Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

The final matches were really close. I think Curie probably would have won it if they had strategized differently; as it was, they had nobody playing defense in either match, and 2041 stayed in the offensive zone throughout both matches. (In the second match, 2041 got stuck in the goal during autonomous, and remained there for over half of the match, until 1114 came and helped them out, which was a fluke in favor of Newton) Curie should have had every robot except 469 focus on moving balls from the far and middle zones to the offensive zone (scoring when possible, which would have been often for 1114), where there would be only one defender, and then go to town on scoring; every ball except those 294 would be able to clear would remain in that zone to score, while Newton's offensive, 67 and 177 would be starved of balls. At first, they would not have scored as much (because 294 would have an easier time blocking), but in the long-run, the tide of the match would turn towards Curie, as 294 would have trouble blocking successive shots from 469 and 1114, considering 294 would also have to deal with 2041. The fact that many of 469's shots wouldn't make it (because of the number of robots in the offensive zone) wouldn't matter, as 1114 and 2041 together would have been able to get many of those shots past 294.

This strategy takes into account the fact that 469's robot not only scores quickly, but that it also locks balls in the offensive zone. If it turned out that most of 469's shots made it past 294, then 1114 would be able to go back to midfield, or the far zone and fight for any balls 294 had cleared.

This all goes to show how much strategy plays in robotics. Newton, 67, 177 and 294, had a better strategy, and won it all because of it.

That said, could 2041 kick over the bump? Was 1114 able to hang with 469 expanded?

Also, looking over what I've written, it seems I may not have given due credit to Newton; 67, 177, and 294: you played wonderfully! Curie may have tried the strategy above and you could possibly have prevented them from pulling it off!

Any thoughts or comments?

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

You underestimate what 294 and 254 could have done if left alone. Playing defense the way they did and running the cycle with 5 balls in it was probably the right move. 1114 only needed to throw one or two balls out of the 67 faux-cycle to gain essentially permanent ball advantage. I think they had the right strategy, just execution problems. Plus they had to play with an alliance that had 177 as their third best scorer. I mean, wow.

In my opinion, 67 won because they had 177, and 1114 didn't do as good of a job denying balls in the opponent's zone as they needed to do to make their cycle excel. The second match where they had a much better chance due to a high scoring auto was when 2041 got stuck in the goal.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I should have qualified what I said; I think Curie would have stood a better chance, not that they would have won in any situation. I agree that 67 + 177 + 294 = extremely strong alliance.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I actually had a similar thought but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to start such a thread.

In my opinion the problem with the Curie alliance was that they had 1114 put balls from the middle into the home zone and with 294 being in that zone they simply took those balls that 1114 put there and put them into their home zone for 67 and 177 to score and with no bot clearing that zone those balls were free to sit there and give Newton the ball control until they decided to score. In my opinion 1114's role on that alliance shouldn't have been putting in the ball from the middle and pushing them in but making sure all the balls stayed in their home zone for 469 to cycle with the help of 2041. It also didn't hurt the Curie alliance's scoring ability that 67 could hang after the buzzer.

This was the initial flaw I saw in the Curie alliance and the only reason that Archimedes didn't manage to capitalize on this was that the hangers on their alliance weren't the ones who played the two closer zones. Either 233 or 254 needed to stay in the back zone and that alliance didn't have the advantage of the double hang unless they freed up the far zone at the end of the match. 3357 was a great close zone scoring bot and did a great job throughout the competition but I don't think they were the right fit for that alliance. With all the talent on Archimedes I think that 233 and 254 should have picked up either a close zone robot that could hang or a robot that could solidly play the far zone.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I wonder if having 233 and 254 switch places would have worked better. The Poofs had a faster hang anyway, so why not put them in the easiest hanging position? Maybe a more versatile pick like 118 would have worked better for the alliance than their rookie striker. Who knows?

All this talk is fun.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

What was interesting about 294's alliance was we essentially had 3 midfielders with slightly different strengths, although we could each play any place on the field (and did both across matches and even in a single match).

294: excellent midfielder/defense (no hang)
67: excellent midfielder/forward (w/hang)
177: great all-arounder (w/hang)

In the quals, 294 mostly sniped (very effectively) from the midfield, and occasionally played forward to clean up (we never played defense in the quals). As in the elims, we always started in the back in quals because of our consistent 3-ball autonomous (although in the quals we usually kicked 3, then went over the bump to gain a head start in the midfield).

In the Newton QFs, 294 played forward, 67 played mid, and 177 played far/defense. It worked, but was uncomfortable for all of us. We switched it up after that. It was the perfect combo of teams in the Einstein finals because of reasons already stated: 294 couldn't hang, but was good at defense, thus freeing up 67 to play forward (amazing to watch) and 177 to play mid, and freeing up both of them to hang. It also helped that 294's kicker consistently cleared both bumps, and occasionally even scored from the far zone. Having two hangers on our alliance was key: 2, and especially 4, points is hard to make up in scoring, which we witnessed in the LA finals against 330 & 1717, both of whom are great hangers.

Interesting footnote to all this: I'm not sure this Newton alliance would have happened without 294 being the #1 seed and 67 (#2 seed) accepting us... note only 12 seeding points separated us in the end, so the reverse seeding could have easily happened! While I don't want to speak for 67, 294 would not have been an obvious first pick for 67 (gutsy but not obvious like our pick of them was). I'm thinking it would have been more likely for 67 to have picked 971... what different matchups that would have resulted in, particularly in Newton elims (anyone want to fantasize the picks & matchups had 67 been #1 and 294 been #2?).

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

We lost because we played poorly, not because one of our two hangers was in the back. We simply could not get free from 2041 who did a fantastic job neutralizing us.

We knew exactly what we needed to do to break 469's cycle. We watched every single video there is of them. We studied how 217/67 won (and lost) against them. We spent hours practicing in our lab against a looper. We knew exactly where the balls were going to go...we just could not get to them. Again, 2041 did an unbelievable job locking us up for the duration of both matches.

In the finals I thought 1114 should have played 67 exactly how they played us. Versus us they stayed in the middle and fought 233 for control of midfield. 233 did an admirable job and held their own, but 1114 definitely slowed them down, as well as put a few more balls in their own cycle.

Against 67 1114 played home zone almost exclusively and as a result 67 was in the midfield completely uncontested and scored nearly every single shot they took.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

With 469 in position and 2041 neutralizing 294, the game became a 2v1 with 177 and 67 playing against 1114.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Although I agree that 2041 played superb defense and them riding up on 254 basically stopped any kind of maneuver 254 could make, 254 still effectively limited 469's cycle. In the first match of the semis, the match was within 2 but 469 was let loose when 254 went over the bump to try and hang and that is where that match was lost in my opinion. If 3357 could hang, that match would have been very close and Archimedes could have taken it. I'm not saying 3357 wasn't awesome, and I'm not saying you guys would have topped Curie with another team, all I'm saying is that 3357 may not have been the perfect fit for the strategy you guys ran, because you essentially left the opposing scoring zone open during the finale.

As a side note I was wondering about something that happened in the first match of the semis. 254 entered the opposing tunnel at the end of the autonomous period to try and prevent 469 from setting up, 469 pushed them out of the tunnel at either the end of autonomous or at the start of teleop. When I was checking out 254's pit I noticed that they have a ratcheting system on their gearboxes to prevent people from pushing them. This ratcheting system looked like it also disengaged to allow 254 to back up. Was the gearbox I saw not from their drive train or did something else happen during that match?

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

2041 playing in the offensive zone was the reason the Curie alliance not only reached the Einstein finals, but reached Einstein at all. Their role was critical to how the alliance played and how they performed all throughout the tournament. I don't think trying to change your strategy dramatically in the final two matches is nearly as easy as you think it is. And that strategy still worked to within inches of victory in both matches.

Does it look ideal in hindsight now that they've lost? No, you have to wonder how it would have changed if they played it differently. But ultimately I think they made the right choice for the circumstances, they were just outperformed at the most critical moment. It's unfortunate for them, but that seems the case. Good execution can often surpass good strategy.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

We forgot that 469 changed to a new autonomous that ends with them fully in the tunnel, so once we were in, we stopped driving forward and promptly got pushed back by them.

The ratchets don't have an effect on normal driving. The only thing they do is prevent the arm from backdriving.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I'm pretty sure that those ratchets are for their "Power Take-Off" of their drive transmissions to hang. When they engage their hanger from the drive transmissions, those ratchets keep the robot up after the round ends.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Some one on my team said that the red alliance purposefully missed their shots in autonomous so 1114 would be 'tricked' to going to their close zone early, leaving half the balls for the red alliance to score with undefended. I haven't seen any video, but is this true?

Edit: Ok, I see TBA has the video. While they scored in auto in match 1, they didn't score any in match 2.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

That was the drive gearbox, but the ratchet was used to prevent back drive on the arm. Bad things would happen if you engaged that and drove at the same time. Just ask some of the other 254 members what the early software tests for the arm did to the robot ;-)

We planned for the robot to exit the other side of the tunnel in auto, but 469 beat us there. All and all that particular auto mode (kick 3, block tunnel from far zone) was about 90% done. We never quite finished the part that made the robot hold it's ground. Whoops.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I don't think anyone can argue that it was 1114/469's championships to lose. They were favorites going into the weekend, and rolled through just about every alliance they saw in elims without much trouble.

And thats exactly what happened, the Curie alliance lost it. I don't mean to take anything away from the Newton alliance, because even with the Curie alliances failures, it still takes an awesome alliance to beat them.

I think the strategy the Curie alliance used was the right one. Once they have 6 balls in their system, no alliance should be more efficient then 469 at getting the balls in the goal, so let the Newton alliance do what they wanted with the balls they had. Would having an extra ball or two in the system be better? Absolutely, but it probably wasn't worth the effort.

From the first video, it is clear that 469 wasn't hitting the shots they usually make. As a result, 469's efficiency was less than 67 + 177 so surprise surprise, the Newton alliance was able to out score them, barely.

The second match 2041 was stuck in a goal for over half a match. The Curie alliance came within 3 pts of tieing the match which just shows how dominant the Curie strategy is when it worked for 55 seconds. Had 1114 got 2041 out of the goal 15 seconds earlier, it could have been a very different match. Add in the fact that 469 sat in the tower and did nothing for at least 30 seconds when they had no balls in the system. 469 could have got out of the tower and slowed down 67 or even got a ball or two out of their system. Even more, 2041 blocked a 469 shot toward the end of the match. 1114 looked very slow as they went to hang, which leads me to believe they had a bad battery. Had 2041 not blocked the goal, and 1114 had hung, we suddenly have a tie game.

The second final match was ridiculously close given all the challenges the Curie alliance saw. Had that match been a tie or a win for the Curie alliance, I think it would have been very interesting to see the next match or two.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

2041 being stuck in goal was the biggest reason they lost in the second match. In the first match 1114 going into their home zone seemed to be the decision that prevented them from winning. Once 1114 was back there the zone was too crowded for 469's loop to work (one ball hit 1114). Then once 1114 tried to stay out of the way they ended up waiting for seconds at a time for balls to roll off before trying to score the other balls at home.

Although I thought that was a major flaw in the Curie strategy, 294's ability to stop the loop while being defended against was amazing. I watched 2041 almost the whole time on Einstein and while 294 was unable to break away for enough time to shoot balls they were able to maneuver around enough to stop a significant number of balls being scored by 469.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

1114 in the near zone in both matches along with 2041 stuck in the goal easily cost them the finals as 294 saw the opportunity to block the other goal and prevent any score. 67 and 177 were left undefended in the middle and near zone with a decent supply of balls allowing them to score, score, score. Had 1114 been in the middle zone, I could have seen a Curie win as 469 would have been able to sink more shots with 1 less robot to redirect around and less balls for red, more balls for blue with 1114 scoring, moving them into their near zone.

Whatever the outcome or possible outcome, those were two intense matches! :)

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Tom is "Flippin The Greatest"
mike d

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I think you severely underestimate the strength of the 67 294 177 alliance.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

There was no strategy to not score the balls in autonomous. But, there was strategy to get into the mid-field and score balls from there, before scoring balls in the home zone. The thought was to limit the number of balls returning to the mid-field for 1114 to kick into their cycle. Eventually during the matches it became score balls from whereve and whenever b/c the Curie alliance was scoring like crazy.

With regards to the final matches....just because we won the first two matches, doesn't mean that 1114, 469, and 2041 would not have been able to beat us if we kept playing. We were very fortunate in the last match that 2041 was stuck in the goal for half the match.

1114 was a scoring machine. 469 has a robot design that will go down in history as one of the most awesome designs ever. Not to mention both are great teams with awesome strategists. Given more time (one more match?), they would have figured out how to win. Then we would have had to adjust to those changes.

I'd like to say both alliances were evenly matched, but I'm not sure I can say that. I have been trying to figure out how we defeated them for 5 days now, and there isn't one thing that really jumps out at me. I think we suprised them in the first match and had some luck in the second one. After that it was over.

But, you know what? We had a very balanced alliance, with lots of versatility. 67, 294, and 177 worked extremely hard to find a strategy that worked for us throughout the Newton eliminations, defeated Galileo with it, then adapted it to defeat Curie.

I know the HOT team is going to hold our heads high based on the fact that our alliance defeated the an alliance with the consensus top two teams in FIRST this season.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Watching that final video, I noticed that besides getting stuck in the goal, 2041 also blocked two consecutive shots from 469 towards the end. I can't say that it was entirely 2041's fault because even if both of those goals had been scored, it still would have ended up being 15-16 Newton. Who knows what else might have happened? I think 294 did an awesome job making a quick and effective decision to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity and block the other goal. Other teams with lesser drive teams may not have taken advantage of that situation.

Props to 67, 177, and 294 for taking down what may have been the most intimidating alliance this year!

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

As the coach for 294, I'd like to bring a little insight to the conversation...

Reading through the tread, I'm not surprised by some of the comments that 2041 and 1114 were blocking some of 469s shots, but I am surprised at the conclusion that it was somehow their fault. It was not a fluke that they were blocking some of their own shots. Nor was it a fluke that 2041 got stuck in their own goal... In fact, we were doing everything in our ability to ensure that these things happened.

To start off...


294, 67 and 177 were not purposefully missing shots in autonomous. We did make a strategic change during Einstein semi’s match #3 that we carried over into the finals through. 294 and 177 could not automatically aim in autonomous. Furthermore, 294 could not kick over 177 if they lined up collinearly. Consequently, one of us needed to start offset. Through much of the elims, we put 177 in line with the goal as their shots were more likely to go in, but after in losing semi match #2, we noticed that a number of 294’s shots ricocheted to the other side of the field and were easy pickings the defender. Hence, we moved 294 in line and 177 offline to minimize this and to use 67’s position to help coral the balls in front of the goal. We kept this arrangement through both finals matches. As a result though, we didn't score as many in autonomous.
On to the strategy...
Prior to the finals our strategy was: (In order of strategic importance:)
1. Jam up a goal. If an opportunity arose to jam either 2041 or 1114 into their own goal, stop everything and make it happen.
2. Clear out as many balls as possible before they entered the cycle.
3. Block shots within the cycle.
4. Clear out any blocked shot.

1. Jam up a goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TEE (Post 956595) In the second match, 2041 got stuck in the goal during autonomous, and remained there for over half of the match, until 1114 came and helped them out, which was a fluke in favor of Newton)

2041 getting stuck in the goal was not a fluke. They may have gotten hung up (1 wheel in the goal) in autonomous, but they definitely were not stuck (3 wheels in the goal) until we tapped them into the goal. In the TBA video, you can see us rounding the corner to do so just before they cut to another frame.
Naturally, this made our job easier. I was constantly on the look out for this opportunity. While it never came up in the first match, it certainly did in the second and we didn't hesitate. 2041 had about 1 second to get out before we were there.
2. Clear out as many balls as possible before they entered the cycle.
Once the balls are in the cycle, they're 10x harder to stop. Why wait? In each match we cleared 1 ball before trying to block shots. While it gave 1114/469/2041 an easy couple of redirects, it reduced the total count by one and put it in the hands of 67/177.
I feel this is where 217 went wrong in MSC. At the start of the match, they positioned themselves and waited for the cycle to start - allowing precious balls to enter the cycle.
3. Block shots within the cycle.
While I studied the motion of 469's redirecter during the semi's, we paid no attention to it during the match. In stead, we wanted to force them into a decision. We sought to push 2041 (and 1114) to one side of the field forcing 469 to choose the open side. Then, at the last moment, we shifted into high gear and darted to block the shot. As the balls tended to travel in waves, we sought to block the first shot and use 2041 and 1114 to block the second. During the brief moment of chaos, 2041 and 1114 were momentarily out of position and blocking their own goal before they could recover. This meant 469 didn't have a clear shot to either goal when the second ball hit their chute.
4. Clear out any blocked shot.
If we blocked a shot, we immediately tried to clear it. One less ball in the loop. While this left the goals exposed I return to my observation that the balls tended to travel in waves. 2041 did an excellent job in preventing our clear. By the time we had the ball, we were T-boned by 2041 and caught in the corner of the field. In both matches, we found that we had no other choice, but to abandon to the midfield and then return.
If all went to plan, 294 blocked the first shot and 1114 or 2041 blocked the second - forcing 1114 to collect it and score it again. As a result, I feel 1114 felt the need to stay in the home zone.
Why we were successful?
There's a couple of things that come to mind as to why we were successful in defending the 1114/469/2041 alliance.
1. Our driver has been on the drive team for 4 years - 3 of which he was driving. He also loves playing D!
2. Out codriver has been on the drive team for 3 years - 3 of which he was the co-driver to the driver.
3. For the previous 3 years, our primary role was defense during the eliminations - with the occasional offensive flare. We definitely know how to play D!
4. Before our robot was an offensive threat, we played 1.5 full elimination rounds as the defender.
5. We used current sensing and a heads up display to inform the driver/co-driver when we had a ball in possession.
6. We mounted the camera under our bumpers so we could see balls hidden behind the bump. (From the driver team's perspective, you can't see balls immediately behind the 2nd bump).
7. Our ball control device had an iron grip on the ball. We stole multiple balls out of the grasp of other teams with our intake.
8. Our kicker could clear both bumps (and occasionally score).
9. We had a 2 speed transmission. Nothing new, but I'd put us up for the fastest robot as well as the strongest robot with the design we fielded.

I apologize for being long winded, but I had a lot to contribute. I hope this gives you an "insider" perspective to the final matches.

On a side note: I'm a little disappointed in the videos thus far as they absolutely don't capture the excitement of those matches. As I was focused on our robot, I missed much of the rest of the match. I was really hoping to get to watch the whole match for the first time! :]

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Finally...whole field Einstein videos surface!

Match 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYdbNMGT-r0
Match 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOWmn4fBVCQ

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I have been waiting so long for this. Match 1 had the best end to a match I have ever seen and I've been known to watch some match video. Kind of upset they missed the majority of 67 pulling up in this video too.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

"Originally Posted by akeisic View Post
Finally...whole field Einstein videos surface!

Match 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYdbNMGT-r0
Match 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOWmn4fBVCQ"


Hi I am the guy who took the videos referenced above. This was not my best work. Unfortunately I came over from Curie. By the time Curie finals were over all the seats and good video positions were gone in Einstein. There was no place for the tripod and the camera kept getting bumped or people were standing in the way. I uploaded some more videos of the Einstein Semi finals as well and still have a lot more videos to upload from the whole event. A selection of Einstein Field videos can be seen here http://team573.com/FirstRoboticsCham...nVid eos.html (youtube embeds)

David Web Master for http://team573.com

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Hi I am the person who filmed those videos. It took so long in Curie that by the time I got over to Einstein, there was no place to set up the tripod. I kept getting bumped by people as well. I only wish I had had the same type of position to film from that I had during the Michigan District events. I have uploaded some of the Einstein semi final videos and I will be uploading more once I sort through them.

David R.
WebMaster for http://team573.com

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

akeisic,
Thank you for the insight! I had not realized that you forced 2041 the rest of the way into the goal. Further, I'm impressed by your strategy (namely how developed it was). Do you usually go that deep into strategy?

Also, it seemed that part of your strategy included getting 1114 and 2041 to get in the way of 469. I'm guessing if 1114 had played midfield, fighting against 177 and/or 67 for additional balls, leaving you alone with 2041, you would have had more trouble?

That said, kudos for an amazing match!

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I wouldn't say so. If it was just 2041 in the front, they are either scoring misses, which leaves 294 to play the clearing game, or they are defending 294, which leaves misses unscored and not cycling.

If I were 1114, I would have spent more of the middle of the match in the midfield. 67 and 177 should have only had 3 or 4 balls to work with. I'd be less worried about starting a cycle until about the 45 second mark, and a lot more worried with getting balls out of 67 and 177's hands (even if they're not scored, 2041's defense ensured they were not leaving the zone)

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Perhaps in my head... I try and keep the strategy as simple as possible for the drive team to keep them focused. We talk before hand to our general strategy and then I make the calls from there. My drivers may not understand the strategy at first, but they trusted me and executed. In one case (Einstein Semi #3), we let our opponets score so we would be in position to block the hang. For the finals, we broke it down exactly as I stated. As for executing the plan, I give credit to the drivers.

For the qualification matches, we knew we needed to be super aggressive to succeed and our strategy reflected that. In every match but one (against 67), our auto kicked 3 and went over the bump. Against 67, I saw that they were going to kick 3, go over and kick 2. The balls were not going to be in the middle and I knew some would miss, so we ran our kick 3 and stay auto. Sure enough, 2 balls came rolling our way and we cleared them both before advancing.

Furthermore, we spent some time Wednesday inputting the entire schedule into Excel. We then used 1114's scouting database and ranking system to get an idea of the strength of schedule and strength of match. While it wasn't perfect, it gave us a sense as to what matches were going to be difficult or not. We'd then talk to our partners and have a game plan before we left for the field.

Our scouting team did a great job in providing me with a pre-match break down on the teams and what to watch out for. I knew which teams could hang and which we needed to defend against. We planned accordingly.

Another interesting strategy that we developed during the eliminations was advancing from the far zone to the midfield through the tunnel. Originally, we simply went over the bump, but going through the tunnel offered 2 advantages...1) balls tended to collect there and we'd easily pick one up and 2) it prevented our returning balls from heading over to our opponents home zone. You can see us executing this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMBLhput8q0

Writing all this, I guess the simple answer to your question is: Yes.

Here's a video of exactly what we were trying to do in the finals. Seconds 5-26 demonstrate our game plan: Push 2041 out of position, block a shot, clear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZUFE...=azepgg YYFYE

Had 1114 played more in the midfield who knows what might have happened. Yes, it would have slowed down 177 and 67, but, I feel, it would also have slowed down the 469 cycle. With two robots in the home zone we needed to give attention to the biggest threat. Having one might have left us more time to clear. Remember, 1114, 469 and 2041 needed to be up at least by 2 to counter our double hang threat. And 1114 needed to hang from the home zone to stay out of the way of 469.

Either way, it wouldn't have changed our strategy. Either way, the outcome was going to be close. I'm just glad we pulled it off in two.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Cory,
My only question after watching the first match, was why not start from near the middle and go straight into the tunnel. Why kick the balls out first, since it seemed that you folks got there what seemed like, a tad bit late?
I asked some of your team members this past weekend at the VEX tournament, and some said that's exactly what they wanted to do.


And did anyone else notice that the balls looped from 469 were slightly off when unopposed to the goal?
If that was the case, why play defense on the defender, but instead have both 2041 and 1114 focus on scoring?

I'd have to agree that having 2 front bots that can hang was vital to advancing on Einstein. 294 impressed me the most because they could do 3 things effectively. Defense on the line of the looped balls, kick from far zone to near consistently, and move quickly.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I obviously can't explain the choices made by 254 but in my opinion the autonomous they ran was perfect aside from the fact that 469 managed to push them out of the tunnel. 254 managed to get inside the tunnel at the right time they just weren't pushing 469 and keeping them out.

Also I think in almost every single match this year it was very crucial to clear those 3 balls out of your opponents home zone in autonomous mode. My only exception would be if you are against a weak alliance in qualification matches and you want to give your opponent a shot to score. This way you can build up your seeding score.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Yup. It got there in time. It just didn't push back hard enough.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

If that's the case, it would have been exciting to see what would have happened if 469 couldnt loop the balls.
Being that 469 was a good robot even without the looper, it would have been great to see both alliances adjust on the fly and try to win!

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

The problem with our autonomous is that it was effectively worthless.

Had we stopped 469 from getting in the tunnel we'd have needed to stay there the entire match, or they would go right back in. We'd be taking our best robot out of the game completely. We might be able to win 2v3 if we had our two best robots out of the tunnel, but there's just no way it would have worked if we were in the tunnel. At some point we would have to come out and score. We might have bought 15-30 seconds of no looping, but it would ultimately still have happened.

Particularly when you consider that 469 is still a VERY good midfielder.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

In that case why have your autonomics bring your robot to the tunnel? It doesn't seem like your strategy from the start was to stay there and stop 469 from entering so why even run that autonomous?

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Actually,
I thought if 469 couldnt get in there because you folks did, then you could proceed to play defense with them, making it a 2 vs 2. If they hung around the tunnel just in case you folks came out, they'd be hard-pressed to try to score also.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

That was pretty much the thought. Keep them out initially, maybe stay in there a little bit, and then come out and try to harass them enough that they wouldn't be able to go back in.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

As you can imagine, I've been watching the final matches over and over again! :rolleyes:

In the first match 294 cleared 4 of the 6 balls in the blue offensive zone and then blocked the remaining 2 for the closing seconds of the match!

In the second match 294 cleared 3, but 177 deflected one into the zone. We might have cleared more, but we scored point 7 for the blue alliance because - in trying to clear - we deflected the ball off of 1114's bumper and it rolled over us into the goal. We then needed to wait to prevent the redirect back in.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

This was really variable, depending on the direction, the match, and the angle. Of course, in F2 the 2 or 3 that didn't go in on the "right" (from the driver's) side were key to the match, but many matches they did score. 294 kept them busy in the more reliable direction for match 2.

Not counting auto, it took you guys enough time to clear them that if 1114 used that strategy it would have probably allowed them to keep their lead a little better than they did, IMO. They were still basically facing their worst nightmare in the back though.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

That is still really weird for 469. I've seen them play a lot and prior to Atlanta, I don't think I've ever seen them miss the goal altogether (except for when they get hit as the ball falls to the ground). If their redirections don't score, it's usually the result of the chains or a lack of momentum, but they were on target to both goals at least 95% of the time during the regular season. As I watched the finals on Einstein, I was surprised to see how many were missing.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I did notice that 67 bumped them a couple of times when the balls hit 469's chute. I think this was what caused their issues.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

We heard that due to slight variances of the Einstein field relative to Curie, 469 had tweaked the positions their chutes swing to. It seems like maybe they weren't quite able to get the positions down perfectly.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I know that this is a problem 125 faced between Boston's practice field and competition field. Especially with variations in how the ball exited the tower's chute, it was tough to move from field to field and even alliance to alliance.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

aren't all of the fields supposed to be identical? :confused:

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Not quite (see Section 6.1.1 of the FRC Game Manual):

The competition ARENAS are modular constructions that are assembled, used, disassembled, and shipped many times during the competition season. They may undergo a significant amount of wear and tear. The ARENA is designed to withstand rigorous play and frequent shipping, and every effort is made to ensure that the ARENAS are as identical from event to event as possible. However, as the ARENAS are assembled in different venues by different event staff, some small variations do occur. Fit and tolerance on large assemblies (e.g. the TOWER) are ensured only to within ¼ inch. Overall gross dimensions of the entire field may vary up to 4 inches. Successful teams will design ROBOTS that are insensitive to these variations.

The division fields saw extensive play throughout the entire 2010 Breakaway season. Whereas the Einstein field was brand, spankin' new: i.e. never played on until Championship. Most likely, there were some dimensional differences between Einstein and the other fields in Atlanta.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Interesting... I never noticed that rule... that's what I get for focusing on dimensions and definitions. Thanks for clarifying :)

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Tee,
The fields in Atlanta were placed over the plastic venue field covers as in the past. After years of use, the centers of the 4' x 4' plastic had sagged in the centers causing, among other things, balls to roll slightly different than fields placed on concrete floors. Anyone who tried to position a ball for autonomous knows the issue.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

The Einstein field always seems to have minor field issues due to the fact it gets zero play time throughout the course of the weekend.

In 2008 the carpet bumps that they had covering the support pieces for the center wall weren’t secured down as well as they were on other fields and we literally sucked one into our drive train gearbox during a lap, causing our robot to become disabled. We literally had to back drive the gearboxes to pick the robot up off the field.

In 2009 it had been a long time since any of the robots on Einstein had played on unused regolith and it showed. It seemed like all the robots on Einstein, were handling much different (worse) than they had in the divisional finals.

It stinks if 469’s robot was in fact misfiring on Einstein due to field variations, but the one thing that is fair about Einstein is it’s the same field for all the contestants.

I think it would be interesting to give the teams that make Einstein a practice match while all the spectators are getting seated. This would allow teams to calibrate field specific items to the field where the Championship is going to be decided. I know things like lighting variations can mess with camera tracking and such (I wonder if anyone in 2006 had issues with this on Einstein).

Just a thought

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Chris,
As you said the problem was the same for all teams and it did exist on the other fields as well. There just was not a fix that could be applied to correct the problem. We would have needed to pull the fields, lay down plywood and then re-lay the field. Not an option. Also it took a while to really figure out that there was a change and what the cause was.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

This is a great idea! I *know* we would have been very happy to have been able to "tune" the ramps! :)

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

In 2007 we had camera tracking problems on Einstein because the lighting was so much brighter, we never scored once in auton ,even though we scored every time on Currie in the eliminations.

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

I remember someone on 1902 saying their issues with scoring in autonomous on Einstein weren't from the lighting changes. I wonder if there were multiple, unrelated issues, or if you guys simply have different hypotheses about why it occurred?

Re: Einstein Finals: Curie (469, 1114, 2041) vs. Newton (67, 177, 294)
 

Sean et al,
The lighting on the division fields is generally ambient from the dome with a little thrown in to keep the cameras happy. The Einstein is generally well lit with moving lights and studio/stage lighting. If it predominates with some natural lighting thrown in the color temperature of the lighting (and therefore the camera response) will be different than on the divisional fields. Except the year the dome was blacked out from a previous event.