Slashdot Mirror
Augmented Reality Billiards
scubacuda writes: "Wired.com reports that Columbia's CS Department has designed a new gadget designed to "take the brainwork out of billiards" and help the average player eventually take on professional pool sharks. The Stochasticks consists of a 5-by-10-inch laptop carried in a backpack, a half-centimeter-by-1-inch long lipstick camera and a headset. Pool experts, such as Mike Spinkle, president of United States Poolplayer Association, say that this device makes it easier to visualize the angles."
do you think they'll notice in competitions?
It says in the story that the developer got the idea from an 'old sci fi flick'. Actually it was an episode of Quantum Leap.
Yes it looks like it will help determine the angles, but not english or speed. A professional player will whoop you every time if you don't have ball control. However, taking the guesswork out of the angles would definitely help someone learn faster.
--
No electrons were harmed in the typing of this post.
Of course when you see an angle you only see a projection of it. For each infinitesimal angle dtheta, you have to compensate perspective by dividing by the triple-product of the vector from the angle to your eye, the vector normal to the plane spanned by the angle, and the vector in the direction of dtheta (all normalized). It you integrate this over the whole visible angle, you can easily evaluate the real angle in your head.
Maybe this will help me be able to keep from missing the cue ball so often.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
The more you know about pool, the more you realize how much more there is to the game than the angles, which are truly the easy part. It doesn't take long to develop your own way to see the angles and sink the balls, but of course you'll still miss because you get the mechanics wrong in your arm, or you miscue because you forgot to chalk, or any number of reasons.
:)
Then there's cueball action... "english" on the ball, top, draw, etc -- not only knowing how to apply various types of english, but knowing when and why. Of course, many times the "best" shot on the table, meaning the easiest shot, I guess, is not the shot you need to make and, depending on the game, it's also a foul. The most common professional game of 9 Ball, for example, requires the player to shoot the balls in numerical order, which means that, after the 3 ball goes, it doesn't matter how good the shot is on the 7 ball, because you have to shoot the 4 ball, no matter WHERE it is. You at least have to touch it, which in that game sometimes requires a fantastic shot.
So, it's no surprise that we have technology that can assist us with the most elementary aspect of the game. And it just proves that there's no substitute for learning the game through experience... not yet, anyway
RP
Connor: The 500 series had cameras on their heads. We spotted them easy. Also they were tethered to a wall, and deadly only at pool.
There are 2 different statements here:
a) that "the system" (I'm assuming an average player operating the system here) will be able to beat a pro.
This is rubbish. A crappy player that doesn't know how to handle a billiard stick properly, and still won't be able to shoot properly even with the system. Even if the computer maths are elaborate, too many variables are left to the player skills: spin control, precise control of the force applied to the cue ball, etc.
At best, an average player using the system will get the general direction where to point at and why, but that's about it.
b) It is true that the computer may be able to model accurately the problem, but it doesn't make it a better player than a human for all the reasons in a) and others.
Computer chess is a prime example that machine does not always beat man, and here the difference is even more striking because the system ultimately rely on the skills of whoever is operating the stick. You just can't approximate this margin of error.
This device might be helpful for three-rail billiards or even nine-ball, games where long rail shots are required, but in a game like eight-ball where a player has to control the cue ball in and around a tight ball pattern, it's draw, follow, and English that win the game, not center-ball bank shots. Yeah, making a great three-rail bank shot around the four to drop the three ball in a game of nine-ball is really cool; not putting yourself in the position where you have to make that shot in the first place is even better.
Anyway, when it comes to beating a real pool shark, social skills have more to do with winning than technical skills.
slashdot broke my sig
It is true, that if you integrate this over the whole visible angle, you can easily evaluate the real angle in your head. However, we do not accept, nowadays, as it happened in the past, that our perceptive world is just the plain result of an encounter between a "naive" brain and the physical properties of a stimulus. Actually, perceptions differ, in quality, from those physical characteristics, because the brain extracts an information from the stimulus and interprets it, according to previous similar experiences.
We experiment electromagnetic waves, not as waves, but as images and colours. We experiment vibrating objects, not as vibrations, but as sounds. We experiment the beards of linux hippies, as they blow softly in the wind. We experiment chemical compounds dissolved in air or water, not as chemicals, but as specific smells and tastes. Colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds, built from sensory experiences.
They do not exist, as such, outside our brain. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. Therefore, we can now answer one of the questions of traditional philosophy : Does a sound exist when a tree falls in a forest, if nobody is present to hear it ? No, the fall of the tree only creates vibrations. The sound occurs if vibrations are perceived by a living being.
Information from the environment or from the body itself, is picked up by the sensory systems and utilized by the brain for perception, regulating corporeal movements and maintaining arousal. A sensory system starts to work when a stimulus, usually from the outside world, is detected by a sensitive neuron, the first sensorial receptor. This receptor converts the physical expression of the stimulus (light, sound, heat, pressure, taste, smell) into action potentials , which transforms it into electric signs.
From there, the signs are conducted to a nearby area of primary processing, where the initial characteristics of the information are elaborated, according to the nature of the original stimulus : colour, shape, distance, shade, etc. Then, the already modified information is transmitted to zones of secondary processing in the thalamus (if originated by olfactory stimuli, it is processed in the olfactory bulbs and then directly conducted to the medial area of the temporal lobe).
In the thalamic zones, older data, originated from both the cortex and the limbic system and containing similar experiences, link to the new information, in order to form a message, which is carried to its specific cortical centre. There, the meaning and importance of the new detected stimulus are determined by a conscious process of identification called perception.
Although two human beings share the same genetic and biological architecture and function, perhaps what I perceive as a dintinct color and smell is not exatly equal to the the color and smell you perceive. For example, you may like a certain Thinkgeek T-shirt with a pseudo-pithy statement about emacs on it. I may think it's lame, and that it clashes with your beard. We give the same name to this perception but we cannot know how they relate to the reality of the outside world. Perhaps we never will.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
There are tremendous difficulties that lie ahead. They must map where the cue ball will lie after the shot.
Then... the "real" math comes in: do you take the easy shot with a far more difficult second shot, or do you take a slightly more risky first shot, to be rewarded with a setup for a second and third object ball?
The decision making tree grows large, and different parameters would be selected not just based on the ability of the player, but on his opponent and the current state of the game.
There is much math ahead. This is a neat gizmo, but it trivializes the decision making and abilities pool sharks exhibit just down the street.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player Third Edition
...and it'll all come out right.
--Blair
While many have searched for an application of "wearable" computers, this sort of specialized system seems like a rather reasonable way that they can be integrated into the lives of a normal person.
Much more reasonable than the headset wearing ubergeek that is...
prosebeforehos.com
...to play well you need to smoke a cigar, sport a pop belly and be at least partly bald. Not too many robots can cover that.
I doubt a robot could ever catch a baseball either. Yet, kids and professionals master that with time. Assuming they have good eyesight and coordination.
I think similar skills and qualifications need to be mastered for pool as well. I can see a robot striking a ball with consistency. But, determining just how it should be struck may be left up to those who master the game. They are not good just because they are smart. They know because they are experienced and have developed a feel for the game. You could take lessons from a pool shark and hardly be any better at all. And, most pool sharks may not be able to tell you precisely what they did to make a certain shot anyway.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
If you still have to do the math to figure out where the ball is going to go, you don't stand a chance. Even if you can do the math, there's so many other factors. The speed of the ball determines how far it will go. In addition, it also determines how much bounce you will get off of the rubber sides. A faster ball will rebound at a different angle than a slower one will. English matters. Topspin matters. Draw matters.
I seriously doubt any "professional" needs to do the math anyways. He knows where the ball is going to go and where it will end up and he can do so just by looking at the table.
The math is for beginners.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I am by no means an authority on pool, but have played quite a few rounds, and would like to think of myself as serious competition for most recreational players.
My take on this device:
This will only help a bad player, and there are other thing which would be of more help. I can easily "see" the angles in my head. The hardest parts of the game for this type of player has to do with cue control, estimating how hard to hit (which no coputer can really help you with), and defensive strategy.
1. Cue Control - If I have more than a couple feet in between the cue ball and the ball I am trying to hit, chances are I will be slightly off my mark, as will most other people I have seen play. A fraction of an inch (or cm for international folks) means the difference of the ball you hit going right or left of your intended path.
2. How hard to hit. A computer cannot help you hit the cue with 20psi of pressure. (Or whatever a meaningful measurement is) A cmputer can help you with "soft/medium/hard" hit, but not the exact details of your execution of the shot.
3. Defensive strategy - leaving the cue where it is least helpful to your opponent. This varies greatly by your skill at 1 and 2. I know about what my margin of error is on 1 and two, and can make a educated guess about where the cue will stop based on how I plan to do 1 and 2. In most cases I am luck if I can choose the 1/8th of the table I want the ball to stop in and do it. 1/4th of the table is more realistic. Also have to keep in my what other balls will be hit during the shots, their reactions, etc.
All the stuff this device accomplishes are really things I can do fairly accuratly in my head, and I would think most other pool players would as well. That being the case, I am not really sure the intended market of this device, and how much more it would help them than a basic pool lesson and a check list of think about 1,2,3 when choosing your shot. When you play often enough, or when I do at least, I can make many computations in my head in a couple of seconds and trim down my possible shots to two or three which I analyze in more depth.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
There's a similar product that doesn't require a laptop called SniperCue. I can't see these being used in real games, or especially tournaments. It might be a good learning tool to figure out how angles work, but it's not going to teach you english, and it's not going to teach you how hard to hit the ball.
Every cue is different though, even if they are the same model. If one learns on a cue like this, they are going to have to get the feel of the non-laser/camera cue before being much good. Plus, at over $1000, you could get a nice Schon Limited for less. I'll stick with my Joss, the more I play with that cue, the better I get with it.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
I'm not really convinced this does any more for someone than a well-written Pool simulation game on the computer. (AKA. Virtual Pool) These types of games already make promises on the box like "Guaranteed to improve your Pool game, or your money back!"
Everyone is quick to point out that the biggest flaw in PC-based Pool games is the fact that they don't simulate holding the cue and the skill required to shoot straight. So what? Same issue with this device. The skills they don't directly teach you have to be learned by practicing playing the real game.
Learning the angles, though? A $19.95 copy of Real Pool for the Playstation 2 or Virtual Pool for the PC will do it just fine.
It's clear this generation has not
heard of the joys of billiards hustling.
*sigh*
You're of course correct in that the computer cannot make up for a player who can't follow its directions.
.
However, comparing that to computers playing chess seems a little silly. Computers don't lose at chess because somehow they meant to move the queen but instead moved the rook. In any case, computers will be destroying humans at chess in 10 years.
I can certainly imagine a computer that's better at "the mental part" of pool than any human - and that's what the article is talking about (and this is apparent from the quote)...
Jebara is confident that it will be able to judge the table-top situation more accurately and precisely than the human mind.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!!!
It's like the Sprite commercial. "You wanna play all-star basketball? Practice. You want a good friggen soda or whatever? Drink Sprite." I like that one because they're not trying to advertise that drinking Sprite will make you an all-star basketball player or whatever.
So you wanna get good at shootin' pool? Go to a bar that's got pool tables, see, order a pint of Negra Modelo, walk up to the nearest chick who looks about 30 years old, and ask her to shoot pool with you. Go to the pool table, drop a bunch of quarters inside, take a huge gulp of Negra Modelo, and then start playing. Yeah, you're gonna lose, because all 30 year old chicks who hang out at bars kick ass at pool. But play about ten games or so, and when you finish your pint, get another one. As you get progressively more drunk, your accuracy will increase, and your embarassment at sucking so bad will decrease. Do this about two or three nights a week--ask the chick which nights she hangs out there, because all 30 year old chicks at bars hang out at that bar on certain days--and before you know it, you're a pro. No need to cheat.
Oh well... does anybody ever listen to ME?! Not until it's too late. Ooooooooooooh well.
Ah.... I remember my first joint...
Aah. He's from MIT. He's just jealous that he didn't invent it first.
--pi
The LEGO Logo may not be used on an Unofficial Web Site The bright red LEGO logo has become one of the most recognized trademarks in the world. We have worked hard to make this logo a symbol of high quality creative products for children. The logo stands for the LEGO Group and we cannot risk allowing the distinctiveness of this symbol to be diluted. We must, therefore, insist that the LEGO logo NEVER be used on an unofficial web site.
See also my previous warning about Lego Lawyers. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=32953&cid=3574 059
Disclaimer: I don't agree with these heavy-handed guys.
It talks about slate (and non-slate) surfaces, the table cabinet, rales, cushions, felt, variations of play, and table specifications.
Very informative!
Yeah, it's bloody likely that "Jorge Martins de Oliveira, MD, PhD. Full Professor and Master of UFRJ", author of the text, is the same guy as "User 956", whose Slashdot Bio consists of a quote from Arthur Schopenhauer (and nothing else), and whose Homepage consists of two images, the gotse.cx guy and another porn pic (and nothing else).
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck