Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Education Science

Deep Green - A Pool Playing Robot? 120

o0zi writes "A Canadian scientist has created another game-playing machine, designed for a far simpler purpose than chess: playing pool. The world's first pool-playing robot consists of a slim box that glides along tracks above a pool table, and shoots using a camera-guided cue. Deep Green pots only half the shots it plans for - supposedly the same as a below average player - but this is expected to improve."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deep Green - A Pool Playing Robot?

Comments Filter:
  • by danamania ( 540950 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @06:13AM (#9907663)
    A Canadian scientist has created another game-playing machine, designed for a far simpler purpose than chess: playing pool.

    Far simpler perhaps, in ways. The strategy behind a pool game might be easier compared to chess, but there's nothing physical in chess that needs simulating. That's a whole new ball game (ha!) for a computer/robot over a chess simulation.

    This looks up there with the research into teaching robots to walk, scale stairs & run. Good solid research sure, but I wouldn't go putting it down by comparing it to a chess simulation.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 07, 2004 @06:59AM (#9907776)
    Horizon is a documentary/science program in the UK, Silent Running is fiction.
  • Re:Simpler eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Insipid Trunculance ( 526362 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @08:02AM (#9907901) Homepage
    I agree with the parent.Sometimes a shot is played not to pot a ball but TO DENY IT TO YOUR OPPONENT.That why those soft touches to park the cue ball right where the other chap can't do a thing.

    Pool/Snooker are all about strategy.Any one, who watched the semifinals of this year's snooker championship when Ronnie O'Sullivan came back to win brilliantly,knows what I am talking about.

  • Re:Simpler eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @09:49AM (#9908173) Homepage
    I assume that "simpler" in this context means to find a winning set of (reasonably possible) shots. That is not really that hard, it is the skills to make the shots that is incredibly difficult.

    I suspect that the computer would do extremely well on a "perfect" board - single uniform friction coefficient, perfectly level, perfectly straight edges, perfectly chalked cue every time, perfectly accurate aiming mechanism and so on.

    The biggest challenge is to deal with the imperfections of the real world. If the computer could have a simple look-up table of input velocity, direction and magnitude of the english -> output velocity, direction and magnitude of the english (for edges and ball-ball contact) + some simple calculations of (potentially curved) lines, I think I could program up a quite good one fast.

    It'd do great in simulations, but still suck in the real world.

    Kjella
  • Re:Not so easy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Saturday August 07, 2004 @09:58AM (#9908214) Journal
    I played snooker at a fairly high level for a while (I could break over a 100 periodically) and regularly ran 40 to 70 point breaks.

    That said, I agree that the 'english', the spin placed on the ball will be a challenge. Especially if they wish to play on snooker tables as opposed to eight or nine ball tables. The correct cloth for a snooker table has a directional nap (kind of like the effect of velvet... if you brush it one way it raises up, the other way, it lays flat), while the cloth on an eight or nine ball table does not. Having a directional nap affects how the ball travels on the table depending on whether you are shooting up or down the table, or diaganally across. The nap is even on the cloth on the rails and affects how the ball 'throws' off the cushion. So the spin (siding, tops, bottoms, stun, etc.) probably challenges the programmers quite a bit. You can compute that reaction, but it will be different again when playing on the directionaless nap of an eight or nine ball table. And in either type, the age of the cloth will play a role in how the ball travels.

    Of course this can all be programmed in. But how difficult/interesting it will be. I would think it will be kind of like trying to program a robot to walk on two legs with the floor tilting every now and then. The robot has to dynamically compensate for environment as well as do the 'simple' mathimatical calculations of the angle of the shot... which is probably not so simple, simce they are trying to factor in 'position' as well. (Position: like playing shape, but thinking more than one ball ahead.)

    I wonder if they have figured out how it is to react when the competitor spills a beer on the table? Or tries to stiff you on the bet? Now those are some challenging environmental variables. :-)

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...