Einstein 2013

[Gregor]

Einstein discussion here.

33-469-1519(A) vs. 1678-148-862(C)

1241-1477-610(G) vs. 303-3476-1640(N)


Archimedes beats Curie in 2.

Galileo beats Newton in 3.


Galileo beats Archimedes in 3.

[Alex Cormier]

33-469-1519(A) vs. 1678-148-862(C)

1241-1477-610(G) vs. 303-3476-1640(N)


Archimedes beats Curie in 2.

Newton beats Galileo in 3.


Newton beats Archimedes in 3.

[Rob3653]

Archimedes beats Curie
Newton beats Galileo

Newton beats Archimedes in a rubber match

[Steven Donow]

Archimedes beats Curie in 2
Galileo beats Newton in 3

Archimedes beats Galileo in 2

[ehfeinberg]

Einstein discussion here.

33-469-1519(A) vs. 1678-148-862(C)

1241-1477-610(G) vs. 303-3476-1640(N)


Archimedes beats Curie in 2.

Galileo beats Newton in 3.


Galileo beats Archimedes in 3.

I think Archimedes tops Galileo. Archimedes has a 90 point auto, while Galileo is maxed out at 72. Galileo also has nothing to stop 1519 from lobbing discs down field for 33 to pick up. I feel Archimedes beats Galileo easily in 2.

And Newton could easily Galileo, but Archimedes could beat them too.

[bam-bam]

This has to be one of the most surprising Einsteins in a long time.

Aside from 33-469-1519, I don't think anyone was expecting the other three to pop out of nowhere.

33-469-1519(A) over 1678-148-862(C)
1241-1477-610(G) over 303-3476-1640(N), 3 matches (The odds just seem to be in Galileo's favor just a bit- otherwise it's a very even matchup).

33-469-1519 over 1241-1477-610

[MikeE]

Archimedes > Curie in 2

Newton > Galileo in 3

Archimedes > Newton in 3

[orangemoore]

I think:
C beats A in 3
N beats G in 3
C beats G in 2

Curie curse broken

*My team didn't make it to champs so this is just for fun*
(At one point I thought that 1114, 118 and 4039 would win it all but that can't happen)

[David Doerr]

Archimedes!

[Gregor]

Galileo also has nothing to stop 1519 from lobbing discs down field for 33 to pick up.

What was that? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=116432)

[Akash Rastogi]

Archimedes in 2 matches.

[Jay O'Donnell]

Archimedes over Curie in 2
Newton over Galileo in 3

Archimedes takes home gold in 3 matches

[Robby Unruh]

Galileo will win for the third year in a row.

A > C in 2
N < G in 3

G > A in 2

[ehfeinberg]

What was that? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=116432)

Completely forgot about the flower wall... Still, 1519 doesn't have to score, just get them to 33. I still think they will be able to pull it off.

[DsRandhawa3244]

Are there any 30 pt climbers on Einstein? I haven't been following most of the robots on their much.

[ehfeinberg]

Are there any 30 pt climbers on Einstein? I haven't been following most of the robots on their much.

I believe only 1640

[Steven Donow]

Are there any 30 pt climbers on Einstein? I haven't been following most of the robots on their much.

1640. 148 are a twenty+dump.

[dodar]

Archimedes beats Curie in 2
Galileo beats Newton in 3

Archimedes beats Galileo in 2

[Robby Unruh]

862 might be...

862 is a 10 point.

[mjustice66]

862 is a 10pt hanger.
A defeats C in 3
G defeats N in 2
469 33 1519 defeat 610 1477 1241 in 2 to be the new world champs.

[MisterJ]

Love to see two MAR teams represented on the Newton alliance, but they will be overmatched in the finals vs. Archimedes. Archimedes sweeps both rounds.

[ehfeinberg]

Einstein practice match? Are the robots actually driving?

[Steven Donow]

Einstein practice match? Are the robots actually driving?

Yup. This is in response to Einstein last year...I wish they let us see it :(

[sodizzle]

I think archimedes is going to pull out ahead... 469's ability to do everything well combines with 1519, a FCS which looks a bit too tall to be blocked, and with 33's amazing pickup, they can do everything but a 30 pt climb.

[J_Miles]

Archimedes wins four straight for 33's and 1519's first CMP and 469's second.

[PVCpirate]

Yup. This is in response to Einstein last year...I wish they let us see it :(

I don't think any of the teams will tip their strategy, just test all the mechanisms and code and drive around some. That's what I'd do.

[Robby Unruh]

I don't think any of the teams will tip their strategy, just test all the mechanisms and code and drive around some. That's what I'd do.

I can only see the red goals, but it looked like Archimedes was playing it hard. Almost overflowing with discs.

[Akash Rastogi]

I can only see the red goals, but it looked like Archimedes was playing it hard. Almost overflowing with discs.

Not surprised. 33, 469, and 1519 are very serious teams. Even practice matches help with intimidation.

[Rynocorn]

33-469-1519(A) vs. 1678-148-862(C)

1241-1477-610(G) vs. 303-3476-1640(N)


Archimedes beats Curie in 2.

Galileo beats Newton in 3.

Archimedes beats Galileo in 3.

(Thanks for letting me copy someones format :rolleyes: )

[dellagd]

I believe only 1640

Lets hope it actually continues to work. 1114's climber was MUCH more reliable and even it failed at the wrong time.

[Abhishek R]

33-469-1519(A) vs. 1678-148-862(C)

1241-1477-610(G) vs. 303-3476-1640(N)

Archimedes beats Curie in 2.

Galileo beats Newton in 2.

Galileo beats Archimedes in 3.

[CalTran]

Archie in straight twos. On a side note, the paper airplanes are getting bad...I've had to put on safety glasses in the stands.

[Bochek]

Just tuned into the webcast, I must say, I'm not very impressed with the quality, especially with the audio. None the less, I'm excited to watch these matches.

[ehfeinberg]

Just tuned into the webcast, I must say, I'm not very impressed with the quality, especially with the audio. None the less, I'm excited to watch these matches.

The NASA stream is a little better... (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ustream.html)

[EricLeifermann]

Who is going to stop both 469 and 1519 from FCS? Archimedes didn't. Curie and newton won't.

[Bochek]

The NASA stream is a little better... (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ustream.html)

I get no audio at all there.

Edit: NVM working now.

[Marc S.]

469 and 1519 are both full court shooters, 469 can shoot from all 3 feeder slots. 33 and 469 are both really good floor intake bot. On top of that, all 3 can hang first level. It's going to be tuff for anyone to beat them. Then again, being from the division I was in, I am biased. ;)

My predictions:

Archimedes (2) > Curie (0)

Galileo (1) < Newton (2)


Newton (0) < Archimedes (2)

[Robby Unruh]

Curie pulled out a win!! Totally unexpected.

[Steven Sigley]

And Curie crushed that first match...

[Luigi]

Cure beats Archimedes in 2

Galileo beats Newton in 3

Curie beats Galileo in 2

Upset city up in here!
#breakthecurse

[xraymypanda]

That Newton alliance! 254 points with only two robots operational. :eek: They will certainly make the final Einstein matches exciting!

[lcoreyl]

That Newton alliance! 254 points with only two robots operational. :eek: They will certainly make the final Einstein matches exciting!

How did that happen exactly? what was the point breakdown for 2 robots to do this?

[Steven Donow]

How did that happen exactly? what was the point breakdown for 2 robots to do this?

60 Auto score
164 Teleop score
30 climb points

[Gaurav27]

Via FRCFMS on Twitter:
@frcfms " #FRCCMP TY E MC 4 RF 254 BF 225 RA 3476 1640 303 BA 1241 610 1477 RC 30 BC 30 RFP 0 BFP 0 RAS 60 BAS 54 RTS 164 BTS 141

Galileo had ~13 /14 (156-168 pts) cycles combined, I'm sure Newton did not score 7 cycles / robot (84 points each between 303 & 3476).

[Steven Sigley]

Archimedes over Newton.

Full Court Shooting prevails

[JackN]

Feels like Deja Vu from 2007 for some reason, I think Newton wins in three.

[dellagd]

Via FRCFMS on Twitter:
@frcfms " #FRCCMP TY E MC 4 RF 254 BF 225 RA 3476 1640 303 BA 1241 610 1477 RC 30 BC 30 RFP 0 BFP 0 RAS 60 BAS 54 RTS 164 BTS 141

Galileo had ~13 /14 (156-168 pts) cycles combined, I'm sure Newton did not score 7 cycles / robot (84 points each between 303 & 3476).

Link (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268056&postcount=146) to my post on another thread

I totally agree, it doesnt add up.

But if it is wrong, can Galileo do about it now?

EDIT: They re-scored it and Galileo won. Math prevails. Actual score is Red: 200 Blue: 225 (Waiting for it)

[Steven Sigley]

oh my..... replay of Newton and Galileo...

[Marc S.]

Galileo beat Newton in SF2-2. Now playing match 3. Actual score unknown.

[Gregor]

SF 2-2 was 225 to 200 for Galileo.

[Brandon_L]

oh my..... replay of Newton and Galileo...

It wasn't a replay, it was match 3.

Galileo beat Newton in SF2-2. Now playing match 3. Actual score unknown.

My question is, where did they get the score from? The field has been cleared and there was a match inbetween. In all fairness, the second match should have been replayed.

Side note, this is Einstein. If we can hand count at Hatboro why can't we hand count at Einstein?

[Brandon_L]

They definitely had to have hand counted, but the question is how they got it SO WRONG, and how they got one side right, but one side wrong.

Heard from a few places that they weren't. Can't confirm though.

At least at the events I've been to, there were different volunteer groups scoring each side.

Also, how were they able to verify the right score, as well as verify that the (real) score was right?

My point exactly

[Grim Tuesday]

I am watching Einstein from far above and they are definitely hand counting.

[Kaushal.K]

My question is, where did they get the score from? The field has been cleared and there was a match inbetween. In all fairness, the second match should have been replayed.


Disc scored are always counted by hand. Especially in elimination matches. I doubt Einstein is done any differently. Also after each goal is counted, the number of discs are recorded.

Thus a recount is not always required, if it's merely an input error on the system to confirm the number of discs vs how many the real time scoring system shows.

[Brandon_L]

Disc scored are always counted by hand. Especially in elimination matches. I doubt Einstein is done any difference. Also after each goal is counted, the number of discs are recorded.

Thus a recount is not always required, if it's merely an input error on the system to confirm the number of discs vs how many the real time scoring system shows.

Makes sense.

http://i39.tinypic.com/33c0hna.png

Safety FIRST, folks

[MrForbes]

Go Galileo!!!

[Steven Sigley]

Very competitive on Einstein. :D

One more match:

Winner takes all.

[Joe Ross]

http://i39.tinypic.com/33c0hna.png

That was Dave's best impression of 842's climb

[Joe Ross]

Talk about evenly matched, 33 469 1519 have scored 395 and 1241 1477 610 have scored 394.

[EricH]

Einstein discussion here.

33-469-1519(A) vs. 1678-148-862(C)

1241-1477-610(G) vs. 303-3476-1640(N)


Archimedes beats Curie in 2.

Galileo beats Newton in 3.


Galileo beats Archimedes in 3.

Prophetic. The only thing missing on this was the Archimedes/Curie matchup going to 3 instead of 2.

[AaronLeondar]

And Galileo takes it for the third year in a row!

[Gregor]

Congratulations to our 2013 World Champions, Team 1241, Team 1477, and Team 610!

[Akash Rastogi]

Amazing performances by all.

1477 <3

[Abhishek R]

1477 <3

1477 <3 here too.

[ENeyman]

I'm a little confused. Didn't Newton beat Galileo in the first two matches. Why did it go to a third?

On that note, where can I find the Einstein match results? (My phone died during semis.)

[Akash Rastogi]

I'm a little confused. Didn't Newton beat Galileo in the first two matches. Why did it go to a third?

On that note, where can I find the Einstein match results? (My phone died during semis.)

the 2nd match's score was falsely reported. It was corrected and it went to a third match. Galileo won the 3rd match. You missed a lot of anxiety Emmett!

[Steven Donow]

I'm a little confused. Didn't Newton beat Galileo in the first two matches. Why did it go to a third?

On that note, where can I find the Einstein match results? (My phone died during semis.)

They miscalculated the score of that match, Galileo actually won, so they went to the third match where Galileo beat Newton.

[EricH]

I'm a little confused. Didn't Newton beat Galileo in the first two matches. Why did it go to a third?

Here's what you missed:

SF2-2 was ruled to have been miscounted (254 points being rather a high score when you only have two operational robots), with Galileo actually winning with the announced score and Newton having a smaller score (though not by much, I think it was around 200 points).

SF2-3 was then played and Galileo cleanly won (the only match where all 6 robots were functional the entire time, though none of the shutdowns appeared to be due to field issues).

Galileo then lost F-1 before winning F-2 and F-3.

[Abhishek R]

I was amazed at how two teams were able to put 254 points up in that match, confused me for a bit...however, no one made it easy for these guys to win, a rubber match in every single round? And they had to battle all kinds of bots, from 30/50 point climbers to full-court shooters. Very impressive, well-rounded alliance.

[Siri]

It wasn't a replay, it was match 3.



My question is, where did they get the score from? The field has been cleared and there was a match inbetween. In all fairness, the second match should have been replayed.

Side note, this is Einstein. If we can hand count at Hatboro why can't we hand count at Einstein?Yes, they did indeed hand count directly after our match. The error wasn't in counting but in adding.

Frank explained it to us personally during finals. They put those baskets up, raise the center of the goal to empty the discs, and then count each basket separately (subtract auton discs later). The two baskets for us were 20 and 26, but instead of writing 46 the scorer inverted it and wrote 64. They didn't recount the discs (because they didn't find it until way later...ouch), Frank just showed us the physical paper on which they'd scribbled:

20
26
64

It hurt (a lot more than it would have otherwise), but there was no doubt and no legal reason to replay. Of course, explaining that to crying students is another issue :(

Galileo deserved it though. They were both fair wins, and personally couldn't think of a better alliance to lose to. Everyone was very gracious. Congratulations, guys!

[610.Dad]

Wow! What an incredible accomplishment for these young people! I watched my own son, with great fatherly pride, assume a lead role in his senior year in what is basically another Grade 12 course without the credit! FIRST played a big role in his choice of Engineering for his undergrad work next year, and to have everything come together for 610 like this in their school's 100th anniversary year, is amazing!

Hats off to all the boys, the amazing mentors and teachers including Mr. Lim and everyone who had a hand in this incredible experience.

And of course, congratulations to every young person who made some great memories today, and the adults who supported them in their pursuits.

Well done.

[Justin Shelley]

This was an amazing competition and most of the major powershouse teams didn't make it to Einstein!! What do you guys think of FIRST using video recording to overturn a call?

[Gregor]

This was an amazing competition and most of the major powershouse teams didn't make it to Einstein!! What do you guys think of FIRST using video recording to overturn a call?

Please quote a source here, because that's not what happened.

[Justin Shelley]

Please quote a source here, because that's not what happened.


When it was originally determined that Newton beat Galileo in the second match and therefore put Newton in the finals. This was overturned because of a disc mis-count that was proved by reviewing video from the match and allowed Galileo to beat Newton in the third match therefore advancing to the Einstein Finals.

[Gregor]

When it was originally determined that Newton beat Galileo in the second match and therefore put Newton in the finals. This was overturned because of a disc mis-count that was proved by reviewing video from the match and allowed Galileo to beat Newton in the third match therefore advancing to the Einstein Finals.

Oh really?

Yes, they did indeed hand count directly after our match. The error wasn't in counting but in adding.

Frank explained it to us personally during finals. They put those baskets up, raise the center of the goal to empty the discs, and then count each basket separately (subtract auton discs later). The two baskets for us were 20 and 26, but instead of writing 46 the scorer inverted it and wrote 64. They didn't recount the discs (because they didn't find it until way later...ouch), Frank just showed us the physical paper on which they'd scribbled:

20
26
64

It hurt (a lot more than it would have otherwise), but there was no doubt and no legal reason to replay. Of course, explaining that to crying students is another issue :(

Galileo deserved it though. They were both fair wins, and personally couldn't think of a better alliance to lose to. Everyone was very gracious. Congratulations, guys!

[Walter Deitzler]

Edit:: Gregor beat me too it.

When it was originally determined that Newton beat Galileo in the second match and therefore put Newton in the finals. This was overturned because of a disc mis-count that was proved by reviewing video from the match and allowed Galileo to beat Newton in the third match therefore advancing to the Einstein Finals.

Not quite.

Yes, they did indeed hand count directly after our match. The error wasn't in counting but in adding.

Frank explained it to us personally during finals. They put those baskets up, raise the center of the goal to empty the discs, and then count each basket separately (subtract auton discs later). The two baskets for us were 20 and 26, but instead of writing 46 the scorer inverted it and wrote 64. They didn't recount the discs (because they didn't find it until way later...ouch), Frank just showed us the physical paper on which they'd scribbled:

20
26
64

It hurt (a lot more than it would have otherwise), but there was no doubt and no legal reason to replay. Of course, explaining that to crying students is another issue :(

Galileo deserved it though. They were both fair wins, and personally couldn't think of a better alliance to lose to. Everyone was very gracious. Congratulations, guys!

In other news, awesome job 610, 1477, and 1241, you guys were AWESOME and most definitely deserved the win. These are the best finals I have seen in my time in FIRST. (And don't even get me started on Galileo eliminations, those were intense!)

[Justin Shelley]

Oh really?

I was relaying what my mentor told me and he was a volunteer sitting right off the field. Perhaps they used the video to bring it to the attention of the staff of the error. Perhaps not, but my mentor usually never assumes things so i'm pretty inclined to believe there was a video used somewhere to help get the point across. He told me of the 18 disc error

[Gregor]

Perhaps they used the video to bring it to the attention of the staff of the error.error

If they did they shouldn't have.

5.5.3
The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.

[Abhishek R]

Referees wouldn't watch video at our regionals either, when we tried to show them video of missed fouls and miscounted matches, they wouldn't watch it, as that is the rule. However, on the biggest stage of FRC, there was reason to believe that with only two active robots, there may have been a miscount in the number of points scored. I wouldn't want to mess up on Einstein.

[Gregor]

Referees wouldn't watch video at our regionals either, when we tried to show them video of missed fouls and miscounted matches, they wouldn't watch it, as that is the rule. However, on the biggest stage of FRC, there was reason to believe that with only two active robots, there may have been a miscount in the number of points scored. I wouldn't want to mess up on Einstein.

Agreed, the total was clearly off, and having a pre-college student addressing that is the correct course of action, as shown in section 5.3.3.

The Head Referee can then do what they please, (including consulting FIRST personel), but they may not review video under any circumstance. Doesn't matter if it's the lowest scoring regional, or FIRST's biggest stage, under no circumstances is pretty clear.

The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff.

[Basel A]

Oh really?

Yeah, Siri's post really doesn't address how the score/count/addition was pointed out to be incorrect. I would have guessed that it was simply an "oh duh" moment for whoever did the additions, but that's just speculation. Could have been something else, including reviewing match video. As for whether or not they should have reviewed video, the rules are pretty clear. On the other hand, I prefer a fair outcome (breaking rules optional). Especially when I'm not a fan of the rule (should ban 3rd party video, rather than any video at all).

I'm guessing we'll get a thorough explanation from Frank sometime in the next few days (once everything cools down).

[dcarr]

I'm guessing we'll get a thorough explanation from Frank sometime in the next few days (once everything cools down).

I hope so. Frank has been very forthcoming thus far. On the bright side, this is far from the debacle last year. Honest mistakes happen. Although, at a competition focused on inspiring students in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, a basic arithmetic error (if that's what it was) is not particularly inspiring. The important thing is that the lessons that can be learned, are learned, and the appropriate safeguards are put in place for the future.

[DCA Fan]

Siri's account is correct. It was a simple dyslexia/miscommunication error that was noticed and corrected. No replay video was used in the decision.

[DampRobot]

Can I give a big shout out to 1678? First, it's cool to see a Cali team make it to the highest stage at world champs, but the Citrus Circuits are truly inspirational in additional ways. They went from virtually unknown a few years ago to being extremely competitive for all of the last three years (dare I say, powerhouse?). Their robot might not look as clean and professional as a 254 or 148 bot, but it's nevertheless very high performance. 1678 is a testament to what awesome prototyping, driver practice, and good old fashioned hard work can do.

[Ryan Dognaux]

I just wanted to recognize 303, 3476 & 1640 for playing an amazing strategy on Newton and onto Einstein. 3476's floor pickup was some of the best I've seen all year. 303's full court shooting was top notch and 1640's ability to go from collecting discs and shooting to playing defense at the drop of a hat was great to watch, and that 30 point climb absolutely gave you the edge.

I know it's going to take some time to get over the scoring mistakes made on Einstein, but be proud of how far you went this year. You all surprised everyone and I think you had the entire stadium rooting for you in the Newton finals.

I was hoping to see MAR vs. Michigan play out on the biggest stage and for a second there it almost happened.

We really, really have to make sure that this kind of stuff doesn't happen again next year. Two years running Einstein ran less than spectacular, for different reasons, but to me it didn't feel like Einstein until the final matches because of this scoring goof.

[TylerS]

I just wanted to recognize 303, 3476 & 1640 for playing an amazing strategy on Newton and onto Einstein. 3476's floor pickup was some of the best I've seen all year. 303's full court shooting was top notch and 1640's ability to go from collecting discs and shooting to playing defense at the drop of a hat was great to watch, and that 30 point climb absolutely gave you the edge.

I know it's going to take some time to get over the scoring mistakes made on Einstein, but be proud of how far you went this year. You all surprised everyone and I think you had the entire stadium rooting for you in the Newton finals.

I was hoping to see MAR vs. Michigan play out on the biggest stage and for a second there it almost happened.

We really, really have to make sure that this kind of stuff doesn't happen again next year. Two years running Einstein ran less than spectacular, for different reasons, but to me it didn't feel like Einstein until the final matches because of this scoring goof.

Thanks it means a lot to hear that especially from someone just pointing it out on the internet.

[Nick Lawrence]

Wow, simply wow. I have a million and one stories to share of this weekend, but I'm going to need a couple days to process the whirlwind that this weekend was. I'm so proud of our students and mentors alike, for never giving up in the face of adversity every step of the way. Thank you as well to our partners 1241 and 1477 for making this dream a reality. And thank you as well to 469, 33 and 1519. I couldn't have asked for a better group of teams to compete against in the big show.

Threedom for life.

-Nick

[WhoRWe]

As a member of 303, I'd like to congratulate the Champions, 1241-1477-610, who are some of the best robots to play on Einstein. This alliance definitely deserved the victory in match 2 and 3 of the semifinals. While the way match 2 was handled definitely was disappointing, there was no need for a reset of the match, only the scoring was incorrect.

Overall, the experience of the entire competition was amazing. Making it to Einstein with 3476 and 1640 (who I cannot thank enough), was absolutely the greatest moment in 303 history.

I can only hope that next year can be just as (or even more) amazing than this year!

[VioletElizabeth]

Can I give a big shout out to 1678? First, it's cool to see a Cali team make it to the highest stage at world champs, but the Citrus Circuits are truly inspirational in additional ways. They went from virtually unknown a few years ago to being extremely competitive for all of the last three years (dare I say, powerhouse?). Their robot might not look as clean and professional as a 254 or 148 bot, but it's nevertheless very high performance. 1678 is a testament to what awesome prototyping, driver practice, and good old fashioned hard work can do.

I second that shout out!

Their robot was my favorite at Davis last year, simply because it looked like a signboard but shot so perfectly. It was amazing this year to see their 7disk autonomous on Einstein. Also, it was really nice talking to their mentor.

[Grim Tuesday]

Special shout out to Jondarr Bradshaw, the best announcer in FIRST. I'm glad they let him announce on Einstein this year, he really has an amazing voice.

I think all the congratulations have already been said. One word about the alliances that made it to Einstein and have in previous years:

They were true alliances.

Other alliances may have had the best robots but it seems to me that the ones that win Einstein are composed of not just two of the very best and a good one but a true power team as the third bot. How 610, 1519, 862, 1640 fell to the second round is stupendous.

It's interesting to take a look at the pedigree of each of the Einstein bots and where they were in the draft:

Archimedes 2nd alliance: 33 (3 districts), 469 (3 districts and MSC), 1519 (1 regional) (1 State Championship, 6 districts, 1 regional)

Curie 1st alliance: 1678 (1 regional, 148 (2 regionals), 862 (2 districts) (2 districts, 3 regionals)

Newton 3rd alliance: 303 (no wins), 3476 (no wins), 1640 (MAR cmp as 16th pick) (1 Region Championship)

Galileo 5th alliance: 1241 (no wins), 1477 (1 win [almost didn't qualify]), 610 (1 win) (2 regional wins)

The combined OPR pre-championship of each alliance using best OPR was [in order of pick]:
Archimedes: 74+92+64= 230
Curie: 46+71+68= 185
Newton: 47+50+43= 140
Galileo: 55+77+63= 195

So Archimedes was highly favored to win but Galileo was close enough. Also note how in none of the alliances did the alliance captain have the best OPR prior to Championships.

[NXTGeek]

Special shout out to Jondarr Bradshaw, the best announcer in FIRST. I'm glad they let him announce on Einstein this year, he really has an amazing voice.

I think all the congratulations have already been said. One word about the alliances that made it to Einstein and have in previous years:

They were true alliances.

Other alliances may have had the best robots but it seems to me that the ones that win Einstein are composed of not just two of the very best and a good one but a true power team as the third bot. How 610, 1519, 862, 1640 fell to the second round is stupendous.

It's interesting to take a look at the pedigree of each of the Einstein bots and where they were in the draft:

Archimedes 2nd alliance: 33 (3 districts), 469 (3 districts and MSC), 1519 (1 regional) (1 State Championship, 6 districts, 1 regional)

Curie 1st alliance: 1678 (1 regional, 148 (2 regionals), 862 (2 districts) (2 districts, 3 regionals)

Newton 3rd alliance: 303 (no wins), 3476 (no wins), 1640 (MAR cmp as 16th pick) (1 Region Championship)

Galileo 5th alliance: 1241 (no wins), 1477 (1 win [almost didn't qualify]), 610 (1 win) (2 regional wins)

The combined OPR pre-championship of each alliance using best OPR was [in order of pick]:
Archimedes: 74+92+64= 230
Curie: 46+71+68= 185
Newton: 47+50+43= 140
Galileo: 55+77+63= 195

So Archimedes was highly favored to win but Galileo was close enough. Also note how in none of the alliances did the alliance captain have the best OPR prior to Championships.

Sorry, but quoting the pre-champ OPR for judgement of each alliance...

[Abhishek R]

The teamwork required to synchronize trips to and from the feeder station with three cyclers still astounds me. The rotation of defense was perfect, this was a strategy not expected (no true defender to block an FCS, as 610 never used their blocker and 1477 was just raising their shooter). Then the attempts to sut down 1114's climb (unfortunately got several foul points in the first match, but at least they recognized the threat). How 610 dropped that low in the draft, I have no idea but that just sealed the deal to gt three amazing bots like themselves on the same alliance. I wonder how IRI will turn out to be...

[Grim Tuesday]

Sorry, but quoting the pre-champ OPR for judgement of each alliance...

Oh I in no way believe it to be a reliable indicator of who should have won once they hit Einstein. Purely from a 'who could have predicted this!' standpoint, I think they are just interesting numbers and directly comparable to team performance in the regional/district season.

Especially in the case of Code Orange, I have no doubt that their pre-cmp OPR was highly unrepresentative of their actual performance.

[Abhishek R]

Sorry, but quoting the pre-champ OPR for judgement of each alliance...

Using the OPR's recorded in the FRC Tracker app (This is all from CMP), I got the following total combined OPR's for each Einstein alliance:

Archimedes: 179.9

Curie: 189.9

Galileo: 146.7

Newton: 185.9

Obviously, OPR told us nothing about anything at all, as usual.

[DampRobot]

Using the OPR's recorded in the FRC Tracker app (This is all from CMP), I got the following total combined OPR's for each Einstein alliance:

Archimedes: 179.9

Curie: 189.9

Galileo: 146.7

Newton: 185.9

Obviously, OPR told us nothing about anything at all, as usual.

Except, that all of the teams on Einstien are excellent, and that it really was anyone's game.

[Jonathan Norris]

Using the OPR's recorded in the FRC Tracker app (This is all from CMP), I got the following total combined OPR's for each Einstein alliance:

Archimedes: 179.9

Curie: 189.9

Galileo: 146.7

Newton: 185.9

Obviously, OPR told us nothing about anything at all, as usual.

I believe our alliance had the 4th lowest combined Champs OPR of all created Alliances... I think that tells you that scouting is alot more then just stats, strategy is just as important.

Now to try and put my thoughts together on this weekend...

[themccannman]

Except, that all of the teams on Einstien are excellent, and that it really was anyone's game.
It really was, that was the most exciting battle on Einstein I've ever heard of.
I believe our alliance had the 4th lowest combined Champs OPR of all created Alliances... I think that tells you that scouting is alot more then just stats, strategy is just as important.

Now to try and put my thoughts together on this weekend...

Very true, I could not believe that you 3 ended up on the same alliance, every one of your robots was amazing at everything it did, you all ran cycles at break-neck speed and had incredible scoring consistency, you guys had one heck of an alliance.

[hionwind]

Thanks team 100 for the shout out. In our early days, you were an inspiration to us and we still have a very high regard for your team. It was a great honor for our team to be able to compete on Einstein and also to be joined by such class teams as 148 and 862. We look forward to seeing you guys at Cal Games.

[chantal68]

Sorry, what is a rubber match?

I was amazed at how two teams were able to put 254 points up in that match, confused me for a bit...however, no one made it easy for these guys to win, a rubber match in every single round? And they had to battle all kinds of bots, from 30/50 point climbers to full-court shooters. Very impressive, well-rounded alliance.

[vhcook]

Sorry, what is a rubber match?

It's the deciding match when the series is tied (in our case, the third match of an eliminations pairing). The term actually comes from a card game called bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bridge).

[chantal68]

I appreciate the explanation. My concern with this is the psychological boon to G and bust to N. That makes a difference even though it's virtually impossible to calculate and certainly had to affect the 3rd match.

I can accept the possibility of human error, however it goes back to the whole issue of the difficulty of scoring this year. It's been problematic from the start and I hope that FIRST will work hard to improve a scoring method for whatever next year's game turns out to be.

Yes, they did indeed hand count directly after our match. The error wasn't in counting but in adding.

Frank explained it to us personally during finals. They put those baskets up, raise the center of the goal to empty the discs, and then count each basket separately (subtract auton discs later). The two baskets for us were 20 and 26, but instead of writing 46 the scorer inverted it and wrote 64. They didn't recount the discs (because they didn't find it until way later...ouch), Frank just showed us the physical paper on which they'd scribbled:

20
26
64

It hurt (a lot more than it would have otherwise), but there was no doubt and no legal reason to replay. Of course, explaining that to crying students is another issue :(

Galileo deserved it though. They were both fair wins, and personally couldn't think of a better alliance to lose to. Everyone was very gracious. Congratulations, guys!

[chantal68]

Ha, yes! Is there a like button for this post?

I hope so. Frank has been very forthcoming thus far. On the bright side, this is far from the debacle last year. Honest mistakes happen. Although, at a competition focused on inspiring students in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, a basic arithmetic error (if that's what it was) is not particularly inspiring. The important thing is that the lessons that can be learned, are learned, and the appropriate safeguards are put in place for the future.

[chantal68]

Thank you!

It's the deciding match when the series is tied (in our case, the third match of an eliminations pairing). The term actually comes from a card game called bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bridge).

[hunterteam3476]

It wasn't a replay, it was match 3.



My question is, where did they get the score from? The field has been cleared and there was a match inbetween. In all fairness, the second match should have been replayed.

Side note, this is Einstein. If we can hand count at Hatboro why can't we hand count at Einstein?

Thank you. we tried and tried to ask where they were getting the score from and they would not give it to us. To me the fair thing would have been to have a re-match. because the scores do not add up

[Akash Rastogi]

Thank you. we tried and tried to ask where they were getting the score from and they would not give it to us. To me the fair thing would have been to have a re-match. because the scores do not add up

There would be no replay. It was a mathematical error.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268164&postcount=70

[Citrus Dad]

Using the OPR's recorded in the FRC Tracker app (This is all from CMP), I got the following total combined OPR's for each Einstein alliance:

Archimedes: 179.9

Curie: 189.9

Galileo: 146.7

Newton: 185.9

Obviously, OPR told us nothing about anything at all, as usual.

While the OPRs from the individual divisions may not have been useful, probably because of differences in division-wide strategies (e.g. whether there are FCSs), the OPRs are very useful in predicting matches within divisions. I haven't checked our results yet, but it looks like our match predictions in Curie were correct in 80% of the matches. That's statistically well beyond significantly different from pure chance.

Also, OPRs are very useful when drawn from a common pool such as a regional or division. Using direct quantitative statistics in our two regionals, we were able to predict the winners of 6 of 7 elimination rounds in both regionals. The only exceptions were 1) the 4 vs 5 round (obviously expected to be the closest most unpredictable) and 2) when the top alliance suffered a mechanical failure for two matches.

Anyone who ignores the predictive power of OPR or other statistics does so at their own peril.

[Clem1640]

I appreciate the explanation. My concern with this is the psychological boon to G and bust to N. That makes a difference even though it's virtually impossible to calculate and certainly had to affect the 3rd match.

I can accept the possibility of human error, however it goes back to the whole issue of the difficulty of scoring this year. It's been problematic from the start and I hope that FIRST will work hard to improve a scoring method for whatever next year's game turns out to be.

The psychological effect was pretty darned significant. In a moment, we went from finalist with robot on the field and ready to a tied semi-finalist. It was a rude change.

That said, what was done was fair and right. Shocking as it was, I cannot complain about the outcome.

Congratulations to Galileo champions 1241, 610 & 1477. You earned this!

[dcarr]

Ha, yes! Is there a like button for this post?

lol, It's called the reputation button.

When it comes to totalling scores with manual scoring, in the future it wouldn't hurt to have a few folks check it by hand and by calculator. The audience can deal with another loop of cupid shuffle (or insert the sponsor speeches into the time slots used for totalling scores, as others have suggested).

[George A.]

The psychological effect was pretty darned significant. In a moment, we went from finalist with robot on the field and ready to a tied semi-finalist. It was a rude change.

That said, what was done was fair and right. Shocking as it was, I cannot complain about the outcome.

Congratulations to Galileo champions 1241, 610 & 1477. You earned this!

Speaking with the drive team this was one of the hardest obstacles to overcome. The fact that it took so long to get it right (speeches, more awards, another semifinal match, and waiting for the scores from that match) a good amount of time had passed. We were strategizing and psyching up to play Archimedes (the robots even had our blue bumpers on them) when all of a sudden it was "hold on gotta play one more".

It's not an easy task just switching on the fly like that and in the end we were out played. Congrats to the champions i a well earned victory!

(It's the first time in recent memory that ALL the Einstein rounds went 3 rounds)

[Joe J.]

I never really though I'd be posting in the Einstein thread as a participant! This was the most amazing competition experience I have had in my FRC career. It was truly an honor to get to play on Einstein representing the Curie Division and Michigan. This was Lightning Robotics' 9th trip to the Championship since 2000 and our first time in the Championship eliminations since 2002 (second time ever) and the first time ever advancing beyond the quarterfinals.

Thank you again to our alliance partners 1678 Citrus Circuits and 148 Robowranglers! All my comments in the Curie thread apply here as well, you are two truly amazing teams and it was an honor competing with you!

33 you built an absolutely unstoppable machine. You guys are another team that I have been in awe of for years. You beat us in the quarterfinals as MSC and again on Einstein, you guys were truly powerful competitors! See you guys in the off season!

469 yet another team I've been in awe of for years. Your machine is truly scary cycler, FCS, floor pick up you guys could do it all when it came to scoring discs! It was an amazing to be able to compete against you guys and 33 on Einstein you guys showed the true power of Michigan teams.

1519 you guys and 469 duel full court shooting kept our hands full in our first match, great job on changing it up in matches 2 & 3

Congratulations to 3476, 303 and 1640 on making it to Einstein I didn't get to see much of your matches but what I did see I was really impressed. 1640 way to be the last 30 point climber standing!

Thank you to all the volunteers and FIRST staff that worked so hard to make Einstein such a memorable experience!

Congratulations to 1241 610 and 1477 on winning the FRC World Championship very well deserved!

[DMetalKong]

While the OPRs from the individual divisions may not have been useful, probably because of differences in division-wide strategies (e.g. whether there are FCSs), the OPRs are very useful in predicting matches within divisions. I haven't checked our results yet, but it looks like our match predictions in Curie were correct in 80% of the matches. That's statistically well beyond significantly different from pure chance.

Also, OPRs are very useful when drawn from a common pool such as a regional or division. Using direct quantitative statistics in our two regionals, we were able to predict the winners of 6 of 7 elimination rounds in both regionals. The only exceptions were 1) the 4 vs 5 round (obviously expected to be the closest most unpredictable) and 2) when the top alliance suffered a mechanical failure for two matches.

Anyone who ignores the predictive power of OPR or other statistics does so at their own peril.

Emphasis mine.

One issue that I experienced when a teammate and I put together an OPR tracker for competitions was that while OPR was very good at "predicting" the outcome of matches that were already measured, it was not as powerful for predicting future matches. We attributed this to the fact that a) the performance of a alliance depends on more than the performance of the individual robots and b) alliances may fare wildly differently when facing different strategies from the opposing side.

[Moriarty]

Ha, yes! Is there a like button for this post?

I would say not. Yes they made a mistake. Yes it was bad. However, remember that volunteers are humans too. I was working Einstein and worked with the person who made the mistake. The guilt they felt was tremendous and I can not imagine how sad/angry they felt because of their mistake. Comments attacking the person for an honest mistake in my opinion, is not appropriate. Any comments about the incident should focus on how we can seek to reduce the chance of human error by learning from the experience and creating safeguards (greater checking at all stages of score calculation), not from making someone feel worse about something they already feel horrible about.

From the Einstein field crew I extend apologies to the alliance because of the mistake, and I do not seek to make light of the situation, only to redirect criticism to the process, not to the person.

EDIT: Saw dcarr's comment about rechecking with calculators and such. Thanks for directing the remarks at the process not the person.

[Grim Tuesday]

Emphasis mine.

One issue that I experienced when a teammate and I put together an OPR tracker for competitions was that while OPR was very good at "predicting" the outcome of matches that were already measured, it was not as powerful for predicting future matches. We attributed this to the fact that a) the performance of a alliance depends on more than the performance of the individual robots and b) alliances may fare wildly differently when facing different strategies from the opposing side.

I would sure hope OPR is good at predicting matches from the dataset it took its data from, that's kinda the point.

[Citrus Dad]

As the scouting mentor for 1678, I would like to commend that amazing achievements of our team. Our robot performed consistently, but even when there were problems, the pit crew acted quickly and efficiently and the drive team demonstrated that it was one of the most adaptable and strategic teams on the field. Our scouting team provided reliable steady information that was absolutely key to both on field strategy (we called it the "BS Sniffer" for alliance discussions) and alliance selection.

The real time scouting system was truly amazing. I simply highlighted what data we should collect (based on statistical analysis) and working with the drive team, we chose what data should be displayed. The team's programmers implemented the entire system from the Android, iPhone and Linux code to acquiring all of the necessary hardware, with no mentor guidance (I'm not a programmer). We have a relatively small team (we only brought 15 team members) so this scouting system allowed us to stretch our resources further. (We're considering preparing a white paper with the technical specifications. This could allow other smaller teams to be more competitive with better scouting resources.)

In addition, the business team nearly hit our fundraising goal for the year. This was the first year that we've really focused on systematic fundraising and their achievements were significant.

Finally thanks to our sponsors, the many schools and colleges at UC Davis individually contributing at the forefront. The late season support from both the Da Vinci and Davis HS support foundations was key to lifting us to "world class." DTL/Mori Seiki was our biggest corporate sponsor; the Sunrise Rotary Club our most biggest community sponsor. Finally, thank you to the Davis School Board for providing our coach Steve Harvey (that's another story of true dedication) with a coaching stipend.