http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/4/13518 ... e-blizzard
Honestly, I thought this is a pretty stupid thing. The hardest challenge would be figuring out whether an AI can actually play things from visually as opposed to just input commands directly, which is certainly an interesting challenge since this is something the AI isn't very good at, but there shouldn't even be a question whether an AI can completely spank the best human players in a game like StarCraft 2. In Chess or Go, the computer does not get multiple moves and multiple extra pieces despite having far superior processing powers. In a game like StarCraft, its superior APM lets the computer issue more moves and gather more resources to produce more units in the first place and there's virtually no way the AI would ever lose with that kind of advantage once it is aware of what kind of units strongly counter each other. Of course, the AI still has superior vision compared to any human so it's awfully hard to catch it off guard and superior APM will generally allow you to at least withdraw from an unfavorable matchup until you build something to counter it, and looking at the stuff Automaton 2000 does it can probably counter even unfavorable matchup with just superior micro + macro.
Now I guess maybe they're trying to make a computer that's limited to some maximum APM and not able to say simultaneously look at every screen it has at any given time, and I suppose if you put that kind of limitation on the AI, it might be beatable, but I'm not even sure there's a point to make an AI that purposely hamstrings it in an area that it can easily beat a human to have a challenge. It'd be like humans trying to play basketball against cyborgs and saying it's a fair challenge if the cyborgs can't just dunk across the entire court with their jet packs and have to pretend they can only run/jump as fast as human beings.
Honestly, I thought this is a pretty stupid thing. The hardest challenge would be figuring out whether an AI can actually play things from visually as opposed to just input commands directly, which is certainly an interesting challenge since this is something the AI isn't very good at, but there shouldn't even be a question whether an AI can completely spank the best human players in a game like StarCraft 2. In Chess or Go, the computer does not get multiple moves and multiple extra pieces despite having far superior processing powers. In a game like StarCraft, its superior APM lets the computer issue more moves and gather more resources to produce more units in the first place and there's virtually no way the AI would ever lose with that kind of advantage once it is aware of what kind of units strongly counter each other. Of course, the AI still has superior vision compared to any human so it's awfully hard to catch it off guard and superior APM will generally allow you to at least withdraw from an unfavorable matchup until you build something to counter it, and looking at the stuff Automaton 2000 does it can probably counter even unfavorable matchup with just superior micro + macro.
Now I guess maybe they're trying to make a computer that's limited to some maximum APM and not able to say simultaneously look at every screen it has at any given time, and I suppose if you put that kind of limitation on the AI, it might be beatable, but I'm not even sure there's a point to make an AI that purposely hamstrings it in an area that it can easily beat a human to have a challenge. It'd be like humans trying to play basketball against cyborgs and saying it's a fair challenge if the cyborgs can't just dunk across the entire court with their jet packs and have to pretend they can only run/jump as fast as human beings.