Re: Rules etc.

["Dave Woodfield" <dave@edesigns.fsbusiness.co.uk>]

Hi all

The application of the touch penalty is and always has been a one off event,
like losing your virginity. It was originally 10 seconds when first applied
in 1986, (due to the Japanese finals in '85 being "Not British"), but this
was found to be too severe and was reduced to 3 seconds a few years later as
mice got faster. The runtime rule was also introduced in '86.

The way the Japanese mice had evolved by '85 was to slowly search every
single square of the maze, however unnecessary, stop when the maze was fully
searched, have a new program loaded and new batteries fitted, sit at the
start square for what seemed an eternity while calculating the fastest
route, and then finally make a fast run to the centre. As this was
incredibly boring for the audience, and also there was no way of the judges
knowing what the mouse owners were doing at the code and battery change part
of the run (this in itself taking up to a minute), the two new rules were
introduced. The touch penalty is to discourage deliberate handling, hence
the one-off application. It was not intended to eliminate a good mouse which
has an accident, as if the mouse is really good the penalty can be overcome.
The run penalty is solely to encourage efficient maze solving.

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Wilcox" <tony.wilcox@tic.ac.uk>
To: <micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 10:32 PM
Subject: RE: Rules etc.



Hi all

In reply to Ken - the rules allow it, but it does incur a penalty.

"4. When the micromouse reaches the destination square, it may stop and
remain at the micromouse maze centre, or it may continue to explore other
parts of the micromouse maze, or make its own way back to the start. If the
micromouse stops at the centre, it may be lifted out, manually, and
restarted by the handler. Manually lifting it out shall be considered
touching the micromouse and will cause a touch penalty to be added on all
subsequent runs."


This is one that had me confused for a while, as I thought I could see an
opportunity for a bit of unsportsman-like behaviour - perish the thought!

However, the loss of 3+(runtime/10) seconds for a touch seems to heavily
outweigh any advantage to be gained by the mouse not retracing its steps. If
a mouse had found its way to the centre (run), and returned via the same
path, one can assume a similar return-time to the run. This would amount to
only (runtime/30) seconds additional search time - clearly much less of a
penalty than the 'touch' method of returning.


The last sentence of the quoted section of the rules above states that a
touch penalty will be added on ALL subsequent runs - this surely means that
the touch penalty is cumulative - or to be more accurate, more cumulative
than I thought!

If we ignore the (run-time/10) contribution for simplicity, 3 runs each with
touches would incur a penalty of 3+6 = 9 seconds on the final run.
5 runs each with touches would incur a penalty of 3+6+9+12 = 30 seconds
penalty on the final run. This implies that the mouse would need to go 21
seconds faster on the 5th run to gain any advantage over the 3rd run, and
that in general it would need to go significantly faster than any other
mouse in the competition. The outcome would surely be that the mouse peaks
at run 2 or run 3, thereafter the handicap would rule out any further gain.

This suggests that the penalty for repeated infringment is extreme ..
probably as it should be.

Have I interpreted the rule correctly?... does anyone have an alternate
interpretation?

Does anyone else think there must be an easier way to score?

Regards

Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk on behalf of Ken Warwick
Sent: Mon 10/18/2004 7:02 PM
To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk
Cc:
Subject: RE: Rules etc.
Duncan

Am I right in assuming that the rules disallow picking up a mouse when it
has reached the centre and returning it to the start for another run?

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk
[mailto:owner-micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Duncan Louttit
Sent: 18 October 2004 12:35
To: micromouse@cs.rhul.ac.uk
Subject: RE: Rules etc.


Hi Everyone,

There seem to be no comments about the last couple of proposals so they
have been written up. The sensor system is left at 1cm above the floor for
compatibility, but I hope that we can better specify the sensor system at a
later stage.

On with the rest of it, rule 1 of the micromouse spec.:

"1. Although the superstructure of a micromouse may 'bulge' above the top
of the micromouse maze walls, a micromouse is subject to the following size
constraints -width 25cm, length 25cm. There is no height limit. A
micromouse must be completely self-contained and must receive no outside
assistance. This rule will be relaxed for that part of the competition
allowing entries from competitors or teams under 18 years old to compete in
a sub-section for mice using external guidance systems, automatic or
manual."

I seem to remember someone proposed that we remove the rule for size
limitation but I can't remember the reason. Whoever it was, please try
again.

The specification of width and length has caused some controversy in the
past. I prefer something along the lines of "the micromouse must fit in a
box 25cm square" to avoid arguments about mice like Michael Shumouser that
has one horizontal distance of more than 25cm.

Comments please!

Regards

Duncan