Martyn The APEC rules (this is the competition that Dave Otten supports, I believe) are very similar to the IEE rules - word for word in the most part. The language has been simplified in places, and the handicap calculation is slightly different. There is nothing that I can see at the moment that would prevent an APEC compliant mouse from competing in the UK micromouse competition - however there is one rule, Rule no. 13, that would cause problems for most UK compliant mice competing in the US. This relates to a conversation that I had with Dave Woodfield at Micromouse 2004. His view was that a mouse wait for, say, 1 second on return to the start square, prior to it's next run. This allows the electronic timing to be reset for the run. The APEC rules incorporate this already in rule no. 13. We could simply adopt the APEC rules, but at the moment, APEC Rule no. 13 is the only addition that I would propose to the rules used for Micromouse 2004. The handicap calculation is a bit of a red herring, as all mice would be treated the same whether we use UK or US handicap. Regards Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk on behalf of Martyn Pittuck Sent: Tue 6/29/2004 4:40 PM To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk Cc: Subject: RE: Rules I am not sure how the others feel, but having the competition a little later would be of help to me. I will not be able to go until the last few weeks of June as A2 Exams will be on (the same reason I did not make a mouse for this compo, well did not start one would be more accurate, although I do seem to have spent a lot of money on a micromouse while ‘not starting one’) As for rules, what are the differences between UK/US Rules? Perhaps we should adopt the US rules as I would think that most other countries / competitions would follow these rules rather than have their own… Regards, - Martyn _____ From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk [mailto:owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Tony Wilcox Sent: 29 June 2004 16:19 To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk Subject: RE: Rules Hi Duncan, and to all in my first communication via the mailing list .... Firstly, we have had a lot of feedback about Micromouse 2004, and all of it very positive. I would like to offer our thanks to all of the competitors and ardent supporters that made it to the Technology Innovation Centre this year. I have some good news - the chief exec. Of the TIC has offered to support and fund the event for 2005. We will be very happy to undertake a joint event with ThinkTank, as this year, with hopefully increased activity in the demonstration arena, as well as the competition itself. I would be grateful of some feedback on this one, as we can get the 'good' dates earlier in June if we can make an early booking with ThinkTank. As for rules - I believe that we do need a body that can assess the impact of proposed new rules (particularly with respect to current scoring software!), and provide clarification/formalisation of the current rule set. When we set about designing our scoring and timing system for Micromouse 2004, we assumed that it would be a relatively easy job to implement it such that it conformed to the 'rules'. It quickly became clear that there were many intricacies that required considerable thought, that there were reasons for each and every twist of the rules, and that some eventualities were not adequately covered without a significant amount of 'judge's discretion'. In the end we implemented our interpretation of the IEE rule set, and decided that judge's discretion was an important aspect of an event that caters for children through to professional engineers. I have seen comment from the US re: the possibility of common rules 'across the pond' - I think this is quite important. We want to encourage US visitors, and hopefully get invited to the US (when we become more competitive). We may as well work to a common set of rules. I would like to see rules discussed in one of the sessions at Minos - a very sensible proposal. I would like to see an academic institution hosting the rules on it's web-site ... and therefore to all intents becoming Duncan's "rulemaster" - and I don't think the rulemaster should be an individual. We would be happy to undertake this at TIC. I think that anything other than a minor change to the rule set that we employed in 2004 should become a different class, and should not be applied to the main competition. I hope that’s not too much for a first entry …! Regards Tony Dr. Tony Wilcox Centre for Automatic Identification and Intelligent Systems Technology Innovation Centre Millennium Point Curzon Street Birmingham B4 7XG United Kingdom Tel. 0121 331 7510 FAX. 0121 331 5401 -----Original Message----- From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk [mailto:owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Duncan Louttit Sent: 29 June 2004 09:56 To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk Subject: Re: Rules Hi Everyone, One of the difficulties that we have is that when someone proposes rule changes, there is a short burst of comment and then everything goes quiet. Shortly before a competition, someone has to sort out what rules apply and write it up. I propose that someone with the resources to maintain a website be appointed "rulemaster". The rulemaster should publish the current rules and proposed changes. At some convenient point, probably at least 9 months before the annual competition, the rules should be frozen until after the competition so that there is plenty of time for competitors to ensure that their mouse is optimised for the current rules. It is probably impractical to have votes on rule changes. It should be the job of the rulemaster to try and reach a consensus and then decide what the rule should be. They should be prepared to take the flak for their decisions! We should probably have a session at each MINOS on rules and competitions to allow for new ideas to come forward. I am prepared to volunteer to be rulemaster if there are no other candidates. If I do, I will use the methods that I used for the schools competition in the past. See http://www.swallow.co.uk/umouse/rules%202002/rules02.htm for how it was done. As I see it, the rules for the maze solvers only require simplifying to the minimum that specifies the current position with possible tweakings of the relative penalties for searching and touching. The rules for wall followers probably need to be set out properly. If anyone else wants to be rulemaster, I shall gladly step back and let them take it on. Regards, Duncan
<<winmail.dat>>