29 Apr 2006 00:57:28
Stupid game

Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.

Football is complete game.



29 Apr 2006 08:13:42
dougie
Re: Stupid game

On 29 Apr 2006 00:57:28 -0700, AbheJet@gmail.com wrote:

>Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
>Football is complete game.

Nobody would ever accuse Inzimam of being an athlete. But there are
plenty of sports in which people who aren't athletes can succeed
because they have superior hand-eye coordination. Cricket is one. But
some bowlers are terrific athletes. Just because Inzi is a fat bastard
doesn't mean the game itself is a game only for fat people who are
unfit.

imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
capabilities than football does.


29 Apr 2006 17:40:16
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote:
> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
> Football is complete game.

Looks like someone's Daddy just bought him his first computer.


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




29 Apr 2006 17:46:08
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"dougie" wrote:
> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
> something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
> most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
> of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
> for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
> beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
> says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
> real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
> capabilities than football does.

Please don't call soccer football.


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




29 Apr 2006 18:52:36
Ben Gussey
Re: Stupid game

"damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:445320c7$0$30694$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "dougie" wrote:
>> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
>> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
>> something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
>> most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
>> of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
>> for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
>> beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
>> says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
>> real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
>> capabilities than football does.
>
> Please don't call soccer football.
>
>
> --
> /^damnfine/^
> ~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
> cultures can live together in harmony. ~

Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is, soccer
is the game where the foot is used. I hate people calling AFL, League and
Union football when a lot of the game is played with the hands.

Regards,
Ben.




29 Apr 2006 09:55:00
John Hall
Re: Stupid game

In article <1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
AbheJet@gmail.com writes:
>Only 10 or so countries play cricket.

Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
played in far more countries than that.

> It does not need athletic skill
>like football.

Not true (regardless of which football code you mean).

> Even inzamam can play cricket.

True. Which shows that the game is about more than just physical
fitness. I would say that was a plus point.

> Cricket take more time
>than any other game.

What about round the world yacht racing? :)

> Cricket is stupid game.
>
>Football is complete game.
>
Those last two assertions are purely subjective, and so cannot be proved
or disproved.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)


29 Apr 2006 09:57:09
John Hall
Re: Stupid game

In article
<445320c7$0$30694$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au >,
damnfine <damnfine@gmail.com > writes:
>Please don't call soccer football.

"Soccer" was being called football before the other football codes were
even thought of. "Soccer" is merely an abbreviation of "association
football".
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)


29 Apr 2006 09:05:39
Colin Kynoch
Re: Stupid game

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:52:36 +1000, "Ben Gussey"
<bengussey@optushome.com.au > decided that the world would be a better
place for knowing the following:

>"damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:445320c7$0$30694$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "dougie" wrote:
>>> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
>>> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
>>> something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
>>> most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
>>> of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
>>> for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
>>> beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
>>> says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
>>> real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
>>> capabilities than football does.
>>
>> Please don't call soccer football.
>>
>>
>> --
>> /^damnfine/^
>> ~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
>> cultures can live together in harmony. ~
>
>Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is, soccer
>is the game where the foot is used. I hate people calling AFL, League and
>Union football when a lot of the game is played with the hands.

So I take it the Goalkeepers in soccer aren't playing 'football'

or Diego Maradona


Colin Kynoch


29 Apr 2006 19:01:52
Kane
Re: Stupid game


<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
> Football is complete game.
>

Education takes time, only stupid people watch short games...




29 Apr 2006 19:03:15
Kane
Re: Stupid game


"Ben Gussey" <bengussey@optushome.com.au > wrote in message
news:44532975$0$21928$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:445320c7$0$30694$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "dougie" wrote:
>>> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
>>> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
>>> something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
>>> most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
>>> of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
>>> for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
>>> beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
>>> says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
>>> real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
>>> capabilities than football does.
>>
>> Please don't call soccer football.
>>
>>
>> --
>> /^damnfine/^
>> ~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
>> cultures can live together in harmony. ~
>
> Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is,
> soccer is the game where the foot is used. I hate people calling AFL,
> League and Union football when a lot of the game is played with the hands.


Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
football.




29 Apr 2006 09:35:49
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
> Football is complete game.
>

Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
trolling, is the purpose of your post?

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




29 Apr 2006 09:59:15
Colin Kynoch
Re: Stupid game

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:35:49 GMT, "Wog George"
<georgiopapadopalopalus@allgreek2me.com > decided that the world would
be a better place for knowing the following:

>
><AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>>
>> Football is complete game.
>>
>
>Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
>trolling, is the purpose of your post?

That might come as a surprise to the reigning ECC Trophy winners

http://www.cricketeurope.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000006/000651.shtml

Colin Kynoch


29 Apr 2006 11:08:59
Tids
Re: Stupid game


<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
> Football is complete game.

A troll !

And so many took the bait.




29 Apr 2006 10:44:37
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:csd652dpibmhhbrl3c73eno4un0l7f0m1l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:35:49 GMT, "Wog George"
> <georgiopapadopalopalus@allgreek2me.com> decided that the world would
> be a better place for knowing the following:
>
>>
>><AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>>>
>>> Football is complete game.
>>>
>>
>>Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
>>trolling, is the purpose of your post?
>
> That might come as a surprise to the reigning ECC Trophy winners
>
> http://www.cricketeurope.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000006/000651.shtml
>
>
My goodness! I sit corrected!! When does Gillespie get a crack at them??

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




29 Apr 2006 18:57:48
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> It does not need athletic skill like football.
rofl, athletic skill. Any girl can kick a ball you fucken idiot, but I'd
like to see one hit a 6 off a ball delivered at over 150km/hr.

Mate you sound very bored, but then I guess I would be too if I watched a
game for 2 hours that ended in a 0-0 draw.




29 Apr 2006 20:40:38
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"Ben Gussey" wrote:
> Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is,
> soccer is the game where the foot is used.

And the head, and the chest, and potentially every other part of the body
except the arms.

Yeah, good argument.


> I hate people calling AFL, League and Union football when a lot of the
> game is played with the hands.

And I hate people referring to "AFL" as if it were the name of the sport.
The AFL is merely the foremost LEAGUE in the sport of Australian Rules
Football.


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




29 Apr 2006 20:41:29
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"Kane" wrote:
> Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
> football.

No, it should be called soccer at all times because it antagonises the
effete weirdos who play it and like it.


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




29 Apr 2006 20:42:24
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"John Hall" wrote:
> "Soccer" was being called football before the other football codes were
> even thought of. "Soccer" is merely an abbreviation of "association
> football".

I'm aware of that, and I agree that "soccer" is a stupid word. That's why I
think it's a perfect name for the sport.


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




29 Apr 2006 17:26:47
Gafoor
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
>> It does not need athletic skill like football.
> rofl, athletic skill. Any girl can kick a ball you fucken idiot, but
> I'd like to see one hit a 6 off a ball delivered at over 150km/hr.
>
> Mate you sound very bored, but then I guess I would be too if I
> watched a game for 2 hours that ended in a 0-0 draw.

Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
whole nine yards.






29 Apr 2006 20:05:24
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
> a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
> whole nine yards.

You're forgetting that a draw in cricket still involves getting a SCORE!
not a 0-0 result.

Consider the Robo world cup - robots playing sport (ie. Aibo). They play
SOCCER because it is the simplest of all the major sports - yes, even robots
can be programmed to kick balls into goals, but there is no way robots could
play cricket because it is far more complex than soccer, whereas soccer is
essentially just kicking a ball which is why it's so popular - soccer balls
are cheap and anyone can play because its so easy, all you need is a friend
to kick the ball to. That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.





29 Apr 2006 05:31:34
wisden
Re: Stupid game


Dave Turner wrote:
>That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
> it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.

The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
cricket, mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
impart great fluidity to the game.



29 Apr 2006 12:41:02
dougie
Re: Stupid game

On 29 Apr 2006 05:31:34 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>Dave Turner wrote:
>>That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
>> it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.
>
>The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
>the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
>cricket, mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
>impart great fluidity to the game.

Incorrect. What they show is not skill. Shane Warne shows far more
skill than any Ronaldinho you can point at.


29 Apr 2006 12:55:54
dougie
Re: Stupid game

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:41:02 GMT, dougie <noemail@hotmail.scum > wrote:

>On 29 Apr 2006 05:31:34 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dave Turner wrote:
>>>That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
>>> it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.
>>
>>The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
>>the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
>>cricket, mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
>>impart great fluidity to the game.
>
>Incorrect. What they show is not skill. Shane Warne shows far more
>skill than any Ronaldinho you can point at.

OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for. He's
probably the best for many decades at what is supposed to be one of
the hardest skills for a human being to master. That is to feel
something in your hands, to make it part of your hand, to let the very
fine receptors in your hand control the flight and movement of the
ball.

Football cannot possibly compete with the skill shown by your average
Warne. Sorry, it is not possible in human existence or human
possibility. Without the hands the sport is a joke. And I'm a
Dutchman. I was born in the Netherlands, I will watch every second of
World Cup 2006, all 64 games. But don't try to tell me football is all
about skill. The World Cup will be a cultural event, the whole world
will be watching, but don't kid yourself that it will tell you
anything. If Brazil wins ti yet again it won't tell y ou much more
than the Brazilians are the most useless people on the planet because
they abandoned their hands and started using their feet.


29 Apr 2006 12:58:27
Colin Lord
Re: Stupid game


"Colin Kynoch" <colinkynoch@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:kqa652ptaphsm8cbihk52uh0luaac29rv1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:52:36 +1000, "Ben Gussey"
> <bengussey@optushome.com.au> decided that the world would be a better
> place for knowing the following:
>
>>"damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:445320c7$0$30694$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> "dougie" wrote:
>>>> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
>>>> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
>>>> something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
>>>> most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
>>>> of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
>>>> for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
>>>> beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
>>>> says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
>>>> real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
>>>> capabilities than football does.
>>>
>>> Please don't call soccer football.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> /^damnfine/^
>>> ~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
>>> cultures can live together in harmony. ~
>>
>>Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is,
>>soccer
>>is the game where the foot is used. I hate people calling AFL, League and
>>Union football when a lot of the game is played with the hands.
>
> So I take it the Goalkeepers in soccer aren't playing 'football'
>
> or Diego Maradona

and goals aren't scored of headers, and players never uses the chests.

perhaps soccer should be renamed

Everything-except-the-arms-unless-you-are-the-goalie-in-which-case-arms-are-allowed-ball




29 Apr 2006 14:33:13
David North
Re: Stupid game

"John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk > wrote in message
news:14OMcIDknyUEFwP$@jhall.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> AbheJet@gmail.com writes:
>>Only 10 or so countries play cricket.
>
> Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
> played in far more countries than that.

The ICC currently lists 96 members on its Web site.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk




29 Apr 2006 21:34:09
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game


"wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1146313894.745586.48370@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>>That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
>> it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.
>
> The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
> the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
> cricket
Define "skill" in soccer - putting spin on a ball? That's done in cricket
too. Don't get me wrong, I know it takes a lot of talent to become a
world-famous soccer player and talented soccer players can indeed do some
funky and skillful things, but I mean shit, there's only so much that can be
done in any given sport because of rules, and when it comes to soccer
basically all you can do is kick or headbutt the ball - _that's all!_, so
even if a soccer player is talented their talents are restricted by the
sport itself!

That's why soccer is usually the #1 choice for programmed sports (ie.
robots) - its rules and style of play are relatively easy to replicate with
computers/software/robots compared to other more complex sports. When you
break down each sport it's harder to find a more simpler game, although
tennis/ping-pong is also very similar in that respect - easy to recreate
programmatically due to the simplicity of the game.

> mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
> impart great fluidity to the game.
Fluidity? If you want to see a fluid game watch AFL where there are rules
that are designed to keep the game flowing. Granted, soccer is a lot more
fluid than many sports (it's a heck of a lot more fluid than say rugby or
grid iron for example) but I don't think soccer can boast about being overly
fluid, it's somewhere in the middle

What I also don't like about soccer is that it's a non-contact sport so it's
not as entertaining when you're watching it with your mates (imagine if
soccer had contact rules similar to AFL, it'd be much more entertaining) and
the amount of acting (staged dives etc) that goes on in soccer is just
ridiculous - no other sport suffers from so much acting




29 Apr 2006 21:41:03
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game


"David North" <dnorth@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk > wrote in message
news:4bh88nF11pfshU1@individual.net...
> "John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:14OMcIDknyUEFwP$@jhall.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> AbheJet@gmail.com writes:
>>>Only 10 or so countries play cricket.
>>
>> Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
>> played in far more countries than that.
>
> The ICC currently lists 96 members on its Web site.

not all soccer fans know how to google




29 Apr 2006 06:52:14
wisden
Re: Stupid game

dougie wrote:
>
> OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
> skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
> of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
> up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for.

Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
beautiful game.



29 Apr 2006 21:52:38
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

btw, here is the main goal of Robotcup, from www.robotcup.org:
By the year 2050, develop a team of fully autonomous humanoid robots that
can win against the human world soccer champions.

We're talking about software and robots here, so such an undertaking can
only be made against the most basic of sports like soccer and
tennis/ping-pong.

Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better than
humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
well as humans




29 Apr 2006 07:08:49
wisden
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
> Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
> also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better than
> humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
> well as humans.

Computers are already playing very well against chess champions. Honda
is probably not focussed on making robots that can match champion
cricketers because so few countries in the world play this game at the
highest level. However, super sports robots would have similar chances
of success against champion cricketers as they would have against
champion soccer players, IMO. What makes you think otherwise?



29 Apr 2006 22:16:35
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> Computers are already playing very well against chess champions.
Chess isn't a sport. We're talking physical games here.

> Honda is probably not focussed on making robots that can match champion
> cricketers because so few countries in the world play this game at the
> highest level.
Honda isn't focused on sports robots. Aibo (the #1 robot when it comes to
soccer) is made by Sony, and is used by many artificial intelligence teams
around the world. Try Google and you'll see that they chose to use soccer
because it's one of the simplest field sports, which makes it ideal for
robots and software algorithms.

> However, super sports robots would have similar chances
> of success against champion cricketers
"Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot can
master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports -- Aibo can only play
soccer. Aibo is about as good as it gets at the moment as far as robots that
can play sports, and unfortunately Sony are no longer manufacturing Aibo.
Computers have finally beaten human brains in chess, but that's not sport.






29 Apr 2006 22:26:55
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

btw Wikipedia has some good info about Deep Blue (the system that defeated
grandmaster Gary Kasparov)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue
It helps illustrate that systems are designed for a _specific purpose_ -- a
system designed to play soccer will never be any good at any other sport :)




29 Apr 2006 07:29:43
wisden
Re: Stupid game


Dave Turner wrote:
> "Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot can
> master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports
Not the same robot. One robot can have software, hardware and mechanics
specialized for cricket, another robot can have them specialized for
soccer. Please provide detailed reasoning about what would make cricket
more difficult to master than soccer.



29 Apr 2006 22:42:56
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game


"wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1146320983.664094.272290@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>> "Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot
>> can
>> master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports
> Not the same robot. One robot can have software, hardware and mechanics
> specialized for cricket, another robot can have them specialized for
> soccer.
That's exactly what I've been saying - robots are specialised in one task
and one task only. In other words a robot is either made to play soccer, or
cricket, but not both.

> Please provide detailed reasoning about what would make cricket
> more difficult to master than soccer.
Cricket is far more complex in just about every aspect, especially when you
look at it from an algorithmic point of view. Aibo can compete in soccer
because it simply has to kick a ball around to its fellow Aibo robots,
identify where the goals are, and try to kick a goal. Cricket is far more
complex from a robots point of view. Consider the players - in soccer there
is essentially just two types of players - the two goalies and the other
players. All the players basically play the same game. That isn't the case
in cricket, where every single fielding position is unique, plus bowling is
unique, plus batting is unique, so that would require the development of
different types of robots, whereas soccer can get away with just having one
or two types of robots - they only use one type in the Robot world cup.

The bottom line - whether you prefer soccer or cricket is irrelevant, the
fact is soccer is a much more simple game, and that's reinforced by the fact
that soccer and tennis/ping-pong are the sports of choice when it comes to
programmers and robot designers - most games are still far beyond the realm
of robots. We won't see any robots attempting to compete in rugby any time
soon, for example.





29 Apr 2006 23:34:47
Gerrit 't Hart
Re: Stupid game


"dougie" <noemail@hotmail.scum > wrote in message
news:oin652hqeakm9k4g0tbhe8619eqv6tq2np@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:41:02 GMT, dougie <noemail@hotmail.scum> wrote:
>
>
> Football cannot possibly compete with the skill shown by your average
> Warne. Sorry, it is not possible in human existence or human
> possibility. Without the hands the sport is a joke. And I'm a
> Dutchman. I was born in the Netherlands, I will watch every second of
> World Cup 2006, all 64 games. But don't try to tell me football is all
> about skill. The World Cup will be a cultural event, the whole world
> will be watching, but don't kid yourself that it will tell you
> anything. If Brazil wins ti yet again it won't tell y ou much more
> than the Brazilians are the most useless people on the planet because
> they abandoned their hands and started using their feet.

Brazil won't win.
The Netherlands will!!! :-)

Gerrit - also born in Holland




29 Apr 2006 17:09:14
West Stand Bowler
Re: Stupid game


"Dave Turner" <1@2.3 > wrote in message news:4453469a$1@quokka.wn.com.au...
> Mate you sound very bored, but then I guess I would be too if I watched a
> game for 2 hours that ended in a 0-0 draw.

Are you *this* Dave Turner ?

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/26042006/4/pics.html

--
WSB




29 Apr 2006 09:13:41
wisden
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
> That's exactly what I've been saying - robots are specialised in one task
> and one task only. In other words a robot is either made to play soccer, or
> cricket, but not both.
And when did I say that robots should not be specialized in different
tasks? When I used the term "super sports robots", I just meant robots
that would be very skilled in the sports they were designed to play and
was not suggesting that the same robot would be used to play two or
more different sports. You seem to have misunderstood my statement.
Sorry for not explaining explicitly what I had in mind, in my first
post in this regard.
However, I disagreed (and still disagree) that the software, hardware
and mechanics that will be needed to make champion cricket players will
be significantly more difficult to create than the same items required
to make champion soccer players. I feel for some tasks, it may be
simpler in cricket. Eg, when the task of the robot is bowling, he/she
just has to figure out how the batsman moves and find a way to slip the
ball past him/her or hit his/her pads). A robot can be made to bowl
accurately at over 100 mph (while mixing the bowling) and made to be a
real menace to batsman. Soccer players can use many feints to trip up a
robot. They can pretend that they will pass in one direction, turn
around and kick the ball somewhere else or decide not to kick at all at
the last fraction of a second.......

Aibo can compete in soccer
> because it simply has to kick a ball around to its fellow Aibo robots,
> identify where the goals are, and try to kick a goal.

But Aibo (or any future soccer playing robot) will not be playing in
vacuum. They will have to learn how to keep the ball in their
possession when challenged by human soccer players, how to snatch a
ball away, etc. Human players will be using many techniques to trap
(with either leg, chest, etc) and move a ball, employ feints while
dribbling, etc.

Cricket is far more
> complex from a robots point of view. Consider the players - in soccer there
> is essentially just two types of players - the two goalies and the other
> players. All the players basically play the same game.

In cricket, the same player does not bat or bowl at the same time.
Soccer involves running *with* and *without* the ball.

That isn't the case
> in cricket, where every single fielding position is unique, plus bowling is
> unique, plus batting is unique, so that would require the development of
> different types of robots, whereas soccer can get away with just having one
> or two types of robots - they only use one type in the Robot world cup.

In soccer, playing in the midfield is very different from playing as a
defender or a striker. The strategies of teams differ (how many
midfielders are employed, how many forwards and defenders are used,
whether a sweeper position will be employed or not, etc, etc), whether
short or long passes or a mix will be used. The robot has to understand
different dynamic situations at play in the field to be able to
successfully play against an opposition.

> The bottom line - whether you prefer soccer or cricket is irrelevant,
Agreed

the
> fact is soccer is a much more simple game,
A very strong NAY in this regard. As I said earlier, the rules of
soccer are simple. However, it will not be simpler for a soccer playing
robot to be able to successfully play against a champion human soccer
player.

I have a very strong suspicion that you are debating without
understanding the intricacies of soccer.



29 Apr 2006 21:44:33
Gafoor
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
> btw, here is the main goal of Robotcup, from www.robotcup.org:
> By the year 2050, develop a team of fully autonomous humanoid robots
> that can win against the human world soccer champions.
>
> We're talking about software and robots here, so such an undertaking
> can only be made against the most basic of sports like soccer and
> tennis/ping-pong.
>
> Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots,
> and also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer
> better than humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever
> playing cricket as well as humans

So what?

Computers do physics, chemistry, biology, math, nuclear science
& every other damn thing you can think of - does that mean that to
be a top person in these fields requires much less skill than
cricket?








30 Apr 2006 00:16:00
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

If only my name was Dave, or Turner :) I would've used John Smith but
everyone else is using that




30 Apr 2006 00:18:08
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

>> the
>> fact is soccer is a much more simple game,
> A very strong NAY in this regard.

Robot/software designers have already decided upon soccer as being the most
simply field sport to work with which simply reinforces the fact that soccer
is a far more simple game in every respect than just about any other sport.
If you argue with that statement you're arguing against the developers of
Sony's Aibo.





29 Apr 2006 21:48:00
Gafoor
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
> btw Wikipedia has some good info about Deep Blue (the system that
> defeated grandmaster Gary Kasparov)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue
> It helps illustrate that systems are designed for a _specific
> purpose_ -- a system designed to play soccer will never be any good
> at any other sport :)

If you are interested in this topic, this book below is a fascinating
read
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691090653/104-0510302-3409554?n=283155
It's written by the chap who created Deep Blue.




30 Apr 2006 00:27:36
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> So what?
>
> Computers do physics, chemistry, biology, math, nuclear science
> & every other damn thing you can think of - does that mean that to
> be a top person in these fields requires much less skill than
> cricket?

wtf? you're going off on a bit of a tangent there mate.




29 Apr 2006 22:09:32
Gafoor
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
>> So what?
>>
>> Computers do physics, chemistry, biology, math, nuclear science
>> & every other damn thing you can think of - does that mean that to
>> be a top person in these fields requires much less skill than
>> cricket?
>
> wtf? you're going off on a bit of a tangent there mate.

It's rather stupid to decide what game needs how much
skills based on what is easier for a robot or computer.

I can look at a person & can probably identify him next
day if I see him again, irrespective of what he is
wearing, or what angle I see him from - I don't think this
requires some unusual skill for me. But I can't look at
a page of text once & recite it the next day word for
word - this would require enormous skill for me.

For a computer, the 2nd task is trivial & first one is
much more difficult.





30 Apr 2006 00:36:59
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

the book is an interesting read but it's not as technical as it could've
been, it's very generalised




30 Apr 2006 00:45:30
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> It's rather stupid to decide what game needs how much> skills based on
> what is easier for a robot or computer.
Actually it's a very good indication of how much complexity and skill is
required in a sport. Again, it's why scientists are using simple sports such
as soccer for their robots rather than complex sports -- there's no point
learning to run if you can't walk.

> I can look at a person & can probably identify him next
> day if I see him again, irrespective of what he is
> wearing, or what angle I see him from - I don't think this
> requires some unusual skill for me. But I can't look at
> a page of text once & recite it the next day word for
> word - this would require enormous skill for me.
What in the fuck does reciting text word-for-word have to do with sport ???





29 Apr 2006 22:26:16
Gafoor
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
>> It's rather stupid to decide what game needs how much> skills based
>> on what is easier for a robot or computer.

> Actually it's a very good indication of how much complexity and skill
> is required in a sport. Again, it's why scientists are using simple
> sports such as soccer for their robots rather than complex sports --
> there's no point learning to run if you can't walk.
>
>> I can look at a person & can probably identify him next
>> day if I see him again, irrespective of what he is
>> wearing, or what angle I see him from - I don't think this
>> requires some unusual skill for me. But I can't look at
>> a page of text once & recite it the next day word for
>> word - this would require enormous skill for me.

> What in the fuck does reciting text word-for-word have to do with
> sport ???

It's a very good indication of the fact that complexity & skill required
by a human for a task may have little ration to the complexity &
skill required for a computer/robot to do the same task.






30 Apr 2006 01:56:25
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> It's a very good indication of the fact that complexity & skill required
> by a human for a task may have little ration to the complexity &
> skill required for a computer/robot to do the same task.

Actually you do make a very good point because some things that humans find
easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice versa), but that
doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot engineers (not me) have
chosen soccer because it is the simplest of all field sports, and that is a
fact you cannot argue against.




29 Apr 2006 23:36:21
Gafoor
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
>> It's a very good indication of the fact that complexity & skill
>> required by a human for a task may have little ration to the
>> complexity & skill required for a computer/robot to do the same task.
>
> Actually you do make a very good point because some things that
> humans find easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice
> versa), but that doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot
> engineers (not me) have chosen soccer because it is the simplest of
> all field sports, and that is a fact you cannot argue against.

Maybe they have chosen it because it's the simplest of all field sports
to program & not neccessarily the simplest of all field sports for
humans to play.






29 Apr 2006 11:26:26
wisden
Re: Stupid game

Dave Turner wrote:
> Actually you do make a very good point because some things that humans find
> easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice versa), but that
> doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot engineers (not me) have
> chosen soccer because it is the simplest of all field sports, and that is a
> fact you cannot argue against.

Probably the software engineers who started working on these projects
are from countries where cricket is hardly played and may not even know
that such a game exists or what its rules are. Please provide a link
that explains the rationale for choosing soccer; I would be interested
in knowing that. If simplicity was the only critereon, I would think
that they would pick some track event like running (100m
individual/relay sprint or marathon) or volleyball (where the ball can
be handled only 3 times in sequence by the same team). You are not
making a good case by not being able to provide convincing arguments
but reiterating that "but the software engineers are saying this and
that and whatever".



29 Apr 2006 21:25:42
max.it
Re: Stupid game

On 29 Apr 2006 06:52:14 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote:

>dougie wrote:
>>
>> OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
>> skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
>> of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
>> up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for.
>
>Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
>about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
>school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
>soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
>hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
>skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
>playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
>evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
>strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
>Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
>other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
>beautiful game.
>

Gaelic football is much better than normal football.
The all Ireland gaelic football final sees 80 000 fans in Croke park
Dublin, and millions more on tv.There are only around 4 million people
in (both parts) Ireland total. The GAA is a strict amateur
organisation. Every gaelic ground in Ireland is packed on a Sunday,
football, hurling, camogie
I might head off tomorrow to a cricket match, three premier matches
are in my area. There might be me and a few other people watching, and
I might head on to another match for a while, and I'll probably see
the same spectators at some stage, and I won't have to pay to get in.

Cricket ticket sales in Ireland wouldn't make 80 000 in years, let
alone on one day, and probably quite a few cricket games world wide
would never see 80 000 on the day.

max.it


29 Apr 2006 21:46:55
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk > wrote in message
news:4453d66b.43385618@news.btopenworld.com...
> On 29 Apr 2006 06:52:14 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>dougie wrote:
>>>
>>> OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
>>> skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
>>> of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
>>> up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for.
>>
>>Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
>>about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
>>school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
>>soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
>>hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
>>skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
>>playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
>>evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
>>strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
>>Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
>>other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
>>beautiful game.
>>
>
> Gaelic football is much better than normal football.
> The all Ireland gaelic football final sees 80 000 fans in Croke park
> Dublin, and millions more on tv.There are only around 4 million people
> in (both parts) Ireland total. The GAA is a strict amateur
> organisation. Every gaelic ground in Ireland is packed on a Sunday,
> football, hurling, camogie
> I might head off tomorrow to a cricket match, three premier matches
> are in my area. There might be me and a few other people watching, and
> I might head on to another match for a while, and I'll probably see
> the same spectators at some stage, and I won't have to pay to get in.
>
> Cricket ticket sales in Ireland wouldn't make 80 000 in years, let
> alone on one day, and probably quite a few cricket games world wide
> would never see 80 000 on the day.
>

This isn't the old "popular = better" argument is it? The same argument
that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kylie Minogue is more talented
than Mozart could have ever dreamed to be??

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




29 Apr 2006 22:28:30
max.it
Re: Stupid game

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 21:46:55 GMT, "Wog George"
<georgiopapadopalopalus@allgreek2me.com > wrote:

>
>"max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4453d66b.43385618@news.btopenworld.com...
>> On 29 Apr 2006 06:52:14 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>dougie wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
>>>> skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
>>>> of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
>>>> up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for.
>>>
>>>Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
>>>about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
>>>school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
>>>soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
>>>hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
>>>skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
>>>playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
>>>evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
>>>strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
>>>Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
>>>other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
>>>beautiful game.
>>>
>>
>> Gaelic football is much better than normal football.
>> The all Ireland gaelic football final sees 80 000 fans in Croke park
>> Dublin, and millions more on tv.There are only around 4 million people
>> in (both parts) Ireland total. The GAA is a strict amateur
>> organisation. Every gaelic ground in Ireland is packed on a Sunday,
>> football, hurling, camogie
>> I might head off tomorrow to a cricket match, three premier matches
>> are in my area. There might be me and a few other people watching, and
>> I might head on to another match for a while, and I'll probably see
>> the same spectators at some stage, and I won't have to pay to get in.
>>
>> Cricket ticket sales in Ireland wouldn't make 80 000 in years, let
>> alone on one day, and probably quite a few cricket games world wide
>> would never see 80 000 on the day.
>>
>
>This isn't the old "popular = better" argument is it? The same argument
>that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kylie Minogue is more talented
>than Mozart could have ever dreamed to be??

I like Frank Zappa.

Nahh, I'm just pointing out that the GAA amateurs in Ireland can fill
Croke park, the Irish cricket team would struggle to fill our front
room....Even in this England match in June, tickets are only 35.
It's worth it to see England play and on the Stormont banana skin,
it's a priceless oppurtunity. They'll get 3000 spectators for that
game.

The Ireland U19 or 17 squad had a full match using up all the squad
members to make the teams. They got let down by the club providing the
ground, and so they called our 1st team skipper, (the only number they
had for a nearby pitch) to see if they could play here. He said ok
work away, and went back to sleep.
I could see from my window, and I wondered who was playing cricket,
you know , that I didn't know about.
They got changed in the excellent facilities, had a snack in the most
superior bistro, and started the match. In the meantime, the cleaners
had started to work, they dumped all the kit outside cleaned the
place, and then locked up, leaving all the kit on the grass.
When the innings closed they guys were headin for the bistro, only to
find it closed, no bar, no food, not even a mug of tea at the
interval.
I didn't know what was going on, but I did notice lots of KFC being
eaten. The KFC is 100 yards away from the ground.
You could nearly paint a picture from that wee story.

max.it
>
>--
>George
>"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
>moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006
>
>



29 Apr 2006 22:55:26
Richard Dixon
Re: Stupid game

AbheJet@gmail.com wrote in news:1146297448.624093.297510
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.

Yep - stupid game, stupid rules that are hard to understand, games go on
for ages, odd clothing. And we all like it.

Now back to your homework, little boy! Or in your case, probably on to
rec.food.cooking to say "Food is rubbish, cooking is really stupid".

Richard


30 Apr 2006 00:20:50
Graybags
Re: Stupid game


"damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:445349de$0$30718$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Kane" wrote:
>> Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
>> football.
>
> No, it should be called soccer at all times because it antagonises the
> effete weirdos who play it and like it.

But calling it football antagonised Americans, and that's got to be worth
more.




30 Apr 2006 00:23:13
Graybags
Re: Stupid game


"damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:445349ab$0$30741$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Ben Gussey" wrote:
>> Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is,
>> soccer is the game where the foot is used.
>
> And the head, and the chest, and potentially every other part of the body
> except the arms.
>
> Yeah, good argument.

Football id predominantly played with the foot and the ball. It is a
reasonable term for the game. Rugby, American Football and various other
incarnations are predominantly played with the hand and the ball, and ought
to be so named. I would have thought that it was a fairly simple concept.

The word predominantly is in a dictionary before you argue.




30 Apr 2006 00:25:12
Graybags
Re: Stupid game


"Dave Turner" <1@2.3 > wrote in message news:4453567c@quokka.wn.com.au...
>> Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
>> a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
>> whole nine yards.
>
> You're forgetting that a draw in cricket still involves getting a SCORE!
> not a 0-0 result.

Unless it rains for 5 days, or spits, or is a bit dark.

Why compare. Both fantastic games, both very different.




30 Apr 2006 09:29:23
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"Graybags" wrote:
>>> Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
>>> football.
>>
>> No, it should be called soccer at all times because it antagonises the
>> effete weirdos who play it and like it.
>
> But calling it football antagonised Americans, and that's got to be worth
> more.

I doubt it, Americans are far too insular to care either way. Or indeed even
notice.


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




30 Apr 2006 09:30:50
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"Graybags" wrote:
>> And the head, and the chest, and potentially every other part of the body
>> except the arms.
>>
>> Yeah, good argument.
>
> Football id predominantly played with the foot and the ball. It is a
> reasonable term for the game. Rugby, American Football and various other
> incarnations are predominantly played with the hand and the ball, and
> ought to be so named. I would have thought that it was a fairly simple
> concept.
>
> The word predominantly is in a dictionary before you argue.

So is the word "id".


--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




30 Apr 2006 00:09:29
dougie
Re: Stupid game

On 29 Apr 2006 11:26:26 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Dave Turner wrote:
>> Actually you do make a very good point because some things that humans find
>> easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice versa), but that
>> doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot engineers (not me) have
>> chosen soccer because it is the simplest of all field sports, and that is a
>> fact you cannot argue against.
>
>Probably the software engineers who started working on these projects
>are from countries where cricket is hardly played and may not even know
>that such a game exists or what its rules are. Please provide a link
>that explains the rationale for choosing soccer; I would be interested
>in knowing that. If simplicity was the only critereon, I would think
>that they would pick some track event like running (100m
>individual/relay sprint or marathon) or volleyball (where the ball can
>be handled only 3 times in sequence by the same team). You are not
>making a good case by not being able to provide convincing arguments
>but reiterating that "but the software engineers are saying this and
>that and whatever".

I imagine they chose football because it is the most popular sport in
the world. The World Cup is a huge event, so they decided to have a
robo world cup using soccer as the game of choice. They didn't look at
it and say "what is the easiest or most difficult task we can set for
our robot designers, it's far more likely they said "let's have a
football world cup featuring robots, that would be cool would it not".

And so it came to pass. The fact that football was chosen is a
cultural thing, it has nothing to do with the skills of the designers
of the robots.


30 Apr 2006 10:49:32
Yurk Yurk
Re: Stupid game

In article <1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
AbheJet@gmail.com says...
> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
> Football is complete game.
>
>

What ever happened to "don't feed the trolls"? Look at all the bites.


30 Apr 2006 01:01:07
dougie
Re: Stupid game

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:49:32 +1000, Yurk Yurk <spam_me@spam.com >
wrote:

>In article <1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>AbheJet@gmail.com says...
>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>>
>> Football is complete game.
>
>What ever happened to "don't feed the trolls"? Look at all the bites.

Nobody is feeding the troll, the original post was a troll, but the
thread itself does have a few useful points.


30 Apr 2006 02:04:04
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"Graybags" <gbas@lineone.net > wrote in message
news:4biaqjF11h5jcU1@individual.net...
>
> "damnfine" <damnfine@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:445349ab$0$30741$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> "Ben Gussey" wrote:
>>> Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is,
>>> soccer is the game where the foot is used.
>>
>> And the head, and the chest, and potentially every other part of the body
>> except the arms.
>>
>> Yeah, good argument.
>
> Football id predominantly played with the foot and the ball. It is a
> reasonable term for the game. Rugby, American Football and various other
> incarnations are predominantly played with the hand and the ball, and
> ought to be so named. I would have thought that it was a fairly simple
> concept.
>
> The word predominantly is in a dictionary before you argue.

You should probably explain "id" rather than get defensive about
"predominantly".

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




29 Apr 2006 19:42:55
Re: Stupid game


Wog George wrote:
> "max.it" <max@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4453d66b.43385618@news.btopenworld.com...
> > On 29 Apr 2006 06:52:14 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>dougie wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
> >>> skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
> >>> of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
> >>> up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for.
> >>
> >>Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
> >>about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
> >>school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
> >>soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
> >>hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
> >>skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
> >>playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
> >>evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
> >>strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
> >>Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
> >>other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
> >>beautiful game.
> >>
> >
> > Gaelic football is much better than normal football.
> > The all Ireland gaelic football final sees 80 000 fans in Croke park
> > Dublin, and millions more on tv.There are only around 4 million people
> > in (both parts) Ireland total. The GAA is a strict amateur
> > organisation. Every gaelic ground in Ireland is packed on a Sunday,
> > football, hurling, camogie
> > I might head off tomorrow to a cricket match, three premier matches
> > are in my area. There might be me and a few other people watching, and
> > I might head on to another match for a while, and I'll probably see
> > the same spectators at some stage, and I won't have to pay to get in.
> >
> > Cricket ticket sales in Ireland wouldn't make 80 000 in years, let
> > alone on one day, and probably quite a few cricket games world wide
> > would never see 80 000 on the day.
> >
>
> This isn't the old "popular = better" argument is it? The same argument
> that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kylie Minogue is more talented
> than Mozart could have ever dreamed to be??

I actually think Mozart would have outsold Kylie. As Mozart would not
have been actually recorded, take the songs written by both. I'm
guessing there would be more cd sales of Mozarts compositions than
Kylie's by a country mile.

Stex

>
> --
> George
> "If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
> moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006



30 Apr 2006 12:11:04
damnfine
Re: Stupid game

"Wog George" wrote:
>> The word predominantly is in a dictionary before you argue.
>
> You should probably explain "id" rather than get defensive about
> "predominantly".

Freud's term for the pleasure principle-driven part of the psyche, as
seperate from the ego and superego, I believe.

Oh, and it's also just Latin for "it".

:-)



--
/^damnfine/^
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~




29 Apr 2006 20:01:19
Re: Stupid game


Dave Turner wrote:
> btw, here is the main goal of Robotcup, from www.robotcup.org:
> By the year 2050, develop a team of fully autonomous humanoid robots that
> can win against the human world soccer champions.
>
> We're talking about software and robots here, so such an undertaking can
> only be made against the most basic of sports like soccer and
> tennis/ping-pong.
>
> Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
> also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better than
> humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
> well as humans

I disagree. Cricket is more of an individual game where you only have
to counter the physical technicalities. Get a robot to deliver a ball
@ 200 kph and they are going to get any team out quickly. Also bear in
mind the bowler has an uninterrupted run up to the crease. It doesnt
matter how cumbersome it is, just get the ball comming out at 200 kph

In soccer, they would need artifical intelligence to beat humans.
Without it a team could gang up on a robot to wear it out, and then
move to the next. The robot would need to be aware this is happening
as well as the rest of the robot team. Given current technology I
doubt a robot could go flat stick for 80 mins.

I actually think they chose soccer because its more popular and easier
to get sponsorship for.

Stex



30 Apr 2006 03:06:28
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"dougie" <noemail@hotmail.scum > wrote in message
news:omv7529hplpmpa87auv9nbpvo8kf217sm8@4ax.com...
> On 29 Apr 2006 11:26:26 -0700, "wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dave Turner wrote:
>>> Actually you do make a very good point because some things that humans
>>> find
>>> easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice versa), but that
>>> doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot engineers (not me)
>>> have
>>> chosen soccer because it is the simplest of all field sports, and that
>>> is a
>>> fact you cannot argue against.
>>
>>Probably the software engineers who started working on these projects
>>are from countries where cricket is hardly played and may not even know
>>that such a game exists or what its rules are. Please provide a link
>>that explains the rationale for choosing soccer; I would be interested
>>in knowing that. If simplicity was the only critereon, I would think
>>that they would pick some track event like running (100m
>>individual/relay sprint or marathon) or volleyball (where the ball can
>>be handled only 3 times in sequence by the same team). You are not
>>making a good case by not being able to provide convincing arguments
>>but reiterating that "but the software engineers are saying this and
>>that and whatever".
>
> I imagine they chose football because it is the most popular sport in
> the world. The World Cup is a huge event, so they decided to have a
> robo world cup using soccer as the game of choice. They didn't look at
> it and say "what is the easiest or most difficult task we can set for
> our robot designers, it's far more likely they said "let's have a
> football world cup featuring robots, that would be cool would it not".
>
> And so it came to pass. The fact that football was chosen is a
> cultural thing, it has nothing to do with the skills of the designers
> of the robots.

The reason football was chosen is because it is the simplest popular sport
that can conceivably be played by rudimentary robotic devices. It is the
easiest because:

* Single method of scoring ie put ball in opponent's net.
* Natural position of ball is on the ground.
* The ball is propelled rather than carried.
* The ball is round and predictable in movement.

Australian Rules football has even simpler rules than soccer eg any player
can be anywhere on the field at any time without being offside ever, yet it
would be difficult for robots to play because the natural position for the
ball off the ground, the usual trajectory of the ball is in the air, the
ball shape makes its movement unpredictable, and the ball is (supposed to
be) caught.

Cricket is too difficult to be played by robots because there are so many
variables. Instead of propelling an object toward a target to score, the
target completely surrounds the batsman. When the ball is travelling down
the pitch toward the batsman, there are dozens of different scoring
opportunities, and dozens more ways to score no runs. The ball can be hit
50m resulting in no runs or it may be hit 50cm resulting in a run. The
possibilities are endless.

While you may say about the finesse and touch demonstrated by good soccer
players, that sort of play has nothing to do with soccer played by robots.
Robots don't play soccer the way that people do, and they won't for a long
long time...

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006





30 Apr 2006 06:06:26
Colin Lord
Re: Stupid game


"Gafoor" <rrocky@bigfoot.com > wrote in message
news:4bhk5gF113v54U1@individual.net...
> Dave Turner wrote:
>>> It's rather stupid to decide what game needs how much> skills based
>>> on what is easier for a robot or computer.
>
>> Actually it's a very good indication of how much complexity and skill
>> is required in a sport. Again, it's why scientists are using simple
>> sports such as soccer for their robots rather than complex sports --
>> there's no point learning to run if you can't walk.
>>
>>> I can look at a person & can probably identify him next
>>> day if I see him again, irrespective of what he is
>>> wearing, or what angle I see him from - I don't think this
>>> requires some unusual skill for me. But I can't look at
>>> a page of text once & recite it the next day word for
>>> word - this would require enormous skill for me.
>
>> What in the fuck does reciting text word-for-word have to do with
>> sport ???
>
> It's a very good indication of the fact that complexity & skill required
> by a human for a task may have little ration to the complexity &
> skill required for a computer/robot to do the same task.

Or it shows robots can do simple some simple tasks well (ie remembering 1
word) increasing the volume of work (many words on a page) just requires
increasing the power. Hence soccer is suited to robots
1. find ball
2. run to correct side of ball
3. turn towards target
4. kick ball
5. if ball not in goal then goto 1
else run around with shirt off then goto 1
(lots of the same task, kicking the ball towards the goal).




30 Apr 2006 06:16:32
Colin Lord
Re: Stupid game


<stex2727@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1146366079.771602.262300@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>> btw, here is the main goal of Robotcup, from www.robotcup.org:
>> By the year 2050, develop a team of fully autonomous humanoid robots that
>> can win against the human world soccer champions.
>>
>> We're talking about software and robots here, so such an undertaking can
>> only be made against the most basic of sports like soccer and
>> tennis/ping-pong.
>>
>> Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
>> also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better
>> than
>> humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
>> well as humans
>
> I disagree. Cricket is more of an individual game where you only have
> to counter the physical technicalities. Get a robot to deliver a ball
> @ 200 kph and they are going to get any team out quickly. Also bear in
> mind the bowler has an uninterrupted run up to the crease. It doesnt
> matter how cumbersome it is, just get the ball comming out at 200 kph

You could built a robot that looked like a tank and kept the ball out of
reach inside it. Just tell it to run over everyone until it scored. A
humanoid two-footed thing is a different matter.


> In soccer, they would need artifical intelligence to beat humans.
> Without it a team could gang up on a robot to wear it out, and then
> move to the next. The robot would need to be aware this is happening
> as well as the rest of the robot team. Given current technology I
> doubt a robot could go flat stick for 80 mins.

You could have substitutes and 1/2 time battery changes, trainers doing on
the fly battery changes etc.

> I actually think they chose soccer because its more popular and easier
> to get sponsorship for.

And easier to get a robot to play. 50 years time vs humans and that is a
different matter. Right now it is a simple game, the robots don't have to
worry about catching, holding bats and balls, bending over and maintaining
their balance is going to be easier if all they have to is suffle the ball
along the ground. 4 legged creatures can play it (so long as they are not
handballed for using their front legs).




30 Apr 2006 00:50:29
AbuHamza
Re: Stupid game


Inzy can play Football too

http://www.rediff.com/wc2003/2003/mar/03inzy.htm

"Skipper Waqar Younis said: It's nothing new. We always have this
problem when we play soccer."



30 Apr 2006 10:55:22
Yuk Tang
Re: Stupid game

"Colin Lord" <drsmith@lostinspace.com > wrote in
news:4DY4g.19440$vy1.9505@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> <stex2727@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1146366079.771602.262300@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I disagree. Cricket is more of an individual game where you only
>> have to counter the physical technicalities. Get a robot to
>> deliver a ball @ 200 kph and they are going to get any team out
>> quickly. Also bear in mind the bowler has an uninterrupted run
>> up to the crease. It doesnt matter how cumbersome it is, just
>> get the ball comming out at 200 kph
>
> You could built a robot that looked like a tank and kept the ball
> out of reach inside it. Just tell it to run over everyone until it
> scored. A humanoid two-footed thing is a different matter.

It would be a simple matter to program a robot to play cricket. When
bowling, define where the wicket is, then propel the ball on a length 2
feet wide of it. When batting, detect if the ball is likely to hit the
stumps. If so, block, if not, leave.

Methinks I'll patent KALLIS-1.


--
Cheers, ymt.


30 Apr 2006 03:57:51
Re: Stupid game


Dave Turner wrote:
> > Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
> > a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
> > whole nine yards.
>
> You're forgetting that a draw in cricket still involves getting a SCORE!
> not a 0-0 result.
>
> Consider the Robo world cup - robots playing sport (ie. Aibo). They play
> SOCCER because it is the simplest of all the major sports - yes, even robots
> can be programmed to kick balls into goals, but there is no way robots could
> play cricket because it is far more complex than soccer,.

Nope, football playing countries have intelligent engineers, creative
people. Football is popular there. That is why they chose football for
robots. But cricket playing countries don't have creative people and
engineers. Stupid game.



30 Apr 2006 20:50:30
Gerrit 't Hart
Re: Stupid game


<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1146394671.532807.31890@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Nope, football playing countries have intelligent engineers, creative
> people. Football is popular there. That is why they chose football for
> robots. But cricket playing countries don't have creative people and
> engineers.

The world's highest bridge near Millau over the Tarn was designed by an
Englishman!

Look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4091813.stm

Gerrit - Oz




30 Apr 2006 23:53:44
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> It would be a simple matter to program a robot to play cricket. When
> bowling, define where the wicket is, then propel the ball on a length 2
> feet wide of it. When batting, detect if the ball is likely to hit the
> stumps. If so, block, if not, leave.
>
> Methinks I'll patent KALLIS-1.
>
>
> --
> Cheers, ymt.




30 Apr 2006 23:56:47
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> It would be a simple matter to program a robot to play cricket.
Ok then, show us your software, rofl.

It's easy to say "it's a simple matter to program a robot", but YOURE NOT A
PROGRAMMER OR ROBOTICS DESIGNER!, nor do you have a clue about robotics or
programming - you've made that painfully clear by your statements, as
anybody with any clue about software or hardware would immediately see.




30 Apr 2006 23:58:25
Dave Turner
Re: Stupid game

> Unless it rains for 5 days, or spits, or is a bit dark.
Rain for 5 days straight? only in England mate





30 Apr 2006 20:47:04
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"Yuk Tang" <jim.laker2@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns97B5797ECAD53jimlaker2yahoocom@130.133.1.4...
> "Colin Lord" <drsmith@lostinspace.com> wrote in
> news:4DY4g.19440$vy1.9505@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
>> <stex2727@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1146366079.771602.262300@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I disagree. Cricket is more of an individual game where you only
>>> have to counter the physical technicalities. Get a robot to
>>> deliver a ball @ 200 kph and they are going to get any team out
>>> quickly. Also bear in mind the bowler has an uninterrupted run
>>> up to the crease. It doesnt matter how cumbersome it is, just
>>> get the ball comming out at 200 kph
>>
>> You could built a robot that looked like a tank and kept the ball
>> out of reach inside it. Just tell it to run over everyone until it
>> scored. A humanoid two-footed thing is a different matter.
>
> It would be a simple matter to program a robot to play cricket. When
> bowling, define where the wicket is, then propel the ball on a length 2
> feet wide of it. When batting, detect if the ball is likely to hit the
> stumps. If so, block, if not, leave.
>

The way you've programmed it, every ball will be 2 feet wide of the stumps
(you haven't specified which side). As the ball will not hit the stumps,
the batting robot will leave it. Result: Draw - the side batting first is
0/0 from 450 overs.


> Methinks I'll patent KALLIS-1.
>
>
> --
> Cheers, ymt.




30 Apr 2006 21:26:16
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1146394671.532807.31890@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>> > Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
>> > a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
>> > whole nine yards.
>>
>> You're forgetting that a draw in cricket still involves getting a SCORE!
>> not a 0-0 result.
>>
>> Consider the Robo world cup - robots playing sport (ie. Aibo). They play
>> SOCCER because it is the simplest of all the major sports - yes, even
>> robots
>> can be programmed to kick balls into goals, but there is no way robots
>> could
>> play cricket because it is far more complex than soccer,.
>
> Nope, football playing countries have intelligent engineers, creative
> people. Football is popular there. That is why they chose football for
> robots. But cricket playing countries don't have creative people and
> engineers. Stupid game.
>

Football was chosen because it is simple in action and rule, and can be
played by relatively primitive robots. Rolling around a floor propelling an
object toward a target is much less complex than having a robot bowl (serve,
pitch) an object in a 3-dimensional plane and having another robot detect
the trajectory of the object, decide what do with it (based on factors such
as physical practicality, projected outcome, rules etc), execute a shot with
sufficient timing to propel the object at the chosen target, and then have
other robots detect, track and intercept the object in a 3-dimensional plane
etc etc.

The soccer playing humanoid robots in the Robocup can barely remain upright
and they move slowly. They simply couldn't maintain their balance when
performing basic cricket movements. Only someone particularly inept
wouldn't be able to see that.

As for intelligence and creativity, Norway invented the paper clip, the
spray can and a sock clip while Australia invented the blackbox flight
recorder and cochlear ear implants. Also compare the following Google
results...

Results 1 - 10 of about 34,100 for "australian invention". (0.27 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 551 for "norwegian invention". (0.12 seconds)


Perhaps you should troll a wrestling group instead.

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




30 Apr 2006 15:34:33
wisden
Re: Stupid game

Wog George wrote:
> Football was chosen because it is simple in action and rule, and can be
> played by relatively primitive robots. Rolling around a floor propelling an
> object toward a target is much less complex than having a robot bowl (serve,
> pitch) an object in a 3-dimensional plane and having another robot detect
> the trajectory of the object, decide what do with it (based on factors such
> as physical practicality, projected outcome, rules etc), execute a shot with
> sufficient timing to propel the object at the chosen target, and then have
> other robots detect, track and intercept the object in a 3-dimensional plane
> etc etc.
>
> The soccer playing humanoid robots in the Robocup can barely remain upright
> and they move slowly. They simply couldn't maintain their balance when
> performing basic cricket movements. Only someone particularly inept
> wouldn't be able to see that.

By the same token, I think cricket is simpler in action and rule and
can be played by more primitive robots (robots need not even bend or
move from the places where they are standing) ? Consider the following

(1) Cricket just involves robot 1 hurling a ball towards a target
(stumps) and robot 2 swinging a bat whenever its sensors detect a
projectile hurled towards it. These tasks can be accomplished with
robot 1 and robot 2 remaining upright without losing their balance. If
Greg Chappell is the coach of robot 1's team, it can even roll the ball
towards the target in underarm style. Fielding robots are not even
needed if robot 1 can be made to hurl the ball well enough. However, in
robocricket fielding robots should play; these robots can remain
upright during fielding and be made to put one foot out to stop any
ball, if their sensors detect any ball heading their way.

(2) Cricket is less complicated than having a robot coordinate its
movement in 3 dimensional plane to trap a ball, recognize its teammates
from opponent players as each moves around, take a decision to pass the
ball to free teammates or dribble (based on factors such as physical
practicalities, projected outcomes, offside rules), create a situation
where it or another robot teammate can have a direct shot at goal and
take a shot after determining the position of the robot goalkeeper with
respect to the crossbars and the goalkeeper robot detecting, tracking
and intercepting the ball in 3-dimensional plane.



30 Apr 2006 22:49:21
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1146436473.361786.102120@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Wog George wrote:
>> Football was chosen because it is simple in action and rule, and can be
>> played by relatively primitive robots. Rolling around a floor propelling
>> an
>> object toward a target is much less complex than having a robot bowl
>> (serve,
>> pitch) an object in a 3-dimensional plane and having another robot detect
>> the trajectory of the object, decide what do with it (based on factors
>> such
>> as physical practicality, projected outcome, rules etc), execute a shot
>> with
>> sufficient timing to propel the object at the chosen target, and then
>> have
>> other robots detect, track and intercept the object in a 3-dimensional
>> plane
>> etc etc.
>>
>> The soccer playing humanoid robots in the Robocup can barely remain
>> upright
>> and they move slowly. They simply couldn't maintain their balance when
>> performing basic cricket movements. Only someone particularly inept
>> wouldn't be able to see that.
>
> By the same token, I think cricket is simpler in action and rule and
> can be played by more primitive robots (robots need not even bend or
> move from the places where they are standing) ? Consider the following
>
> (1) Cricket just involves robot 1 hurling a ball towards a target
> (stumps) and robot 2 swinging a bat whenever its sensors detect a
> projectile hurled towards it. These tasks can be accomplished with
> robot 1 and robot 2 remaining upright without losing their balance. If
> Greg Chappell is the coach of robot 1's team, it can even roll the ball
> towards the target in underarm style. Fielding robots are not even
> needed if robot 1 can be made to hurl the ball well enough. However, in
> robocricket fielding robots should play; these robots can remain
> upright during fielding and be made to put one foot out to stop any
> ball, if their sensors detect any ball heading their way.
>
> (2) Cricket is less complicated than having a robot coordinate its
> movement in 3 dimensional plane to trap a ball, recognize its teammates
> from opponent players as each moves around, take a decision to pass the
> ball to free teammates or dribble (based on factors such as physical
> practicalities, projected outcomes, offside rules), create a situation
> where it or another robot teammate can have a direct shot at goal and
> take a shot after determining the position of the robot goalkeeper with
> respect to the crossbars and the goalkeeper robot detecting, tracking
> and intercepting the ball in 3-dimensional plane.
>

Robot soccer rarely involves 3-dimensions. Even human soccer is
2-dimensional for much of the time. Once the ball leaves the ground, it
becomes difficult for current technology to compete. Unless robot cricket
is played like blind cricket (except without the bell), it would be outside
the capability of current robots.

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




30 Apr 2006 16:06:01
wisden
Re: Stupid game

Wog George wrote:
> Even human soccer is 2-dimensional for much of the time.
No it is not. Even if the ball bounces slightly (say an inch) causing
it to lose contact with the ground, the soccer is three dimensional.
Even if one player passes the ball with his/her foot and another one
receives it with his/her foot, there is a very good chance that the
ball did not travel entirely in 2 dimensional plane.



30 Apr 2006 23:25:38
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1146438361.846842.307250@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Wog George wrote:
>> Even human soccer is 2-dimensional for much of the time.
> No it is not. Even if the ball bounces slightly (say an inch) causing
> it to lose contact with the ground, the soccer is three dimensional.
> Even if one player passes the ball with his/her foot and another one
> receives it with his/her foot, there is a very good chance that the
> ball did not travel entirely in 2 dimensional plane.
>

The fact that the ball may have a little vertical movement is immaterial.
The tolerance of the robot, either due to the physical size of the playing
implement or due to programmatic intent, will allow the robot to address the
ball even if it isn't exactly on the ground. A variation greater than this
tolerance will cause a current robot to simply miss the ball.

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




30 Apr 2006 16:43:04
wisden
Re: Stupid game


Wog George wrote:
> The fact that the ball may have a little vertical movement is immaterial.
> The tolerance of the robot, either due to the physical size of the playing
> implement or due to programmatic intent, will allow the robot to address the
> ball even if it isn't exactly on the ground. A variation greater than this
> tolerance will cause a current robot to simply miss the ball.

You had written earlier that "Even human soccer is 2-dimensional for
much of the time".
In my previous post I replied to ONLY this statement of yours. Why are
you making a statement about soccer played by human beings based on
capabilities of robots?



01 May 2006 00:06:01
Wog George
Re: Stupid game


"wisden" <sam_986@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1146440583.997785.268820@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Wog George wrote:
>> The fact that the ball may have a little vertical movement is immaterial.
>> The tolerance of the robot, either due to the physical size of the
>> playing
>> implement or due to programmatic intent, will allow the robot to address
>> the
>> ball even if it isn't exactly on the ground. A variation greater than
>> this
>> tolerance will cause a current robot to simply miss the ball.
>
> You had written earlier that "Even human soccer is 2-dimensional for
> much of the time".
> In my previous post I replied to ONLY this statement of yours. Why are
> you making a statement about soccer played by human beings based on
> capabilities of robots?
>

I shall return to my original statement then...

Even human soccer is 2-dimensional for much of the time. This is a fact and
in no way implies that the statement is based on the capabilities of robots.
When the ball is moving along the ground, back and forth, side-to-side,
ricocheting as it may, and ignoring negligible up and down bobble, the ball
is travelling in 2 dimensions.

Much of the game of soccer involves the ball being kicked along the ground.
The ball moving on the ground is 2-dimensional. Therefore, much of the game
of soccer is 2-dimensional, irrespective of whether it's being played by
robots, humans or Norwegians.

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006




01 May 2006 11:25:38
Graybags
Re: Stupid game


"Dave Turner" <1@2.3 > wrote in message news:4454de8f@quokka.wn.com.au...
>> Unless it rains for 5 days, or spits, or is a bit dark.
> Rain for 5 days straight? only in England mate

Centurion?




02 May 2006 01:14:33
Crossbat
Re: Stupid game

dougie wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2006 00:57:28 -0700, AbheJet@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> >like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> >than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
> >
> >Football is complete game.
>
> Nobody would ever accuse Inzimam of being an athlete. But there are
> plenty of sports in which people who aren't athletes can succeed
> because they have superior hand-eye coordination. Cricket is one. But
> some bowlers are terrific athletes. Just because Inzi is a fat bastard
> doesn't mean the game itself is a game only for fat people who are
> unfit.
>
> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
> something up, feel it between their fingers.

Setting aside your double entradas for a moment (good job BTW), you
indeed use hands and fingers when you play football.

You are perhaps confusing football with soccer, a sport which is mostly
played in the mid-field with occasional and rare forays into the
end-zones (in some obscure and exotic cultures it is referred to as
'football').

Crossbat



14 Sep 2006 21:11:05
me
Re: Stupid game


No you're stupid. You probably don't like art or music either.

Some this have class and some things are just played in the mud.

<AbheJet@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>
> Football is complete game.
>




15 Sep 2006 08:09:46
Don Miles
Re: Stupid game

In message <JzjOg.28950$rP1.16971@news-server.bigpond.net.au >, me
<hhh@hotmail.com > writes
>
>No you're stupid. You probably don't like art or music either.
>
>Some this have class and some things are just played in the mud.
>
><AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>>
>> Football is complete game.
>>
>
>
He's obviously never tried it ...

The fact it takes more time is, actually, a virtue, although with some
of the football I have tried to watch lately you are quite glad it's
over quickly.

Generally we are used to politicians describing something as 'white'
when we know it's black, but I have always felt that if ever there was a
remark that broke every trades description law ever written it was
calling football (they meant soccer, of course) a 'beautiful game'.

Don
--
Don Miles
For Women's Cricket on the Web : www.webbsoc.demon.co.uk
Last Updated 2006 Sep 8


21 Sep 2006 12:38:29
3phase
Re: Stupid game

"me" <hhh@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:JzjOg.28950$rP1.16971@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> No you're stupid. You probably don't like art or music either.
>
> Some this have class and some things are just played in the mud.
>
> <AbheJet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1146297448.624093.297510@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>>
>> Football is complete game.

I don't see any cricketers diving on the ground and screaming in agony when
no has touched them.
You don't see those very same players who'd assuredly broken a limb (given
their theatrics) play without any hint of injury seconds later.

Bring back the pot bellied stars of the 70's and 80's!!




21 Sep 2006 08:33:44
Tids
Re: Stupid game

3phase wrote:
>
> I don't see any cricketers diving on the ground and screaming in
> agony when no has touched them.

Reminds me of something I heard recently about the
difference betwen rugby and football players. One
lot spend 90 minutes pretending they're hurt while
the other spend 80 minutes pretending they're not.