quake is a really bad example because there are human limitation that bots have not managed to replicate yet.
1. you cannot code human-like aim.
aimbots have been around forever and they have *tried* to make them look like human aim, but they can't, because human aim fluctuates depending not just on the target but on various game-environment factors.
As a bot coder, you either make the bot have 100% accuracy (in which case duh, bot wins, but it becomes a parallel of "car runs fast") or you don't, in which case a human could potentially have better accuracy than the bot.
Also no real reason to gimp your bot. In chess, which is going to be a major point of comparison here, you don't make your AI less smart than it can be.
2. bots lose against decisions
in the history of quake there are a ton of videos of pro players beating hackers with 100% acc bots, because the hacker lacks in decisionmaking ability - and in movement as well.
if your Ai has a routine it bases its decisionmaking on, this will soon be evident, giving the human player the ability to predict the AI's movement.
Chess is a far more static, linear game than quake. Knowing what the opponent will do often isn't much of an advantage, compared to a positional advantage in quake, where you can hit and not be hit back.
3. AIs are stupid. And i mean, not that they are dumb, but that AIs are stupid.
Humans challenge other humans. Decisionmaking and fluctuation of aim are aspects of the game skill that the practitioners will be aware of, and try to exploit. There is no fun, and in a sense no challenge in playing against an AI. You will never be able to follow the mental process of an AI because they did not learn the same way that you did.
In quake, specially back when the internet wasn't great and most players were limited to their local server, there was a thing where regional group of players would have their own tactics that were common to that environment, with the relative countermoves as well. So german players would constantly evade, US players wre control-focused, brits would constantly camp, and italians would constantly complain.
back in the 90s when PC development was raging, we had that "they will never build a computer that can beat a human at chess", because the chess players had no idea what a computer was, or how it worked.
AIs - and here i may be wrong, but i'd be curious to know - cannot invent. They can discover, if the source allows for it. And AI is simply a library of moves made by humans. Sometimes there is evidence of a new move in the already existing data, but no human has made the connection, however the AI coders have designed a data-analisys system that allows the AI to mine successfully a new move from said data. But an AI cannot invent something outside of its database, although it can try and be successful through randomness, it doesn't possess creativity. What it does possess is computing power, it's faster than a human, doesn't burn through a limited glucose reservoir, can store more data, and is more precise in recollection and execution. I find none of these things appealing or exciting, not more exciting than a toaster. I mean, a toaster makes better toast than a human, but we're not celebrating toasters, right?
Facebook
Twitter