[waprin]

Within solvers, you can do something called "node locking", which means you "lock" a tree in the game node to play a fixed strategy. You would typically lock it to play as you suspect your opponent plays. This lets the solver calculate the optimal exploitative solution against your specific oppoents.

Piosolver, the first public solver and the one mentioned in the article, has this feature.

However, what often happens is if you lock one node, then several other nodes in the game tree over-adjust in drastic ways, forcing you to lock all of the, which may be infeasiable. As a result, Piosolver recently introduced "incentives", which gives a player in the game an additional incentive to take a certain action . For example, you may suspect your opponent calls too much and doesn't raise enough, so you can just set that incentive and it will include that in its math equations and give you something similar to an exploitative solution with a much simpler UX.

This feature was literally just introduced a few months ago so it's still very much an active area of research, both for game theory nerds, and people trying to use the game theory nerd research to make money !

[Buttons840]

I want to see strong AI used in video games, especially strategy games. People often retort that strong AI is not fun; it's too challenging and that's not what players want. But once we have a strong AI we can adjust its goal function in fun ways. What you're describing is effectively the same, and it's the first time I've seen this used in a strong AI.

[currymj]

GT Sophy is now a permanent feature in Gran Turismo and basically does this!

[Buttons840]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I still haven't seen an AI for a turn based strategy game. There's AlphaStar, but it wins via APM, not strategy.

[dontlikeyoueith]

In essence, you need strong (probably unbeatable) game AI in order to make more interesting weak (beatable but challenging and fun) game AI.