We don't claim this is perfect, which is why we label the chart "estimated MMR".
It might be worth hiring one of the top dota pros to coach OpenAI's bots: they could point out each small mistake that the bots made which pros wouldn't make. That might make it more tractable to beat the top team next year. (The actual dota coaches might be even better for this purpose than the pros, too.)
Looking forward to the outcome! The goal of "beat the top dota team" is one of those ambitious ones that few companies take on. It's really interesting to see the incremental progress.
The solutions would probably take the form of adjusting weights, adding additional dimensions, removing or refactoring existing signals, or deciding that extra training would naturally solve the problem.
I had an MMR of around 4.4k solo/team, I think the average player had 2.25k MMR, the standard above average player had around 3.5k to 4k MMR. Anything past 4k MMR exponentially made matches way more intense. Its always been this way as far as I remember even back in DoTA 1 days
4k MMR in DoTA skillwise is about the equivalent of Platinum in rocket league, or Diamond in Overwatch
I don't know. I assume it's similar to how AlphaGo measures its ELO ranking. But the strange thing is, this is hundreds of years of self-play, not a public pool of humans playing against each other. How does MMR in simulation translate to MMR in real matches?
Before pointing out that it's possible for an ELO rating, consider that Dota MMR is a bit different – every game you win, you get +25. Every game you lose, you get -25. This changes at the very high / very low levels, or if the matchups are wildly imbalanced, but that's the general setup. Or it was, a few years ago.
Does anyone have a guess?