Slashdot Mirror
Humanoid Robot Combat in Japan
theluckyleper writes "New Scientist reports that the semi-annual Robo-One contest took place last week in Kawasaki, Japan. Humanoid robots (2 arms, 2 legs) battled it out one-on-one and in multi-robot brawls. The goal is to knock opponents over, or off of the combat platform. If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is eliminated. PC Watch (Japanese only) has more images and videos of the event."
"If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is eliminated."
That rules Daleks out, then...
It won't be long until some doofus manages to sneak into the arena wearing tinfoil and dryer-vent tubing and gets cut to ribbons.
Domo arigoto, Mr. Fighting Roboto!
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Reminds you of Voltron, no? Gotta love the Japanese.
Robotic combat has always been about rulesets. Even battle bots had a no-projectiles no-flames no-EMP type ruleset. Otherwise, robotic combat in a small enclosed space would be a contest as to whom could fire their 30-mm recoilless rifle first when the contest started:
Announcer: GO (boom)
Announcer: And it looks like team Alphabot managed to fire first, team Betabot is a gigantic smoking hole in the ground! Exciting!
So, I have to say that limiting robots to a humanoid form and blunt impact weapons is a damned fine ruleset idea. Probably the most important part of this ruleset (besides being enourmously entertaining) is that instead of generating research into the best four wheeled dense flip-arm frisbee robot, it will generate research into highly articulated humaniform robots. Which would be, like, way more cool.
And stuff.
It takes place in Pak Chooie, Japan.
Its goal is to push (basic shoving function) or shove (basic pushing function) opponents over off of the combat platform.
If a prone robot cannot stand back up in 10 seconds, it is pushed (or shoved) down the stairs.
The winning team gets protected from the Terrible Space Secret.
-- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."
The winner, a red robot named "Rockem" was quoted as saying "We had some talented fighters in the tournament. Finally this is beginning to catch on in the mainstream."
The runner-up, a blue robot named "Sockem", could not be reached for comment.
Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
I don't think it's the AI that holds the balancing back, it's probably the servos and motors.
As far as I remember they're not quick (responsive) enough (at least not for cheap).
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
This reminds me of one of my all time favorite fighting games, One Must Fall 2097. As the story goes, you'd have your brain connected to these huge (like, 90 meters) metal robots, which would duke it out in the arena.
A punch connects! Wham! Sparks, nuts and bolts fly!
Each different robot (there were about a dozen) had 'scrap' and 'destruction' moves, kinda-like fatalities. You could destroy your opponent in a shower of scrap metal.
There's a new version out, apparently, called OMF: Battlegrounds (though I haven't played it). You can see the site here: www.omf.com
I liked this game much more than Mortal combat or any of the other 2d side-by-side arena action fighters. I don't know if you can still buy it, but I'd still play it, if I could find disk 3 (of 5)...
Skal! AMS
The next step is obviously giving the machines a certain amount of autonomous control over their actions. From here, it is a matter of building the ability of the robot to act and react in the proper way. However, this brings us back to the age old question of intelligence. Assume you are able to build a robot that is the best robot fighter around. Does this in any way imply that the robot is an "intelligent fighter?"
My initial thought would be no. The robot must be able to learn from its mistakes in order to have the basis of intelligence. It must be able to modify its programming, understanding, and fighting. But it must do more too. It must be able to take into account anything that it can perceive and attempt to assimilate differences in things like climate, terrain, and obstacles rather than simply act as a block machine for fighting. Eventually, the machine's instructions will be nothing like the original instructions it was programmed with.
This leaves us with the next question. Assume it can do all those things? Is there any reson to believe that it is an "intelligent fighter" rather than a machine doing what it is programmed to? But alas, is there any reason to think that we do more than what we are programmed to?
Darpa proved they can't even find their way across a desert, more less fight it out.
And a "simple" AI wouldn't be able to walk at all. Any robot that walks on two legs has a freaking hefty AI subroutine monitoring a million things we don't ever even consider.
AI still is in the suckitude phase; even the best ones aren't much smarter than a cockroach.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You may be interested in the art of Japanese artist Hajime Sorayama. While I'm not aware of any of this art that actually shows robots in the act of copulation, it's probably as close as you're going to get.
Mods, can I get a +5 Informative for this?
Humanoid robots (2 arms, 2 legs)
Slashdot. The only internet site where you need to explain how humans look.