Road to the Robocup 2004

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:35AM from the football-without-feet dept.

RuiFerreira writes "Artificial Intelligence and Robotics researchers meet in Portugal from 27th June to 5th July in the 8th Robocup Football World Championships. RoboCup is an international research and education initiative. Its goal is to foster artificial intelligence and robotics research by providing a standard problem where a wide range of technologies can be examined and integrated. The RoboCup Federation proposed the ultimate goal of the RoboCup Initiative to be stated as follows: 'By 2050, a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win a soccer game, complying with the official FIFA rules, against the winner of the most recent World Cup of Human Soccer.' Robocup has an exciting programme including RoboCup Symposium, the RoboCup Soccer (humanoid, middle-size, small-size, 4-legged, simulation), the RoboCup Rescue (real and simulated robots) and the RoboCup Junior (dance, soccer and rescue) competitions. The robotic competitions will take place at Pavilion 4 of Lisbon Industry Fair located at the Parque das Nações, the site of the 1998 World Exposition (EXPO'98)."

48 of 87 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

pics & videos by rd4tech · 2004-06-26 08:36 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.robocup2004.pt/imgs/demos/segway-with-b all.jpg
http://www.fair.or.jp/robocup/2004/photo. htm
1. Re:pics & videos by amembleton · 2004-06-26 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Photo
  Website with more photos.
2. Re:pics & videos by News+for+nerds · 2004-06-26 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.fair.or.jp/robocup/2004/photo.htm has phots from RoboCup Japan Open 2004 Osaka, not the RoboCup itself.
The end is near. by Chucklz · 2004-06-26 08:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Skynet....

The soccer team became self-aware at 6:21 pm. Slashdotters everywhere scared shitless. Knew the end was coming, but were more concerned about their kernels.
robo rules 2004 by rd4tech · 2004-06-26 08:39 · Score: 4, Informative

ruls
1. Re:robo rules 2004 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-26 10:16 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  speling
Two words... by Zorilla · 2004-06-26 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Robo Hooligans

--

It would be cool if it didn't suck.
1. Re:Two words... by Saeger · 2004-06-26 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  What kind of idiot would design a robot's AI-brain to emulate the more disgusting, primal aspects of human mob psychology? </humor-impaired>
  --
  
  --
  Power to the Peaceful
film at 11:00... by netwiz · 2004-06-26 08:46 · Score: 2, Funny

I, for one, welcome our new soccer robot masters...
1. Re:film at 11:00... by obey13 · 2004-06-26 08:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If your going to do the joke, you might as well do it right I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
  
  --
  Oh my, I think Dave just turned into a bear.
Beating human players... by DavidNWelton · 2004-06-26 08:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Will they be allowed to use lasers? Is that against FIFA rules?

I think the human players will win by rolling around the ground clutching their knees to draw penalty shots. A robot will never be able to do that convincingly.

--
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
1. Re:Beating human players... by hkfczrqj · 2004-06-26 08:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think the human players will win by rolling around the ground clutching their knees to draw penalty shots.
  
  You're right, but robots can have ultra-sentitive detectors so when a player comes near, the robot mysteriously falls, rolls on the floor and some fake blood comes out of its structure.
  
  Also, robots can have more "eyes" than humans, so they can foul/spit/punch humans and be sure that no referee was watching.
2. Re:Beating human players... by hkfczrqj · 2004-06-26 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, they won't (well, who knows? :)). But in soccer there is no "*instant* tv replay" for referees, as in the NFL or in rugby. Robots might win, but they will be disqualified after the game.
a GOAL! by jokach · 2004-06-26 08:52 · Score: 5, Funny

I wonder if the robots will run around taking off their shirts when they score a goal ...
1. Re:a GOAL! by betelgeuse-4 · 2004-06-26 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That would be a breach of FIFA rules. Really, it would.
  
  --
  Decode these
2. Re:a GOAL! by saigon_from_europe · 2004-06-26 12:50 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Actually, I never undrestood why players strip their shirts.
  
  Let us presume that this behavior is really meaningless (as I believe it is). So programmers could intentionaly code this practice in robots' AI. The coach of human team will think that robots are stupid since they are doing this. He will underestimate robot team, which will be the way robots get some minor tactical advantage.
  
  Hopefuly, Goran Ericsson and Rudi Voeler are too old to be capable of leading human team in 2050, so that gives good chances for humans to win.
  
  --
  No sig today.
robotic rescue contest... by Whelzorn · 2004-06-26 08:55 · Score: 1

those robotic rescue contests... I entered a local one with my friend not too long ago and our robots failed miserably after we fixed the 5 problems on each of ours that caused them to be disqualified. I guess the heated metal cheese grater wasnt such a great idea...
mmm riotbots by spacerodent · 2004-06-26 08:56 · Score: 1

robots playing soccer? meh..call me if they include a riot function
Need a better rule for fouls. by zhangyong · 2004-06-26 08:58 · Score: 1

Ever think of a game of 4-legs Vs. 2-legs? Got to be fun!
1. Re:Need a better rule for fouls. by kryptKnight · 2004-06-26 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  If the robot had half a brain it would keep the ball under it by dribbling with its' back legs. The bot would just stroll up and score. If I were to coach the human team, I'd send out the crappy players to destroy the bots and when they get ejected from the game, I'd replace them with beter players repeating untill all the bots are dead and are forced to resign...
  
  --
  Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
humanoid by InternationalCow · 2004-06-26 09:06 · Score: 4, Funny

We'll know that they're really close to being like humans when they start asking ridiculous salaries, wear interesting hairdo's and date has-been pop stars :)

--
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
1. Re:humanoid by spacerodent · 2004-06-26 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  and have pictures of them trying to "stealth pee" on the internet
2. Re:humanoid by Zorilla · 2004-06-26 09:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  All they need is a Brazilian robot name....like Robaldo
  
  --
  
  It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Don't forget the simulation league. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-26 09:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Here is the server for the simulation league. I helped code a team for one of my college classes; it was pathetic :). The University of Amsterdam Trilean team has won three years straight. You should check it out; their team kicks some serious ass. If you're interested in the simulation league, be sure to check out the publications by the Trilearn team. The Master's thesis especially is a must read for anyone attempting to write a client. Tons of information on everything from self-localization to optimal-pass-determination.
if it's down to penalties it will be sooner ;-) by fantomas · 2004-06-26 09:44 · Score: 5, Funny

By 2050, a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win a soccer game..

Well I think if it comes down to penalties against England, they might not have to wait until 2050... has Beckham's shot come out of orbit yet?
1. Re:if it's down to penalties it will be sooner ;-) by Troed · 2004-06-26 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, but it's about to get competition from Zlatan.
  
  --
  it's in my head
2050 way too soon by giampy · 2004-06-26 10:05 · Score: 1

I think that robots winning against a human team will happen much much later than 2050.

It's more a gut feeling than a "sicentific based" prediction, but i think that perception and interaction with the real world is definitely the reign of animals, (and therefore humans).

It took evolution 1 billion years to create animals that run around and "act smart".

I think that the classical AI that models the world with language and rules, is a much simpler problem in comparison,
in other words, i think that a moderately intelligent computer that can understand humans and interact with them via language (see for example http://www.cyc.com/cyc/company/news/computerizing) will see the light way before a robotic team could compete with a c-league soccer team ...

--
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
1. Re:2050 way too soon by rebelcool · 2004-06-26 10:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  robotics and classical AI, while related, have diverged alot in the past 20 years. The future of practical AI will probably be found in robotics.
  
  Classical AI has made little progress at all. Cyc is really a formal machine that is the epitome of classical AI, and all its bizarre limitations - and it doesn't do hardly anything. Autonomous robotics on the other has made leaps and bounds. If you think things like the QRIO and Asimo are impressive, wait till you see their platforms are merged with the latest navigation and communication abilities currently found in labs. Part of the point of the robocup is to show off the latest in teamwork abilities.
  
  2050 is a reasonable estimate and a decent goal. You don't need a robot that will debate the meaning of life and philosophy with you to play good soccer. I somehow doubt many of those soccer players could do that very well, either :)
  
  Consider how it wasn't all that long ago that assertions were being continously made that machines could never beat a human at chess...
  
  --
  -
2. Re:2050 way too soon by Saeger · 2004-06-26 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think that robots winning against a human team will happen much much later than 2050.
  It's more a gut feeling than a "sicentific based" prediction
  
  Your "gut feeling" is more accurately described as the "common-sense intuitive linear" view of the rate of change, and it would be wrong.
  It took evolution 1 billion years to create animals that run around and "act smart".
  
  If you'd look a little closer, you'd notice that each evolutionary advancement took exponentially less time. Exponential progress is a feature of ANY evolutionary system, including technology.
  From the Law of Accelerating Returns:
  If we examine the timing of these steps, we see that the process has continuously accelerated. The evolution of life forms required billions of years for the first steps (e.g., primitive cells); later on progress accelerated. During the Cambrian explosion, major paradigm shifts took only tens of millions of years. Later on, Humanoids developed over a period of millions of years, and Homo sapiens over a period of only hundreds of thousands of years.
  With the advent of a technology-creating species, the exponential pace became too fast for evolution through DNA-guided protein synthesis and moved on to human-created technology. Technology goes beyond mere tool making; it is a process of creating ever more powerful technology using the tools from the previous round of innovation. In this way, human technology is distinguished from the tool making of other species. There is a record of each stage of technology, and each new stage of technology builds on the order of the previous stage.
  The first technological steps-sharp edges, fire, the wheel--took tens of thousands of years. For people living in this era, there was little noticeable technological change in even a thousand years. By 1000 A.D., progress was much faster and a paradigm shift required only a century or two. In the nineteenth century, we saw more technological change than in the nine centuries preceding it. Then in the first twenty years of the twentieth century, we saw more advancement than in all of the nineteenth century. Now, paradigm shifts occur in only a few years time. The World Wide Web did not exist in anything like its present form just a few years ago; it didn't exist at all a decade ago.
  
  Robotics is just one advancing tech we'll see on the shortening road to the Singularity.
  --
  
  --
  Power to the Peaceful
3. Re:2050 way too soon by giampy · 2004-06-26 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I agree on practically all the points.
  I think robotics is the way to go, and it is also much more challenging...
  
  I guess that what i was trying to say is that, if you look carefully, create a small robot that acts smart and actively interacts with the environment, MAY very well be more difficult than create a robot that can discuss the meaning of life.
  
  QRIO and Asimo are impressive but they are way below the "smartness" of cats and mouses,
  which simply means there is a long way to go in autonomous robotics.
  
  Classical AI will reach its limitations very soon,
  Will that will bring a machine that can discuss the meaning of life ?
  I don't know but i think we will find out in the next 20 years.
  
  --
  We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
4. Re:2050 way too soon by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-26 14:36 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Actually, Cyc is just a database.
  
  The Cyc knowledge base (KB) is a formalized representation of a vast quantity of fundamental human knowledge: facts, rules of thumb, and heuristics for reasoning about the objects and events of everyday life.
  
  You wouldn't expect it to do much, any more than you would expect your Encyclopedia Brittanica to become self-aware and launch a campaign to eradicate the ugly bags of mostly water.
  
  The "classical AI" guys have have little recent progress essentially because they succeeded too well. Most of the major areas (natural language processing, planning, etc.) all created projects that solved the problems put to them as successfully and "intelligently" as any human.
  
  In doing so, they discovered that the real problem turned out to be not the "intelligent" bits, but the limitations of the knowledge on which that intelligence was operating. Limited knowledge, rather than limited ability of the algorithms resulted in limited functionality. And coding up the knowledge by hand turned out to be a long and intricate process.
  
  As a result, most of the "classical AI" researcher shifted their focus a bit. You'll see their papers with results in machine learning, knowledge representation, and other topics about building and accessing a large database of information. Cyc is a poster child for "we need a bigger database". Lenat decided that if that was the problem, best roll up the sleeves and get to work, and just started piling up knowledge for a decade. (We put humans to school for a decade or two; why should the AI work right out of the box?) But Cyc itself wasn't designed to solve any particular problem, but rather just to store and inference about a lot of basic facts.
  
  Other of the classical AI guys simply moved into subfields not quite related to "intelligence" in the classic sense, like low-level perception or motor feedback, problems that "classic AI" was never aimed at in the first place. These aren't new paradigms to supplant the earlier work with the "proper" approach. They are new areas to be explored so that the classic AI isn't just a isolated brain in a jar.
  
  The other remaining research area is integrating all this stuff into a generalized intelligence. There's probably not one single paradigm to rule all there, any more than humans operate in only one manner.
5. Re:2050 way too soon by demsthenes · 2004-06-26 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  It is quite possible that humanity will have the technology and resources to create a robot team that can defeat a team of humans by 2050, but you have to ask yourselve, would humanity be motivated to do such a thing. Sure soccer is the most popular sport in the world but most people would agree, brainpower could be put to much better tasks. Such an event has already happened, the space race. Once the United States reached the moon and after the Soviet Union collapsed, most people forgot about the space race. Only if China becomes a real threat to the USA and there is another race to Mars or something, or a major shift to the privitization of space occures, advances in space slow down since humanity needs little use of it. Now, if a prize was alloted for the first robot team to win, then it is more likely, but you never know what bored scientist and engineers cn do in their freetime.
Re:Sounds easy. by m1kesm1th · 2004-06-26 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wouldn't say Greece bribed anyone, but the Swiss referee in the Portugal match was overtly biased on more than one occasion. Though I doubt this was bribery.

Although the Swiss are renowned for their impartiality this kind of makes me wonder if sour grapes didn't have something to do with it.

Although I am from England i'm not always patriotic and although we lost to France and later to Portugal, I think the better playing by the other team (France) meant they deserved it.

However, although I think they deserved to win. I also believe the disallowed goal, was the wrong decision, which would have meant the England win. I would have also doubted any further progression after that match.

Maybe referees shouldn't be from qualifying nations.

Of course none of this would happen I suppose if there were robot referees (or if they actually asked to see action replays, or listened to the linesmen).
Re:Sounds easy. by Khazunga · 2004-06-26 11:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I could achieve that next time Euro comes around; just do what Portugal and Greece did this time. Bribing the referee is no longer against FIFA rules. :-)
I can only answer with a "Daily Show" Whaaaa?
Let's just say the backbone of the Portuguese national team are FC Porto players: Nuno Valente, Ricardo Carvalho, Jorge Andrade (former player), Paulo Ferreira, Costinha, Maniche and Deco. Finish up the Champions' League winner team with players the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Figo, and only ignorance could claim Portugal needs referee work to win against any Euro'2004 team. We did stumble the first time, because a naive Scolari thought he could rely on former glory players like Couto. No longer. He's on the right track, and now we're poised to be European Champions.

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Re:Sounds easy. by Khazunga · 2004-06-26 11:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I also believe the disallowed goal, was the wrong decision,
The keeper gets run over in his area, and it isn't foul? What kind of football do you play in England?

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Re:Go Cornell! by Kaliken · 2004-06-26 11:51 · Score: 1

Yeah!! lets go RED!!! See you guys on Monday! and Patrick and Oliver I better have a jersey! =P Ken CU robocup 2001-2003
Do keep up. by Chuck+Chunder · 2004-06-26 13:05 · Score: 2, Informative

taking off the shirt is considered acceptable behaviour again.
From July 1st it must be punished. FIFA evidently have a lot of time on their hands. The PDF is a bit of a laugh too.

"Removing one's shirt after scoring is unnecessary and players should avoid such excessive displays of joy."

Boring fuckers.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
1. Re:Do keep up. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-26 13:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  WTF?! Covering one's head with the shirt is considered removing the shirt? Are these people quite mad?
  
  Seriously, lately FIFA has done a spectacular job in trying to murder football. The only other sport so successful in shooting itself on the foot with idiotic rules and regulations is F1.
  
  When will they learn?
2. Re:Do keep up. by br0ck · 2004-06-26 15:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It is a silly rule.. it reminds me of American Football's new rules prohibiting celebrating of touchdowns. Why are they demonizing the very moments that make sports worth watching? Is it not PC to like to score?
  
  Actually, I did hear some weak rationale regarding the no-shirt-removal rule was due to many players wearing controversial messages on their t-shirts underneath and worries that something really bad might be displayed on worldwide broadcast. Whatever. This is from the same FIFA president that's made tons of weird suggestions including one--quite the opposite the no-shirt removal rule--that women should wear sexier outfits.
3. Re:Do keep up. by Chuck+Chunder · 2004-06-26 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  I did hear some weak rationale regarding the no-shirt-removal rule was due to many players wearing controversial messages on their t-shirts underneath and worries that something really bad might be displayed on worldwide broadcast
  That doesn't really hold given that you can lift your shirt up as far of your chin, thus showing your chest or t-shirt, as shown on the last page of that PDF file.
  It only becomes an offense if the shirt covers your head or is removed completely.
  
  They should start looking hard at things that do spoil the game for those watching. A tribunual handing out match bans and fines for "simulation" based on video evidence would be a nice start. Preferably one which convenes within a couple of days of the event and gets it over and done with rather than a lengthy drawn out process.
  
  --
  Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
GOOOOOAAAAALLL el triunfo de las robustezas!!!!! by kaoshin · 2004-06-26 13:48 · Score: 1

Now that would be a RIOT.
Riots by svenvder · 2004-06-26 14:03 · Score: 1

Every true soccer fan knows the best part of a soccer game is the victory soccer riot. I personally think it would be funny to watch the robots riot.
1. Re:Riots by Nexus+Seven · 2004-06-26 16:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Every true soccer fan calls it football.
  Besides which, the riotting usually comes when a team loses.
Is smart necessary? by Chuck+Chunder · 2004-06-26 16:15 · Score: 1

The robots are only performing one task, albeit a pretty complex one.

The goalkeeper I think would be the first thing to be "got right". It's not hard to imagine a robot goalkeeper in 2050 being very good indeed at stopping shots.

Open play is a more complex problem but to have a team that beat a human team you wouldn't have to play like a human team nor necessarily be better than them at all aspects of the game. A goal keeper that is very good at saving and making pinpoint "route one" passes and some mobile and non-tiring strikers would get you a hell of a long way towards a win even if it wasn't a pretty one.

46 years is a long long time in technology in any case.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
RoboCup Junior by mcbridematt · 2004-06-26 17:26 · Score: 1

Two teams from my school down here in Australia are competing in the Junior soccer competition.

The two teams in question are from Kardinia International College in Australia. Mr Ernie Follet is a stupid humorous house leader who is always wrong (NOT!) and Mr Dale Clohesy is a sport teacher at my school. (don't be suprised if anyone hears excess swearing or blowing of whistles, it's common).

I can't let out any design secrets, not that I know any :) Well, I did chip in a $4 AUD donation in a raffle they were holding to raise air fares and the bastards stole all the soldering irons from my last electronics class to do last minute touch ups :( .Oh, they aren't using the gray color coding on the field to help navigate, so it's up to their radio control skills.

All the testing was done on a big green table set up to look like a soccer field
(AFAIK, I can't guarantee the accuracy of this information).

It will be interesting to see how well they perform, after all, I myself might be on the school/Australian team in a few years :)
Re:Sounds easy. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-27 02:19 · Score: 1, Informative

It's funny how every englishman on the streets of Lisbon that night were all about fair play and congratulating us.

But then there are always those few that rather overlook what is obvious and claim that they were robbed. Hurray for the pitiful The Sun mentality.
Robo buddies by RdHrd138 · 2004-06-27 06:06 · Score: 1

I like this idea, of 'smart' robots knowing rules and regulations and stuff. Just don't know why they decided to let them play soccer. Why not drive around in a car. I think that would be a better way of expressing true robotic potential.

Hopefully, if we can actually accomplish this robotic feat, that we could have little robotic buddies that would follow us around and do our biddings. And we could have intellectual conversations with them, and not have them repeat the same line twice.
Re:Sounds easy. by m1kesm1th · 2004-06-28 07:34 · Score: 1

In my opinion I really believe Portugal deserved to win.

However, I don't think they did, because I believe that the goal was genuine. Maybe there would have been a goal spurred on by that by Portugal, but otherwise you would have lost. I don't feel any need to swear in my comments either or calling anyone a liar, these are differences of opinions and mistakes. I don't mind if you disagree with me, many Scots disagree, but then they also laugh at any failures on Englands part. I also hope Portugal wins, it would be great for the hosts to win the tournament.

Also in the references you cited, most of the links do not work and do not back up your claims, they are merely unbiased match results, stating what happened, no opinions either way, referees results. Like I said, the statistics only reflect awarded fouls. If they are not awarded or not awarded are dependent on the same referee. I saw a lot of this during the match.

This can be as much a sign of a biased ref as not. Certainly FIFA will not overturn a referee's decision, yet as the other poster mentioned Urs will not be shortlisted for the finals now unless the other referees show a conflict of interest. I am unsure whether it is likely the referee apologised for his mistake to the England Manager as the other poster mentions, since he publicly stated that he would do it again.

I don't think referees from qualifying nations are a bad idea, sure they might be more likely to be biased, but surely they'd have more experience.

Acknowledging the defeat is easy, like I said Portugal played better. I believe the England team was lucky you didn't score more in the 90 minutes. However, I just don't accept a lot of the referees decisions. Accepting a decision is easy when you believe it fair. Its nothing against Portugal and I do not call you childish for what you say.