Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Stupid game

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Abh...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 3:57:28 AM4/29/06
to
Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.

Football is complete game.

dougie

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 4:13:42 AM4/29/06
to

Nobody would ever accuse Inzimam of being an athlete. But there are
plenty of sports in which people who aren't athletes can succeed
because they have superior hand-eye coordination. Cricket is one. But
some bowlers are terrific athletes. Just because Inzi is a fat bastard
doesn't mean the game itself is a game only for fat people who are
unfit.

imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
capabilities than football does.

damnfine

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 4:10:16 AM4/29/06
to

Looks like someone's Daddy just bought him his first computer.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
~ Multiculturalism: Because atheists of all
cultures can live together in harmony. ~


damnfine

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 4:16:08 AM4/29/06
to
"dougie" wrote:
> imho football suffers as a sport because it is just that, football.
> The natural inclination for any person is to use their hands, to pick
> something up, feel it between their fingers. Football might be the
> most popular game in the world but that means absolute shite. The map
> of the human senses has huge hands for feel, huge lips, huge tongue
> for taste and huge genitals for enjoyment. These are the things human
> beings use the most. That makes football a waste of time, in fact it
> says very little about the skill humans are capable of. If you want
> real skill then rugby, darts etc show much more about human
> capabilities than football does.

Please don't call soccer football.

Ben Gussey

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 4:52:36 AM4/29/06
to
"damnfine" <damn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:445320c7$0$30694$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is, soccer
is the game where the foot is used. I hate people calling AFL, League and
Union football when a lot of the game is played with the hands.

Regards,
Ben.


John Hall

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 4:55:00 AM4/29/06
to
In article <1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

Abh...@gmail.com writes:
>Only 10 or so countries play cricket.

Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
played in far more countries than that.

> It does not need athletic skill
>like football.

Not true (regardless of which football code you mean).

> Even inzamam can play cricket.

True. Which shows that the game is about more than just physical
fitness. I would say that was a plus point.

> Cricket take more time
>than any other game.

What about round the world yacht racing? :)

> Cricket is stupid game.
>
>Football is complete game.
>

Those last two assertions are purely subjective, and so cannot be proved
or disproved.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

John Hall

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 4:57:09 AM4/29/06
to
In article
<445320c7$0$30694$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,

damnfine <damn...@gmail.com> writes:
>Please don't call soccer football.

"Soccer" was being called football before the other football codes were
even thought of. "Soccer" is merely an abbreviation of "association
football".

Colin Kynoch

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 5:05:39 AM4/29/06
to
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:52:36 +1000, "Ben Gussey"
<beng...@optushome.com.au> decided that the world would be a better
place for knowing the following:

So I take it the Goalkeepers in soccer aren't playing 'football'

or Diego Maradona


Colin Kynoch

Kane

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 5:01:52 AM4/29/06
to

<Abh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Education takes time, only stupid people watch short games...


Kane

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 5:03:15 AM4/29/06
to

"Ben Gussey" <beng...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:44532975$0$21928$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...


Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
football.


Wog George

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 5:35:49 AM4/29/06
to

<Abh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
trolling, is the purpose of your post?

--
George
"If I was a towel, why would I be wearing this hat and this fake
moustache" - Steven McTowelie - 19 April 2006


Colin Kynoch

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 5:59:15 AM4/29/06
to
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:35:49 GMT, "Wog George"
<georgiopapa...@allgreek2me.com> decided that the world would

be a better place for knowing the following:

>


><Abh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Only 10 or so countries play cricket. It does not need athletic skill
>> like football. Even inzamam can play cricket. Cricket take more time
>> than any other game. Cricket is stupid game.
>>
>> Football is complete game.
>>
>
>Norway isn't one of the countries that plays cricket, so what, aside from
>trolling, is the purpose of your post?

That might come as a surprise to the reigning ECC Trophy winners

http://www.cricketeurope.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000006/000651.shtml

Colin Kynoch

Tids

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 6:08:59 AM4/29/06
to

<Abh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

A troll !

And so many took the bait.


Wog George

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 6:44:37 AM4/29/06
to

"Colin Kynoch" <colin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:csd652dpibmhhbrl3...@4ax.com...
My goodness! I sit corrected!! When does Gillespie get a crack at them??

Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 6:57:48 AM4/29/06
to
> It does not need athletic skill like football.
rofl, athletic skill. Any girl can kick a ball you fucken idiot, but I'd
like to see one hit a 6 off a ball delivered at over 150km/hr.

Mate you sound very bored, but then I guess I would be too if I watched a
game for 2 hours that ended in a 0-0 draw.


damnfine

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 7:10:38 AM4/29/06
to
"Ben Gussey" wrote:
> Soccer is football. It's not a matter of what the 'real' football is,
> soccer is the game where the foot is used.

And the head, and the chest, and potentially every other part of the body
except the arms.

Yeah, good argument.


> I hate people calling AFL, League and Union football when a lot of the
> game is played with the hands.

And I hate people referring to "AFL" as if it were the name of the sport.
The AFL is merely the foremost LEAGUE in the sport of Australian Rules
Football.

damnfine

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 7:12:24 AM4/29/06
to
"John Hall" wrote:
> "Soccer" was being called football before the other football codes were
> even thought of. "Soccer" is merely an abbreviation of "association
> football".

I'm aware of that, and I agree that "soccer" is a stupid word. That's why I
think it's a perfect name for the sport.

damnfine

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 7:11:29 AM4/29/06
to
"Kane" wrote:
> Can't stand soccer but I agree it is the only game that should be called
> football.

No, it should be called soccer at all times because it antagonises the
effete weirdos who play it and like it.

Gafoor

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 7:56:47 AM4/29/06
to

Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
whole nine yards.


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 8:05:24 AM4/29/06
to
> Yup. So much better to watch a game for 5 days that ended in
> a draw. If you want to watch a drawn game, it's better to go the
> whole nine yards.

You're forgetting that a draw in cricket still involves getting a SCORE!
not a 0-0 result.

Consider the Robo world cup - robots playing sport (ie. Aibo). They play
SOCCER because it is the simplest of all the major sports - yes, even robots
can be programmed to kick balls into goals, but there is no way robots could
play cricket because it is far more complex than soccer, whereas soccer is
essentially just kicking a ball which is why it's so popular - soccer balls
are cheap and anyone can play because its so easy, all you need is a friend
to kick the ball to. That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.

wisden

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 8:31:34 AM4/29/06
to

Dave Turner wrote:
>That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
> it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.

The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
cricket, mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
impart great fluidity to the game.

dougie

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 8:41:02 AM4/29/06
to

Incorrect. What they show is not skill. Shane Warne shows far more
skill than any Ronaldinho you can point at.

dougie

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 8:55:54 AM4/29/06
to

OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for. He's
probably the best for many decades at what is supposed to be one of
the hardest skills for a human being to master. That is to feel
something in your hands, to make it part of your hand, to let the very
fine receptors in your hand control the flight and movement of the
ball.

Football cannot possibly compete with the skill shown by your average
Warne. Sorry, it is not possible in human existence or human
possibility. Without the hands the sport is a joke. And I'm a
Dutchman. I was born in the Netherlands, I will watch every second of
World Cup 2006, all 64 games. But don't try to tell me football is all
about skill. The World Cup will be a cultural event, the whole world
will be watching, but don't kid yourself that it will tell you
anything. If Brazil wins ti yet again it won't tell y ou much more
than the Brazilians are the most useless people on the planet because
they abandoned their hands and started using their feet.

Colin Lord

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 8:58:27 AM4/29/06
to

"Colin Kynoch" <colin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kqa652ptaphsm8cbi...@4ax.com...

and goals aren't scored of headers, and players never uses the chests.

perhaps soccer should be renamed

Everything-except-the-arms-unless-you-are-the-goalie-in-which-case-arms-are-allowed-ball


David North

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 9:33:13 AM4/29/06
to
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:14OMcIDknyUEFwP$@jhall.demon.co.uk...

> In article <1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Abh...@gmail.com writes:
>>Only 10 or so countries play cricket.
>
> Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
> played in far more countries than that.

The ICC currently lists 96 members on its Web site.
--
David North
Email to this address will be deleted as spam
Use usenetATlaneHYPHENfarm.fsnet.co.uk


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 9:34:09 AM4/29/06
to

"wisden" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146313894....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>>That doesn't mean it's an interesting sport though -
>> it's simplicity is one of the reasons why it's so boring.
>
> The rules are simpler but the skill levels required to be successful at
> the highest level of the game are more than what is required in
> cricket
Define "skill" in soccer - putting spin on a ball? That's done in cricket
too. Don't get me wrong, I know it takes a lot of talent to become a
world-famous soccer player and talented soccer players can indeed do some
funky and skillful things, but I mean shit, there's only so much that can be
done in any given sport because of rules, and when it comes to soccer
basically all you can do is kick or headbutt the ball - _that's all!_, so
even if a soccer player is talented their talents are restricted by the
sport itself!

That's why soccer is usually the #1 choice for programmed sports (ie.
robots) - its rules and style of play are relatively easy to replicate with
computers/software/robots compared to other more complex sports. When you
break down each sport it's harder to find a more simpler game, although
tennis/ping-pong is also very similar in that respect - easy to recreate
programmatically due to the simplicity of the game.

> mainly because of greater competition. The simple rules also
> impart great fluidity to the game.

Fluidity? If you want to see a fluid game watch AFL where there are rules
that are designed to keep the game flowing. Granted, soccer is a lot more
fluid than many sports (it's a heck of a lot more fluid than say rugby or
grid iron for example) but I don't think soccer can boast about being overly
fluid, it's somewhere in the middle

What I also don't like about soccer is that it's a non-contact sport so it's
not as entertaining when you're watching it with your mates (imagine if
soccer had contact rules similar to AFL, it'd be much more entertaining) and
the amount of acting (staged dives etc) that goes on in soccer is just
ridiculous - no other sport suffers from so much acting


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 9:41:03 AM4/29/06
to

"David North" <dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4bh88nF...@individual.net...

> "John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:14OMcIDknyUEFwP$@jhall.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <1146297448.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Abh...@gmail.com writes:
>>>Only 10 or so countries play cricket.
>>
>> Not true. Only about ten countries play Test cricket, but the game is
>> played in far more countries than that.
>
> The ICC currently lists 96 members on its Web site.

not all soccer fans know how to google


wisden

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 9:52:14 AM4/29/06
to
dougie wrote:
>
> OK before you respond let me explain myself. imho Shane Warne is more
> skillful than Ronaldinho for the simple reason that the base instinct
> of your average human being is not to kick the thing, but to pick it
> up, feel it in your hands and see what it can be used for.

Soccer is not just about kicking a ball just as cricket is not just
about throwing or hitting a ball. Nobody can be good at soccer in even
school and collegiate level competitions unless they can *feel* a
soccer ball with their feet and every part of their body (except the
hands). Just as skills are needed to swing/spin a ball in cricket,
skills are needed to make a kicked ball swerve deceptively while
playing soccer. Rules in soccer maybe simple, however the game has
evolved to such an extent that only a combination of the finest
strategy and skills can win you a game at the competitive level.
Thinking on your feet as well as feeling with your feet (and every
other part of your body except your hands) is essential to master this
beautiful game.

Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 9:52:38 AM4/29/06
to
btw, here is the main goal of Robotcup, from www.robotcup.org:
By the year 2050, develop a team of fully autonomous humanoid robots that
can win against the human world soccer champions.

We're talking about software and robots here, so such an undertaking can
only be made against the most basic of sports like soccer and
tennis/ping-pong.

Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better than
humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
well as humans


wisden

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:08:49 AM4/29/06
to
Dave Turner wrote:
> Keep in mind that Honda have already created walking humanoid robots, and
> also keep Moore's Law in mind. Robots may soon be playing soccer better than
> humans, and that'll be a long time before they're ever playing cricket as
> well as humans.

Computers are already playing very well against chess champions. Honda
is probably not focussed on making robots that can match champion
cricketers because so few countries in the world play this game at the
highest level. However, super sports robots would have similar chances
of success against champion cricketers as they would have against
champion soccer players, IMO. What makes you think otherwise?

Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:16:35 AM4/29/06
to
> Computers are already playing very well against chess champions.
Chess isn't a sport. We're talking physical games here.

> Honda is probably not focussed on making robots that can match champion
> cricketers because so few countries in the world play this game at the
> highest level.

Honda isn't focused on sports robots. Aibo (the #1 robot when it comes to
soccer) is made by Sony, and is used by many artificial intelligence teams
around the world. Try Google and you'll see that they chose to use soccer
because it's one of the simplest field sports, which makes it ideal for
robots and software algorithms.

> However, super sports robots would have similar chances
> of success against champion cricketers

"Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot can
master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports -- Aibo can only play
soccer. Aibo is about as good as it gets at the moment as far as robots that
can play sports, and unfortunately Sony are no longer manufacturing Aibo.
Computers have finally beaten human brains in chess, but that's not sport.


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:26:55 AM4/29/06
to
btw Wikipedia has some good info about Deep Blue (the system that defeated
grandmaster Gary Kasparov)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue
It helps illustrate that systems are designed for a _specific purpose_ -- a
system designed to play soccer will never be any good at any other sport :)


wisden

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:29:43 AM4/29/06
to

Dave Turner wrote:
> "Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot can
> master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports
Not the same robot. One robot can have software, hardware and mechanics
specialized for cricket, another robot can have them specialized for
soccer. Please provide detailed reasoning about what would make cricket
more difficult to master than soccer.

Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 10:42:56 AM4/29/06
to

"wisden" <sam...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146320983.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Dave Turner wrote:
>> "Super sports robots"??? They don't exist yet, and just because a robot
>> can
>> master one sport doesn't mean it can master all sports
> Not the same robot. One robot can have software, hardware and mechanics
> specialized for cricket, another robot can have them specialized for
> soccer.
That's exactly what I've been saying - robots are specialised in one task
and one task only. In other words a robot is either made to play soccer, or
cricket, but not both.

> Please provide detailed reasoning about what would make cricket
> more difficult to master than soccer.

Cricket is far more complex in just about every aspect, especially when you
look at it from an algorithmic point of view. Aibo can compete in soccer
because it simply has to kick a ball around to its fellow Aibo robots,
identify where the goals are, and try to kick a goal. Cricket is far more
complex from a robots point of view. Consider the players - in soccer there
is essentially just two types of players - the two goalies and the other
players. All the players basically play the same game. That isn't the case
in cricket, where every single fielding position is unique, plus bowling is
unique, plus batting is unique, so that would require the development of
different types of robots, whereas soccer can get away with just having one
or two types of robots - they only use one type in the Robot world cup.

The bottom line - whether you prefer soccer or cricket is irrelevant, the
fact is soccer is a much more simple game, and that's reinforced by the fact
that soccer and tennis/ping-pong are the sports of choice when it comes to
programmers and robot designers - most games are still far beyond the realm
of robots. We won't see any robots attempting to compete in rugby any time
soon, for example.

Gerrit 't Hart

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 11:34:47 AM4/29/06
to

"dougie" <noe...@hotmail.scum> wrote in message
news:oin652hqeakm9k4g0...@4ax.com...

Brazil won't win.
The Netherlands will!!! :-)

Gerrit - also born in Holland


West Stand Bowler

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:09:14 PM4/29/06
to

"Dave Turner" <1@2.3> wrote in message news:4453469a$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...

> Mate you sound very bored, but then I guess I would be too if I watched a
> game for 2 hours that ended in a 0-0 draw.

Are you *this* Dave Turner ?

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/26042006/4/pics.html

--
WSB


wisden

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:13:41 PM4/29/06
to
Dave Turner wrote:
> That's exactly what I've been saying - robots are specialised in one task
> and one task only. In other words a robot is either made to play soccer, or
> cricket, but not both.
And when did I say that robots should not be specialized in different
tasks? When I used the term "super sports robots", I just meant robots
that would be very skilled in the sports they were designed to play and
was not suggesting that the same robot would be used to play two or
more different sports. You seem to have misunderstood my statement.
Sorry for not explaining explicitly what I had in mind, in my first
post in this regard.
However, I disagreed (and still disagree) that the software, hardware
and mechanics that will be needed to make champion cricket players will
be significantly more difficult to create than the same items required
to make champion soccer players. I feel for some tasks, it may be
simpler in cricket. Eg, when the task of the robot is bowling, he/she
just has to figure out how the batsman moves and find a way to slip the
ball past him/her or hit his/her pads). A robot can be made to bowl
accurately at over 100 mph (while mixing the bowling) and made to be a
real menace to batsman. Soccer players can use many feints to trip up a
robot. They can pretend that they will pass in one direction, turn
around and kick the ball somewhere else or decide not to kick at all at
the last fraction of a second.......

Aibo can compete in soccer
> because it simply has to kick a ball around to its fellow Aibo robots,
> identify where the goals are, and try to kick a goal.

But Aibo (or any future soccer playing robot) will not be playing in
vacuum. They will have to learn how to keep the ball in their
possession when challenged by human soccer players, how to snatch a
ball away, etc. Human players will be using many techniques to trap
(with either leg, chest, etc) and move a ball, employ feints while
dribbling, etc.

Cricket is far more
> complex from a robots point of view. Consider the players - in soccer there
> is essentially just two types of players - the two goalies and the other
> players. All the players basically play the same game.

In cricket, the same player does not bat or bowl at the same time.
Soccer involves running *with* and *without* the ball.

That isn't the case
> in cricket, where every single fielding position is unique, plus bowling is
> unique, plus batting is unique, so that would require the development of
> different types of robots, whereas soccer can get away with just having one
> or two types of robots - they only use one type in the Robot world cup.

In soccer, playing in the midfield is very different from playing as a
defender or a striker. The strategies of teams differ (how many
midfielders are employed, how many forwards and defenders are used,
whether a sweeper position will be employed or not, etc, etc), whether
short or long passes or a mix will be used. The robot has to understand
different dynamic situations at play in the field to be able to
successfully play against an opposition.

> The bottom line - whether you prefer soccer or cricket is irrelevant,

Agreed

the
> fact is soccer is a much more simple game,

A very strong NAY in this regard. As I said earlier, the rules of
soccer are simple. However, it will not be simpler for a soccer playing
robot to be able to successfully play against a champion human soccer
player.

I have a very strong suspicion that you are debating without
understanding the intricacies of soccer.

Gafoor

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:14:33 PM4/29/06
to

So what?

Computers do physics, chemistry, biology, math, nuclear science
& every other damn thing you can think of - does that mean that to
be a top person in these fields requires much less skill than
cricket?


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:16:00 PM4/29/06
to
If only my name was Dave, or Turner :) I would've used John Smith but
everyone else is using that


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:18:08 PM4/29/06
to
>> the
>> fact is soccer is a much more simple game,
> A very strong NAY in this regard.

Robot/software designers have already decided upon soccer as being the most
simply field sport to work with which simply reinforces the fact that soccer
is a far more simple game in every respect than just about any other sport.
If you argue with that statement you're arguing against the developers of
Sony's Aibo.

Gafoor

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:18:00 PM4/29/06
to

If you are interested in this topic, this book below is a fascinating
read
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691090653/104-0510302-3409554?n=283155
It's written by the chap who created Deep Blue.


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:27:36 PM4/29/06
to
> So what?
>
> Computers do physics, chemistry, biology, math, nuclear science
> & every other damn thing you can think of - does that mean that to
> be a top person in these fields requires much less skill than
> cricket?

wtf? you're going off on a bit of a tangent there mate.


Gafoor

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:39:32 PM4/29/06
to

It's rather stupid to decide what game needs how much
skills based on what is easier for a robot or computer.

I can look at a person & can probably identify him next
day if I see him again, irrespective of what he is
wearing, or what angle I see him from - I don't think this
requires some unusual skill for me. But I can't look at
a page of text once & recite it the next day word for
word - this would require enormous skill for me.

For a computer, the 2nd task is trivial & first one is
much more difficult.

Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:36:59 PM4/29/06
to
the book is an interesting read but it's not as technical as it could've
been, it's very generalised


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:45:30 PM4/29/06
to
> It's rather stupid to decide what game needs how much> skills based on
> what is easier for a robot or computer.
Actually it's a very good indication of how much complexity and skill is
required in a sport. Again, it's why scientists are using simple sports such
as soccer for their robots rather than complex sports -- there's no point
learning to run if you can't walk.

> I can look at a person & can probably identify him next
> day if I see him again, irrespective of what he is
> wearing, or what angle I see him from - I don't think this
> requires some unusual skill for me. But I can't look at
> a page of text once & recite it the next day word for
> word - this would require enormous skill for me.

What in the fuck does reciting text word-for-word have to do with sport ???

Gafoor

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 12:56:16 PM4/29/06
to

It's a very good indication of the fact that complexity & skill required
by a human for a task may have little ration to the complexity &
skill required for a computer/robot to do the same task.


Dave Turner

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 1:56:25 PM4/29/06
to
> It's a very good indication of the fact that complexity & skill required
> by a human for a task may have little ration to the complexity &
> skill required for a computer/robot to do the same task.

Actually you do make a very good point because some things that humans find
easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice versa), but that
doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot engineers (not me) have
chosen soccer because it is the simplest of all field sports, and that is a
fact you cannot argue against.


Gafoor

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 2:06:21 PM4/29/06
to

Maybe they have chosen it because it's the simplest of all field sports
to program & not neccessarily the simplest of all field sports for
humans to play.


wisden

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 2:26:26 PM4/29/06
to
Dave Turner wrote:
> Actually you do make a very good point because some things that humans find
> easy are still extremely difficult for robots (and vice versa), but that
> doesn't subtract from the fact that software/robot engineers (not me) have
> chosen soccer because it is the simplest of all field sports, and that is a
> fact you cannot argue against.

Probably the software engineers who started working on these projects
are from countries where cricket is hardly played and may not even know
that such a game exists or what its rules are. Please provide a link
that explains the rationale for choosing soccer; I would be interested
in knowing that. If simplicity was the only critereon, I would think
that they would pick some track event like running (100m
individual/relay sprint or marathon) or volleyball (where the ball can
be handled only 3 times in sequence by the same team). You are not
making a good case by not being able to provide convincing arguments
but reiterating that "but the software engineers are saying this and
that and whatever".

max.it

unread,
Apr 29, 2006, 5:25:42 PM4/29/06
to

Gaelic football is much better than normal football.
The all Ireland gaelic football final sees 80 000 fans in Croke park
Dublin, and millions more on tv.There are only around 4 million people
in (both parts) Ireland total. The GAA is a strict amateur
organisation. Every gaelic ground in Ireland is packed on a Sunday,
football, hurling, camogie
I might head off tomorrow to a cricket match, three premier matches
are in my area. There might be me and a few other people watching, and
I might head on to another match for a while, and I'll probably see
the same spectators at some stage, and I won't have to pay to get in.

Cricket ticket sales in Ireland wouldn't make 80 000 in years, let
alone on one day, and probably quite a few cricket games world wide
would never see 80 000 on the day.

max.it