Werewolf wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:53 pm
Laskos wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:08 pm
smatovic wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:35 pm
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:20 pm
I am less impressed by starcraft because it is a game that not only I never played and not only I do not know the rules of the game but I also have no idea what is the answer for the following questions:
What is the initial position of starcraft?
How many option does a player have in the beginning of the game?
It is easy to answer these question in chess or go and I guess also in Shogi(never played Shogi but from the little that I read I understand that shogi is basically similiar to chess).
I think that is the "another kind of challenge" i meant,
StarCraft is no board-game, so there is no game tree search like AB or MCTS involved,
and therefore i am impressed that Deepmind was able to train neural networks to play RTS.
--
Srdja
Strategy in 20 minutes until the end of the game, with zillion of maximum useful actions involved totally? This is action-fest, and I don't care about "milestones"’, that is more a PR milestone, not a scientific one. I repeat, I am skeptical of AlphaStar strategy and balance in humanly-doable games. The whole finesse of the game strategy might be shortcutted by several "cheats".
Anyway, this "RTS" game is quite crappy for scientific purposes with AI.
No I think this is obviously wrong. The game is well recognised as being rich strategically and I'd invite you to try it before rejecting that. As said before there is a lot of micro - which I personally find annoying - but there's also a lot of strategy too and some of it is subtle and quite high level. Against the current A.I it has a clear edge over me in micro and I easily have an advantage over it in thought and planning. I usually score about 80% against the top A.I. so it's not just about executing operations quickly. Also some games can last more than an hour.
I sure can imagine that it is rich strategically for average and even top humans, I played Civilisation awhile ago, and Total War series quite recently (still, both turn-based). Not my kind of strategy (I am always messing up against average humans with wrong strategies in the developing stages of tech lines and economy, not learning well the manual and its applications on the ground), but nevertheless, yes, rich in abstract decisions. But there were exploits some good players found, later "fixed" by the devs with patches (at least in Total War series). If a bot like this ML NN DeepMind found exploits, the whole strategic subtlety may fall apart. Exploits can be on strategical level too, not just micro. It is possible that the games I presented have strategic exploits, and all the subtle strategy I found in these games is reduced to rule of thumb "withdraw from the Dnepr as fast as possible all your units, keep the flanks and grind the attacks being well supplied" or "push onto the flanks all your units, disregard supply, cut off the enemy in half". That would be boring, but still a bit more insightful than plain precision click-fest (at superhuman rates when necessary).
Am I to disregard this passage?
"MaNa: I would say that clearly the best aspect of its game is the unit control. In all of the games when we had a similar unit count, AlphaStar came victorious. The worst aspect from the few games that we were able to play was its stubbornness to tech up. It was so convinced to win with basic units that it barely made anything else and eventually in the exhibition match that did not work out. There weren’t many crucial decision making moments so I would say its mechanics were the reason for victory.
There’s almost unanimous consensus among Starcraft fans that AlphaStar won almost purely because of its superhuman speed, reaction times and accuracy. The pros who played against it seem to agree."