humanoid] Rule Discussion for 2011
To: " Oskar von Stryk " <stryk at sim.tu-darmstadt.de>
Cc: Humanoid League Mailing List     <robocup-humanoid at cc.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <489876384.12512 at eyou.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="utf-8"

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 

???? Oskar von Stryk 
????? 2010-11-16  06:13:53 
???? Tang Qing 
??? Humanoid League Mailing List 
??? 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

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
robocup-humanoid mailing list
robocup-humanoid at cc.gatech.edu
https://lists.cc.gatech.edu/mailman/listinfo/robocup-humanoid

End of robocup-humanoid Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4
***********************************************