Is that supposed to be an intention in design? I'd figure an AI could easily outplay a human if that weren't the case, given its inherent advantages (e.g. better accuracy, the ability to instantaneously prioritize which units to blink in/out).
For example, [this](https://youtu.be/pETcAm82vXU?t=322) game is one example where an AI could perform even better using such tactics.
EDIT: another commenter mentioned it would make the game too unfair, so it was an intention in design.
100 zerglings vs. 20 siege tanks. Without insane micro the zerglings barely kill 2 siege tanks. With insane micro the 100 zerglings mop up the whole army with ease.
It's fascinating & fun to watch, but if your goal is to make an AI that can out-think a human it's super not useful, either.
This is not true. Top-level human players take into account who their opponent is, what builds they've used in recent games, their proclivities, strengths, and weaknesses. In a 7-game match they'll intentionally use builds which (in order to deceive) appear the same but have very different effects.
AlphaStar has better strategy than other AIs, but that's a low bar. My young son has better strategic appreciation of the game, and easily points out the difference between good strategy and AlphaStar's next-level micro.
It might have some minor unfair advantage in terms of being able to click with pixel perfect accuracy, but they're marginal and from watching this project evolve, it's pretty clear that the strategic planning aspect of alphastar has indeed become better than humans.
"Agents were capped at a max of 22 agent actions per 5 seconds, where one agent action corresponds to a selection, an ability and a target unit or point, which counts as up to 3 actions towards the in-game APM counter. Moving the camera also counts as an agent action, despite not being counted towards APM."
This is worse micro than top human players.