Re: Fwd: Re: Parallel groups and Stage I & II

[Dirk Holz]

Hi all,

you got me during a mini-vacation so sorry for the late reply. Currently
I cannot estimate how urgent the wish of the trustees is, so I'd like to
try everything as it is:

1) Leave as in 2010
Komei, DIRK

2) Move GPRS to Stage I
Luca, Tijn, Javier, Mohan

3) Move Demo Challenge to Stage I
Jesus

The really bad thing about this situation is that I do not believe that
moving GPSR or demo challenge into Stage I is a good idea. They're both
designed for stage II and imho it does not make sense to do these tests
in Stage I. For next year (and knowing that we need more Stage I tests),
we can design new tests, merge existing whatever, for this year this
would
1.) be too late to get rules finished soon and
2.) be cause major rule changes,

---> If we have some time to get more stage I tests (for 2012), it's no
problem to re-organize the complete competition, come up with a bunch of
new tests etc.

---> If we need (one!) more stage I test now(!!!), the only possibility
that we have is to move a stage II and I do not like that. But,
whatever: moving demo challenge to stage I would result in having two
open challenges(?), but I'd prefer that option, so:

2) Move GPRS to Stage I
Luca, Tijn, Javier, Mohan

3) Move Demo Challenge to Stage I
Jesus, Komei, DIRK

On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 09:16 +0100, Luca Iocchi wrote:
> Dear Dirk and Anne-Lise,
> your vote as TC members is missing. Can you reply to all the list with
> your vote,
> so that we can proceed with rulebook changes?
>
> Thanks,
> Luca
>
>
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Oggetto:
> Re: Parallel groups and Stage I &
> II
> Data:
> Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:34:11 +0100
> Mittente:
> Luca Iocchi
> <luca....@dis.uniroma1.it>
> Rispondi-a:
> athom...@googlegroups.com
> A:
> athom...@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Il 18/01/2011 0.02, Javier Ruiz-del-Solar ha scritto:
> > Let us continue with the voting process of the TC.
> >
> >
>
> The current status of voting is
>
> 1) Leave as in 2010
> Komei
>
> 2) Move GPRS to Stage I
> Luca, Tijn, Javier, Mohan
>
> 3) Move Demo Challenge to Stage I
> Jesus
>
> Dirk and Anne-Lise are missing
>
> If option 1 will be dropped, Komei can vote again for either 2) or 3) ?
>
> Please let's close this discussion as soon as possible, because we have
> to work
> on the rulebook, which is also important.
>
> Best,
> L.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jörg Stückler]

hi,


in know its a bit late, but what about the following compromise:

to get another test in stage I, we could split the GPRS into two parts
and modify the old one just a bit:

- complex command and incomplete command (old category I and II) in
stage I

- modified complex command with incomplete information and trick
question in stage II


if we do not want to change much, we could move complex command (cat.
1) to stage I and keep the other two categories in stage II



kind regards,
joerg

[Javier Ruiz-del-Solar]

I like this idea.

------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Javier Ruiz-del-Solar
Universidad de Chile
Department of Electrical Engineering
Av. Tupper 2007, 837-0451 Santiago, Chile

Ph. +56-2-978 4207
Fax +56-2-6720162
Email: jru...@ing.uchile.cl
WWW: http://www.cec.uchile.cl/~jruizd

[Dirk Holz]

me too,
the definition of gpsr and stage I is still a little bit recursive
though, since it involves "all the capabilities from Stage I", but
that's just a formal issue which is less important i guess. so why not,
let's move cat I to stage I, and keep cat II and III in stage II, even
the current scores for cat I-III should fit (just slightly modified) in
stages I and II.

+1 for splitting gpsr

[Luca Iocchi]

Dear all,
in principle I agree with this idea, but this means that we will have
one additional test
and we have to check if it fits in the schedule.

I checked last year schedule: one possibility is to replace the second
slot of the Open Challenge
with the new slot GPRS - Part 1 (see attached file).
However, this would be fine only if Open Challenge will be run in
parallel in the two fields.

What do you think?

Best,
Luca.

[Tijn van der Zant]

I agree with the proposal.
But then there is the discussion on retries: I would say, like the other
tests, 1 retry with score penalty. Also the test should be 5 minutes max.

@Schedule:
I attached a new proposal

--Tijn

[Tijn van der Zant]

sorry,
attached the wrong version of the schedule.
I think that the gpsr should not be in parallel, because of the heavy
reliance on speech recognition.

--Tijn

On 31-1-2011 9:40, Luca Iocchi wrote:

[Komei]

Dear all,

@Splitting GPSR
Basically, I agree with Jörg's idea.

> I think that the gpsr should not be in parallel, because of the heavy
> reliance on speech recognition.

I agree with Tijn.

@Schedule
Is it possible to have one more test in Day 1? Maybe we decided to do
only one test in Day 1 from some organizational reasons last year,
though.

Best,

Komei

>  Schedule_at_home_2011.xls
> 126KViewDownload

[Tijn van der Zant]

Dear Komei,

> @Schedule
> Is it possible to have one more test in Day 1? Maybe we decided to do
> only one test in Day 1 from some organizational reasons last year,
> though.

Actually, the RIPS is on day 0. It is on the preparation day before the
competitions officially start. Having another test on that day might be
too much.

Cheers,

Tijn

[Komei]

Dear all,

@Schedule

> Actually, the RIPS is on day 0. It is on the preparation day before the
> competitions officially start. Having another test on that day might be
> too much.

Thanks, Tijn.

The following is a rough approximation of the minimum time length that
we needed last year. Taking these numbers into consideration, isn't it
better to have a 2.5- or 3-hour-slot for each stage II test? Also I
prefer to have two-hour-intervals between tests, especially stage I
and stage II.

[Stage I]
1. RIPS
(7 or 9)min x 24teams = 168 to 216 min

2. Follow Me (done in parallel)
5min x 12 = 60

3. Go Get It (is a competitive task)
5min x 12 = 60

4. Who's Who (done in parallel)
7min x 12 = 84

5. OC
5min x 24 = 120

[Stage II]
6. EWW
10min x 12teams = 120

7. GPSR
10min x 12 = 120

8. Shopping Mall
10min x 12 = 120

9. DC
10min x 12 = 120


Best,

Komei

[Tijn van der Zant]

Hi,

>
> [Stage I]
> 1. RIPS
> (7 or 9)min x 24teams = 168 to 216 min

there are +- 30 teams who have pre-registered, so we should do this in
parallel

>
> 2. Follow Me (done in parallel)
> 5min x 12 = 60

5minx 15 = 75 (plus overhead = 90)

>
> 3. Go Get It (is a competitive task)
> 5min x 12 = 60

--> 90 (plus overhead = 110)

>
> 4. Who's Who (done in parallel)
> 7min x 12 = 84

7minx 15 = 105 (plus overhead = 120)

>
> 5. OC
> 5min x 24 = 120

5minx 30 = 150, in parallel = 75 (plus overhead = 90)

6. GPSR I
5 x 30 = 150 (plus overhead = 180)

>
> [Stage II]
> 6. EWW
> 10min x 12teams = 120

Why 12 teams. We app. let 50-55% of the team go to the next round on
average so that would be 16.
So we should parallelize this

>
> 7. GPSR
> 10min x 12 = 120

-->10minx 16 = 160 (plus overhead = 180)

>
> 8. Shopping Mall
> 10min x 12 = 120

10minx 16 = 160 (plus overhead = 180)
we could also parallelize this to keep it within 90 minutes.

>
> 9. DC
> 10min x 12 = 120

10minx 16 = 160 (plus overhead = 180)
Parallel? --> 90m

Perhaps this requires some thinking about which tests are parallel.
I think that with this amount of teams we can do stage II where possible
in parallel (which is actually interleaving, not parallel).
Then form every group the 3 best go to the finals.

Any other suggestions?

Best,

Tijn

[Jörg Stückler]

Hi,

> Perhaps this requires some thinking about which tests are parallel.
> I think that with this amount of teams we can do stage II where possible
> in parallel (which is actually interleaving, not parallel).
> Then form every group the 3 best go to the finals.

i think the 5 or 6 best in total score (stage I + II) should go to the
finals, independent of the grouping.
that should be possible, when the scoring is objective.
otherwise, the grouping itself would influence the qualification for
the final..


best,
joerg