deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:01 am
- Location: Russia
- Full name: Vladimir Medvedev
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
But realtime factor is always in favor of computer. I am almost sure that decent 2300-2400 chess engine can easily beat Carlsen in bullet. But it can't beat him at longer time control.
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:34 am
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
They also restrict AI activity that is practically impossible for human. For example , human cant do two commands on two areas of screen simultaneously (battling in North pole of screen and doing economy in home base). They add about 15-20 ms lag/punishment for AI in changing point of view of screen/triggering area.
-
- Posts: 12038
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:50 pm
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
Have not seen all of it. Are there any plans to improve it and beat the world champion?Daniel Shawul wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:23 pm https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mas ... rcraft-ii/
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:24 pm
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
It must have been the bit when I went to the toilet then because I watched all of it. What was the reason?
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:55 am
- Full name: Henk Verbaasdonk
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
The effective APM (EPM) of a human is at most 33% of their real APM.Nay Lin Tun wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:18 amThey restrict AI's action per minute for fair play with human. There is details discussion in reddit.
Afaik, human did 450 APM(action per minute) and AI did 250 APM in average. But people said only 50% of human APM would probably be effective action, cos usually human repeatedly click mouse or shift key several times without effective action or double or triple click for the same action.
Alphastar was also allowed to "store" actions in a way, as it micro'd a three way battle at 1500 apm.
They averaged it to 250 apm, but in short spikes Alphastar was allowed to use much more.
-
- Posts: 10297
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
I am not sure that you are right.
It may be interesting to try stockfish that is slowed down by a significant factor so it is only 2300-2400 at tournament time control against humans to see what it the rating of it in bullet against humans.
-
- Posts: 267
- Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:01 am
- Location: Russia
- Full name: Vladimir Medvedev
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
Or we can take Carlsen's or Nakamura's bullet games against human opponents and check them for blunders with Phalanx or Fritz 5.
Remember, Kasparov lost to Chess Genius in rapid (not bullet) in 1994, and almost lost blitz tournament to Fritz 3 next or previous year. Both programs were much weaker than 2700 in classical chess.
-
- Posts: 10297
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
It is known that old software like Fritz5 or Genius3 were stronger at faster time control relative to humans.WinPooh wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:41 pmOr we can take Carlsen's or Nakamura's bullet games against human opponents and check them for blunders with Phalanx or Fritz 5.
Remember, Kasparov lost to Chess Genius in rapid (not bullet) in 1994, and almost lost blitz tournament to Fritz 3 next or previous year. Both programs were much weaker than 2700 in classical chess.
I am not sure if it continue to be correct with new software that part of the advantage of it is being able to earn more from time (from the same rating point).
-
- Posts: 1563
- Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:47 am
- Location: Almere, The Netherlands
-
- Posts: 4185
- Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:34 am
- Location: Ethiopia
Re: deepmind's alphastar beats pros in starcraft ii
Also there is no lookahead search (mcts) for the starcraft ai since the branching factor is much much higher than Go.
It just plays what it thinks is best strategy without opponent modeling.
It just plays what it thinks is best strategy without opponent modeling.