In Robot Soccer, US Team RoMeLa Dominates Robocup 2011

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Robot Soccer, US Team RoMeLa Dominates Robocup 2011

Posted by timothy on Sunday July 10, 2011 @05:32AM from the robotic-hooligans-coming-next-year dept.

Narmacil writes "U.S. Team RoMeLa has swept Robocup 2011, winning first place in both the kid size and teen size divisions. (Video) CHARLI, America's first full size autonomous humanoid, managed to also make the high score record for the teen size division. DARWIN, the kid-sized robot, beat the Darmstadt Dribblers, the previous world champs, and continued on to the finals to win out." There must be joy in Blacksburg today.

60 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 05:43 · Score: 0

I thought the U.S. sucked at science.
1. Re:I don't understand... by bluemonq · 2011-07-10 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  One swallow does not make a spring.
Just typical by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 05:48 · Score: 0

Typical yanks are world champions because everyone else plays Football ;-)
1. Re:Just typical by bluemonq · 2011-07-10 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I wasn't aware that the Sky News' programmes Soccer AM and Soccer Saturday were American.
2. Re:Just typical by TheABomb · 2011-07-10 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Except Canada. And Australia. Pretty much everywhere, in fact, where the words "foot" and "ball" mean those things.
  If anything, you pommies are just too literal.
  
  --
  MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
3. Re:Just typical by KDR_11k · 2011-07-10 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  Jocks play football, nerds teach robots how to play football.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
4. Re:Just typical by roguer · 2011-07-10 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  And then, one day, the nerd's robot football team beats the best "jock" football team head-to-head. It's inevitable.
  
  --
  It's a penny for your thoughts, but you put in your two cents worth. Somebody, somewhere is making a penny. SteveWright
5. Re:Just typical by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  Not in Ireland either, football in Ireland refers to GAA Football, not soccer
6. Re:Just typical by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-10 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  And in Australia it means Aussie Rules. Not sure what the word is for the combined GAA vs AFL game though.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
7. Re:Just typical by rainmouse · 2011-07-10 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  Except Canada. And Australia. Pretty much everywhere, in fact, where the words "foot" and "ball" mean those things
  The US incorrectly named version should be renamed Hand Egg.
8. Re:Just typical by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  And in Melbourne it means Aussie Rules.
  Fixed that for you.
  Everywhere else in Australia, it means Rugby League.
The U.S. Team "RoMeLa": by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 06:06 · Score: 1

Hong, Lee, Han, Nguyen, Song, Orekhov, Hopkins, Pesek, Lee, McGill, Nunez, Kapadia, Donnellan, Thakur
The Chinese team won the Middle Size League, btw.
1. Re:The U.S. Team "RoMeLa": by roguer · 2011-07-10 07:01 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  All wonderful American names, just like "Barack Obama". God how I love my "melting pot" country.
  
  --
  It's a penny for your thoughts, but you put in your two cents worth. Somebody, somewhere is making a penny. SteveWright
2. Re:The U.S. Team "RoMeLa": by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-11 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think it's a troll. I remember when I was cheering on Chang in tennis and LeMond in cycling and Kwan in ice skating. The US really is a melting pot. The northern Europeans populated the US first, so people think of those sorts of names (for example, Smith, Larsen, Jones, Meyer) as representative of the US, but really they are representative of particular immigrants. The distribution of immigrants has been changing recently, especially in urban areas. So, expect to see lots of Rodriquez, Lee, Nguyen, Chan, Kumar, Ali, etc. names representing the US in the future.
3. Re:The U.S. Team "RoMeLa": by roguer · 2011-07-11 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's a troll.
  You're right. I'm not. I'm both serious and sincere.
  
  So, expect to see lots of Rodriquez, Lee, Nguyen, Chan, Kumar, Ali, etc. names representing the US in the future.
  In any case, Rodriguez and Sanchez are both already among the top 20 surnames in the US already. IIRC Rodriguez is in the top 10. Mohammed is in the top 50; top 30 if you same-rooted lump variants together: Smith/Smythe, Mohammed/Mohamet/Muhamad, Johnson/Johnsen/Jonson, etc.
  And of course "Lee" is a pretty common Anglo-Saxon surname as well. My Vietnamese cousin (adopted, surname Morris) married blond, blue-eyed "Southern boy" Jeremy Lee. Now everyone who meets her husband is shocked (it is the US South after all) because they assumed her hubby was an "Chinese" Lee.
  
  --
  It's a penny for your thoughts, but you put in your two cents worth. Somebody, somewhere is making a penny. SteveWright
No video? by robot433 · 2011-07-10 06:08 · Score: 0

Shame, TFA has no video of the matches.
Yet, I managed to find it. Enjoy!
Soccer flamewar in 3...2... by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-07-10 06:08 · Score: 1, Redundant

You may now begin the regular, tedious argument about an American site using American English. Please reply to this comment to continue the discussion on this topic, I'm sure none of the points have ever been made before and original insights will be heard.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:No video? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 06:09 · Score: 0

Link is Goatse.
Is it really that hard? by phantomfive · 2011-07-10 06:12 · Score: 1

Did anyone else watch the video? Is it really that hard to make robots that can walk decently?

It seems like from a mechanical standpoint, it wouldn't be too hard to make something that mimics the muscular structure of the body......it's not like human muscles are particularly strong, or human nerves fast transmitting, or human sensors high precision. I'm having trouble understanding what the challenge is in building a robot that works reasonably well (or at least not dreadfully slow).

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Is it really that hard? by Smauler · 2011-07-10 06:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Our sensors _are_ pretty high precision, and very well integrated with our brain. They're also integrated well with each other. The three _big_ ones that are used in football would be sight, equilibrioception (balance), and proprioception (limb awareness), IMO (with touch and hearing playing lesser parts). Those 3 alone are very hard to replicate well in robotics, and combine into a complete package.
2. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  It's the control systems that are complicated.
3. Re:Is it really that hard? by sbates · 2011-07-10 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  You have to think about what you do when you walk. It's very rare that any two of your steps are precisely the same. You are constantly adjusting the length of the stride, the roll of the foot, the vertical position of your toes, the angle at which your knees bend, etc. You don't think about it consciously, but if you tried you might find you have a hard time walking smoothly :)
  Like Smauler says, we have not only awareness of these parts independently but also in relation to each other and to the ground. It's very difficult to make those kinds of connections in software. If you disagree you are always welcome to challenge the robotics experts at, for example, MIT.
4. Re:Is it really that hard? by phantomfive · 2011-07-10 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  So what you are saying is, it's not the hardware that is the roadblock for better soccer-playing robots, it's the software? That's kind of cool.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
5. Re:Is it really that hard? by vlm · 2011-07-10 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did anyone else watch the video? Is it really that hard to make robots that can walk decently?
  It seems like from a mechanical standpoint, it wouldn't be too hard to make something that mimics the muscular structure of the body......it's not like human muscles are particularly strong, or human nerves fast transmitting, or human sensors high precision. I'm having trouble understanding what the challenge is in building a robot that works reasonably well (or at least not dreadfully slow).
  The devil is in the details. There's lots of muscles involved. Newbie mistake #1 is thinking you can build a walking mechanism using a really simplistic count of leg joints. Like trying to get away with about 4 servos per leg. You really do need a nearly fully articulated body including arms and spine, even if its cost is incredible compared to just two articulated legs. While walking to refill my water glass I felt my sore elbow moving as I dynamically balanced walking down the hall, and theoretically I wasn't using my elbow. Newbie mistake #2 is trying to use a single canned routine. Walk around some time and try to straighten or slump your back, it has an effect on gait. Even if you're not paying attention, your gait is pretty dynamic, and newbs can't program dynamic gait very well. Newbie mistake #3 is applying human male standards of beauty to something inhuman. To me, a reasonably well shaped 20s female human just coincidentally happens to have a "decent walk" that I would admire as she walks by. Other people, live and let live, their idea of living is Really liking the 4-legged gait of a sheep, or the 2 legged gait of a 'roo, etc. I'm sure to a robot, a similar robot would seem smooth and graceful, and if we don't like it, the robot's opinion would probably be to shrug shoulders and grunt "eh". Newbie mistake #4 is not emulating or handling the shock adsorption of soft tissue, both semi-statically and also dynamically. Not just female swaying as per above #3 or whatever, but the cushion of the spine and feet (and shoes!)
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:Is it really that hard? by KDR_11k · 2011-07-10 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Many leagues use standardized robots, there are even completely software-based leagues (AR league, for example). It's a competition of software skills, not really much about electronics.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
7. Re:Is it really that hard? by Sir_Lewk · 2011-07-10 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Newbie mistake #3 is applying human male standards of beauty to something inhuman"
  It's not a matter of beauty, it's a matter of function. These things take minutes to cover mere meters.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
8. Re:Is it really that hard? by vlm · 2011-07-10 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  it wouldn't be too hard to make something that mimics the muscular structure of the body......it's not like human muscles are particularly strong
  No, its impossible at this time to even come close to human muscle as an engineering material IF you include strength to weight ratios of the entire system (heavy batteries), power to weight ratios, peak vs sustained power output, long term durability, total energy use / efficiency, etc.
  People have been trying, and failing, to build artificial limbs for centuries for trauma victims, and not only are the artificial limbs not better than the original, but they generally don't even come close to the real thing. When athletes intentionally chop off their limbs to upgrade to cybernetic models, then building a humanoid torso and bolting the off the shelf prosthetic limbs to it, then we'll know it might be reasonable. However, note athletes are legendary at not being able to make intelligent long term decisions, so it still might not work well.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
9. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  And newbie mistake #5 is posting a link to a video from Robocup 2010 .
10. Re:Is it really that hard? by vlm · 2011-07-10 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  "Newbie mistake #3 is applying human male standards of beauty to something inhuman"
  It's not a matter of beauty, it's a matter of function. These things take minutes to cover mere meters.
  The two are sometimes (often?) the same, looking at spots in the giant solution space of how far outside of static stability you're willing to leap in order to walk...
  One local maximum seems to be human bipedal, give them some wide hips to store more batteries and the android would inevitably have a human female gait that we would think is hot and graceful and would inevitably (pendulum effects on the legs, dynamic stability of a spinal column, etc) be about as fast as a human female.
  Another local maximum if you've got four legs and lots of rocks is turtles, personally I don't think they're hot; their gait is not terribly attractive, but it seems to work for them, or at least they're not extinct yet despite our best efforts.
  The local maximum (or local maximum of beauty) if you're LiPoly powered, aluminum "boned" and only have 8 servos in your body, is apparently not coincident with human female gait, even if its beautiful in its own local maximum way.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
11. Re:Is it really that hard? by phantomfive · 2011-07-10 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  ok, point taken, but look at the movie; all it would take is a goalie robot that can move within three seconds to a position where it can block the goal (and we are talking a two meter space here), and the team with that goalie would win. Is that really so hard? I mean, let's be honest, those robots were kind of pathetic.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:Is it really that hard? by brian_tanner · 2011-07-10 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's last year's video. This year's video is linked from the summary. I haven't watched it yet, I'm just pointing out that you are being critical of the wrong thing.
13. Re:Is it really that hard? by phantomfive · 2011-07-10 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  oh, ok, good point, but this year's video isn't any better!
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
14. Re:Is it really that hard? by brian_tanner · 2011-07-10 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly too true. But they're bigger!
15. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  Trouble here is that they are trying to reach stability at the end of each step. Human walking is never performed like that. It's a controlled fall, the brain calculates several steps in advance and usually accounts for stability at the end of the whole walk, not immediately after the step. Ever seen young children or mentally suffering walking - the look for stability (static) at each step, their brains are not able to handle the dynamic just enough not to hit your nose on the ground process of calculating in advance. And for being able to do that there are a lot more sensors involved. Like feeling the ground, the cushioning properties of your shoe, the air pressure in all your skin, and compensating accordingly. Even drunk people brains do that prepahead for a number of steps, just that that their control feedback loop is impaired and delayed. Human bodies can change their density, effectively meaning shifting mass around, robots on the other hand, not so much.
16. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  No. The problem is there is no passion or desire to improve the status quo. Students these days are more interested in getting out of school and getting a job than they are in contributing to science. In fact, by the time they've almost graduated, they have little to no desire to contribute to science.
17. Re:Is it really that hard? by Skywolfblue · 2011-07-10 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  The leading robot (CHARLI) at least is a quite significant improvement over last year's video. Sure it's not running, but the precision and recognition of the ball are very noticeably improved. We shouldn't expect it to happen overnight, it's an extremely complex process. Baby steps, baby steps...
18. Re:Is it really that hard? by m4ktub · 2011-07-10 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think we really know how we think and act. Also, our sensors are hardly high precision.
  Robocup results are anthropomorphic by design but the people involved quickly realize they have a bunch of wires that break and boards that burn in their hands; not very human of the robots. In the end - in Robocup they say 2050 - we will not have a replica of human perception. My guess is we will have a cyborg with her own way of perception and that perception may not be high-precision at all. Our is not and works pretty well most of the time (by human standards).
19. Re:Is it really that hard? by xtieburn · 2011-07-11 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  For a good analog try play QWOP.
  http://www.foddy.net/Athletics.html
Handball by Frankie70 · 2011-07-10 06:33 · Score: 1

Ok - let me start. How the hell can you call a game where ball spends more time in the players hands as football.
In football, there should be a penalty any time someone(except the goalkeeper) touches the ball with his hands when the ball is in play.
1. Re:Handball by roguer · 2011-07-10 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't know.
  But riddle me this: How can you call a game where no one rubs their hind legs together to make a chirping noise "Cricket"? After all, sports are all about their names, right?
  Or maybe this: If the purity of "football" is in the name, why are you allowed to touch the ball with head, chest, rump, knee, etc.? If hands are off-limits because of the name of the game, then why aren't other body parts?
  Or maybe let's just call the whole conversation ridiculous and be done with it.
  
  --
  It's a penny for your thoughts, but you put in your two cents worth. Somebody, somewhere is making a penny. SteveWright
2. Re:Handball by artor3 · 2011-07-10 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  This website is neither about slashes nor dots! I am outraged and will bring this up at every single opportunity!
  Signed,
  Every European to ever use the internet
3. Re:Handball by phantomfive · 2011-07-10 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  How the hell can you call a game where ball spends more time in the players hands as football.
  Like this: "Football." Pretty easy, eh? I'll bet even you can do it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:Handball by DNS-and-BIND · 2011-07-10 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  The ball is advanced down the field by foot. Using your definition above, soccer should be renamed to kickball.
  Seriously, we've had this argument, you must be aware of its reply by now. Like e4-e5 in chess.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:Handball by filthpickle · 2011-07-10 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Even more ridiculous....the English came up with the word soccer. It was a play on "association" in "association football". When the game came over here, we already had American football, so we used the other word they had for it.
  
  Not ridiculous...did anyone else watch that US women's world cup match today? What I am about to say is shocking...
  
  It was as exciting a sporting event as I have ever watched. Seriously.
6. Re:Handball by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  The ball is advanced down the field by foot. Using your definition above, soccer should be renamed to kickball.
  Seriously, we've had this argument, you must be aware of its reply by now. Like e4-e5 in chess.
  The idea that the game of football is so called because it is played "on foot" is a folk etymology and probably a 19th century invention by rugby enthusiasts. There's absolutely no evidence for it, and lots of good reason against it, since all games in medieval England were played on foot, not just football. Whereas, we have direct evidence from Shakespeare himself that football was a game played with the foot used to kick a round ball: "am I sound round with you that you spurn (kick away) me thus?". We also have drawings from 18th century London of people kicking balls. Yes there are "folk football" games like the Shrovetide game where the ball is carried, but it's a modern interpretation to call such games "folk football" when they were originally just "ball" games named after the holiday they were played on, and not "football" in any kind of generic sense.
7. Re:Handball by StuartHankins · 2011-07-10 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  +1 Insightful. I've heard from many friends all abuzz regarding this game and I'm sorry I missed it.
Re:No video? by Sulphur · 2011-07-10 07:24 · Score: 1

Thanks.
Does nerd soccer attract nerd hooligans?
I was there! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 07:31 · Score: 0

I just wanted to say that. Also to explain a few things:
These humanoid robots are cheap (~$25-30k) and use standard servos. Making them balance is extremely hard because of limited senses, soft and uneven floors, and limits on the foot size and weight of the robot. If the robot actually falls over, you are looking at thousands to repair it. The torques applied as limbs get longer are huge.
Not a sweep by Aragorn379 · 2011-07-10 07:47 · Score: 2

Winning 2 divisions in 1 league out of 5 is NOT a sweep. A sweep would be winning all the leagues. 1 out of 5 isn't even close. Congratulations on the wins in the humanoid league.

For those that are curious, the other 4 leagues are simulation (focusing on team play and low barrier to entry), small size robot (hardware/software combined, wheeled robots), middle size robot (hardware/software combined, wheeled robots), and standard platform league (software only using real humanoid robots).
1. Re:Not a sweep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Psssssst. Don't spoil it for the Duhmericans. They're losing the war in Afghanistan, so at least let them have this "sweeping" victory.
Thanks for the food! by robot433 · 2011-07-10 08:10 · Score: 0

Funny:
"O neat, you quoted me! Now I have to ask, why do you do this? seriously whats the motivation?"
"1999 called they want their overused shock pictures back."
"Parent post is a goatsex picture. Do not follow. You're an asshole of the proportions in that picture."
"Link above is to goatse. Fuck you douchebag."
"Turn on TinyUrl previews. It saves lives."
"Ugh. Goatse. NSFW. Asshole (poster and picture, both)."
"Seriously ... new account to post that ... what a douche!"
"You're a fucking douchbag." - "That is the most accurate comment yet"
"Not gonna click it to find out, but I'd be surprised if parent's link wasn't goatse... It appears you would be correct sir. Why oh why do I always forget..."
"My word, what is wrong with your anus? I'd get that checked out."
"It's because of Assholes like you that I can no longer trust URL shorteners"
"Would advise against clicking the link in the troll post above. Especially if you're at work atm."
"Thanks, I'm reading slashdot in class like a good student and just got tubgirl'd."
"Watching second monitor, there was something wrong with the other screen. Control + w. Phew..."
"Hey family! Come look! They're opening the Google Talk client! Now, click here......" (sees goatse)
"I tried to post warnings about the goaste loving jerk yesterday but was modded into oblivion as a karma whore"
"Posting your picture online again?", "Really? Are you not tired of this yet?"
(Me posts goatse link and tells that it is SFW): "You mean NSFW asshole."
"Can you not afford normal entertainment?" "This is grown up talk, 4chan is that way ->"
"Oops. goatse link" - "The AC speaks truth! (Well I didn't let it finish loading, but the browser was connecting to goatse.ru...)"
"He likes his urinal cakes nice and sudsy, so he tries to piss us off."
"Link is Goatse" - "Thanks. Does nerd soccer attract nerd hooligans?"
Hate:
"Motherfucker. Some of us are at work and don't want to have a drilled out anus pop up on their fucking screen. Christ."
"BAN HIM!" "Ur a faggot for posting that."
"Death to all assholes - Let's put you first into the guillotine"
"You fucker" - "I had the same thought as you. What a fucking asshole. The link is nsfw."
"I hate your guts.", "WTF you fucking asshole.", "Fucking troll, do not click there"
"I hope you die in a fire before you are old enough to contaminate the gene pool."
"It would be more interesting if I had a piece of pipe and your face, in close proximity so I could smash your face beyond recognition,"
"Bravo teeny bopper. You're a really mature mother fucker (or do you prefer father fucking? Damn you homo erotic shittter)."
"Wait! I think I hear your mommy calling to give your tongue a good soap washing. And maybe she'll execute you too"
"I did not even bother to look, but this same idiot has been doing this for weeks now. Fuck off asshole."
"Asshole. literally. Goatse is so old. Grow up you fool."
"Asshole... Ginormous asshole, in fact." "Ugh. Goatse. You asshole."
"Better than you, you arse bandit." "You're a lowlife faggot piece of shit."
"Ah, a sheep troll. "Baaa! I post disgusting photos! Baaa!"
"First time testemonies:
"Wow, all these years I managed to avoid seeing the goatse.cx guy, priding myself on my resilience to clicking on random image links from friends and trolls alike, taking comfort in the fact that I could identify a shock JPG based on a few lines of pixels while the holding the clipped window at the edge of my screen, and yet... now it's all for naught."
"After all these years, I finally fell for it. Just off to bleach my eyes.. thanks for that."
"Damnit, mod this guy up before GP gets any one else. My eyes, dear god my eyes, I'd managed not to see that until today!"
"WARNING: Don't click on the parent's link! Damn goatse! The first I experienced, no less.
"Parent is goatse. Dammit, and I've avoided it for a decade."
"ALERT ! goatse ya got me :("
Tes
Back To The Drawing Board... by littlewink · 2011-07-10 09:35 · Score: 1

for this endeavor. I have little doubt that the problem they're solving is hard. But is this progress?
Anyone trying an evolutionary layered approach where the control code is evolved?
Seriously, it looks like my Alzheimer-wracked mother trying to play soccer, except that, unlike her, it continues to pursue the ball. I hope the DoD's killer robots are more nimble than this: otherwise our Android Corps will be the laughingstock of the next big war.
Robots and women by formfeed · 2011-07-10 10:35 · Score: 2

U.S. Team RoMeLa has swept Robocup 2011, winning first place in both the kid size and teen size divisions.
And at the same time, the US women's soccer team advanced to the Semi final.
I don't like where this is going, Sarah Connor::
The US still sucks, except for robots and women.
1. Re:Robots and women by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-11 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  You beat me to the comment.
  Every time I am abroad I get made fun of, to which I reply: It's a girls game in the US and the ladies always kick ass at it!
  Now I have to add: btw, our robots are better tan yours!
  Peace :)
Apparently a new definition of "swept" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 11:27 · Score: 0

RoMeLa did well and deservedly so, but this apparently is a special meaning of the word "swept" I was not aware of. RoMeLa won the kid-size and teen-size humanoid divisions (which are quite similar to each other), but not the adult-size humanoid division, the standard platform humanoid division (by far the biggest division), the small-size robot division, the middle-size robot division, the 2-D simulation division, the 3-D simulation division, the RoboCup@Home division, the RoboCup rescue division, or the RoboCup Simulation division. Not to mention the RoboCup Junior groups. Basically they won two divisions collectively consisting of about 10% of RoboCup participation. RoMeLa's robots also then went on to lose an exhibition match against a standard platform humanoid league team. That's quite a sweep!
1. Re:Apparently a new definition of "swept" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-10 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  RoMeLa's robots also then went on to lose an exhibition match against a standard platform humanoid league team.
  Considering how crappy the Nao robots are[1], that's pretty sad.
  [1] unless something changed in the last year, as I haven't been paying too much attention.
Re:No video? by mabinogi · 2011-07-10 23:01 · Score: 1

well done. I haven't been suckered into a goatse link in years.

--
Advanced users are users too!
Full-sized? by HeadSoft · 2011-07-11 03:47 · Score: 1

This is very interesting work and the robots are very impressive... but shouldn't full-sized be at least... adult human sized? It seems rare to see projects with fully 6-foot-tall humanoids, I know it's a much greater challenge... but isn't that exactly why it should be done?
It IS hard. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-11 10:05 · Score: 0

Did anyone else watch the video? Is it really that hard to make robots that can walk decently?
It seems like from a mechanical standpoint, it wouldn't be too hard to make something that mimics the muscular structure of the body......it's not like human muscles are particularly strong, or human nerves fast transmitting, or human sensors high precision. I'm having trouble understanding what the challenge is in building a robot that works reasonably well (or at least not dreadfully slow).
Biggest challenge is the budget. From a mechanical standpoint, there is no challenge at all in building a 200mph car. Try do that with a small group of univ students and budget of $10K.
And there already are robots that walk well like honda asimo which costs multimilion dollars, and human muscles are also very strong too.