Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02481
To: Dave Hrynkiw dave@solarbotics.com
From: Richard Weait richard@solarbotics.com
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:02:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Beam genome - waste of time....
And if they aren't perceived as part of the solution, they become
little more than hollow facades.
Leaving the context of the BEAM list:
I'm sure Mark T. Has a need for his nomenclature/legend (symbology),
or he wouldn't have dreamed it up. And standard brains and body
parts may also fit certain research situations quite well.
> >It seems to me that a richer set of standard tasks and arenas is
> >likely to result in a greater variety of more interesting BEAM
> >species. Why bother defining anything else?
>
> YES. And that is a task we've been just discussing with Mark in regards to
> the next big BEAM games. A total revamp of the ruleset & documentation,
> with "dead-weight" events cut (ie: Solaroller class B) and new ones added
> (ie: Solaroller "There and back"). More details to come.
Great! I'm looking forward to that. And I hope there will be some
defined arenas and tasks, with clear winner criterions, using
arenas simple enough for people to build in a small corner of the
attic.
> >In these arena's, excluding programmables would be considered weak,
> >and I don't think it's necessary.
>
> Agreed. Microprocessors have never been refused entry to any BEAM event.
I know. How about defining tasks so there can be interesting
contests between programmable and non-programmable approaches?
Silly as that may be, there appears to be some interest in that.
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home