![](/uploads/1/2/5/7/125715482/489273369.jpeg)
The skins Eagle prime and Kuratas for the Machine gun. These skins are no longer in the game.Gladiabots features several bot classes.
Gladiabots is a robot combat strategy game in which you carefully construct the AI of your robot squad and send them into the battle arena. Improve, refine and repeat until you outsmart all your opponents and friends online. Features: Create your own AI and watch your robots execute it in the arena. Gladiabots takes the old “robot deathmatch” formula and twists it to where you only control your robots through AI programs; you set them up, and it is totally hands-off once the match begins. You either watch in joy as your team sails to victory or in total horror as they are shredded into scrap by someone with a better plan.
Each class has its own pros and cons.
There have been machines built with the sole purpose of playing chess, and have still been beaten by some humans.If I try to calculate how many moves a chess game regularly takes, and how many pieces each player has, and how many move-options each chess piece has, it sounds like way too many possibilities for my head, but I feel for a chess super computer, it's fairly limited and should be handled in mere milliseconds.Edit: Thanks for the cool answers guys, so far I've learned that chess is far too complex for it to be 'solved' with simple game theory, but that we're getting closer(?). If I try to calculate how many moves a chess game regularly takes, and how many pieces each player has, and how many move-options each chess piece has, it sounds like way too many possibilities for my head, but I feel for a chess super computer, it's fairly limited and should be handled in mere milliseconds.Unfortunately, your intuition is wrong in this case. There is some controversy as to whether or not chess is 'solvable' , that is to say, if it's possible to predict a win/loss/draw from any given position. A standard chess board is large enough that fully calculating all possible outcomes from early positions is still impossible, and may be pragmatically impossible forever. There's just too many possible combinations.
Towards the end game, when there are fewer pieces on the board, all possibilities have been computed and computers can draw on those to play perfectly. But that's a very limited set of possibilities compared to the start of the game.Computers are getting better at playing chess, and recent advances seem to have more to do with better search and decision algorithms than brute forcing huge tables.
Is a good example of this.Another example of a problem hard for computers is. Go Masters still beat computers reliably on 19x19 boards. Human pattern recognition is still better than computer brute force or heuristics at these kinds of tasks.Personally, I think the breakthrough that lets a computer reliably win at chess or Go will have much more to do with how we design the AI than raw computing power.
We simply don't know how human intelligence works yet; once we have a better handle on how we recognize things, we'll be able to do a better job making computers recognize things. But that's still in progress.Edit: woah this blew up.One thing to clarify. Chess is in principle 'solvable', in that it's mathematically possible to calculate all positions, but the jury's out on if we can ever actually solve it, since it's not pragmatically possible to do the calculations at present, and may never be. I'd edit my text above to make this clear but it's already been quoted and I'd rather not screw up the thread. There's no link here.
(I'm very curious)But as a former unknown but professional online short-handed cash game player, I can probably think of ways to game this bot as well. Off the top of my head, I'd say that they probably aren't adapting in real time. They are probably just incorporating player stats like VPIP/PFR into the decision criteria. If so, than I'd just make my average stats play out sufficiently differently to throw the bot off.If it is real time, I suspect I could easily poison the bot's opinion of me with sufficiently bad play over the first few hands on a new account, then dramatically switch.Also, the article is probably talking about heads-up play. I'd prefer not to go against a well coded bot in heads up. There are obvious and subtle reasons for this.The thing some people aren't really getting is that, there isn't really one optimal game theory strategy to poker. Different players have different strategies over all and they can be successful.
Also, even BB won per 100 hands isn't a well defined criteria of optimality for online play. A tighter overall strategy with a lower win rate probably involves less brain-time than a looser player and is more readily multi-tabled.
It gets immensely complicated. If I were making a bot, I'd spend at LEAST half the coding time on table-selection and making player determinations on when it just isn't worth playing if certain players appear at the table. That's where all the real money is (was?) anyway even for human players. Kind of, Neural networks have a training phase which requires a lot of training. They aren't thinking 'hey this guy switched strategies, time to switch as well'If they don't have training to identify patterns, they'll fail. They also don't just recognize patterns immediately, lots of training and feedback is required.Edit: Typically the neural network would be used to place a score on different moves, based on past problems. It probably also uses heuristics/searching to make the best educated guess possible.
I play PLO professionally, and is a respected coach for one of the major coaching sites.I'll say this: yes, there is 'one specific GTO way to play'. Nash proved that for zero sum HU games (which poker is), and won a nobel prize for proving that.We're just all really fucking far from GTO play in NL/PL games.
Even in games that are considered tough (like NLH). That's why various strategies still work; people are making so many mistakes, wildly different styles of play can still manage to work. To an extent something like this is already happening on most Online poker sites.
![Strongest Strongest](http://mmoraw.com/plugins/content/sigplus/download.php/images/stories/MMO/Android/Tiny-Gladiators-2-Fighting-Tournament/Tiny Gladiators 2 (5).jpg?h=cd2bd229cdf54f880415773a724436c3)
Most allow HUDS that keep track of a players stats so that pros can track the weak players and join the games they are in. These stats are incredibly detailed like what percentage they they fold to a raise before the flop and the actions they take throughout the game. A good player with a HUD who knows how to use it can play 4-8 tables at once and almost every move they make is based on the other players percentages.
That's the reason why I only play live poker or on sites that use random player names so HUDS aren't as much as an advantage.
![](/uploads/1/2/5/7/125715482/489273369.jpeg)