Cool. I beat a 2000 bot and I'm just 1300.
I'm 1100 and I've gotten pretty close to winning against Li, assuming that's the 2000 bot you are referring to. I've crushed Wally (1800) in the past, but that seems to be my limit.
I used an opening trap, and constantly tried over and over until it worked.
Shish
I'm like Bruh.
any bot under 1500 rating hang their pieces frequently and do pointless sacrifices
how do you know the bot made no errors?
Me: that's a good question. But my answer is Idk
how do you know the bot made no errors?
Analysis, btw he made 1 mistake but no blunders
any bot under 1500 rating hang their pieces frequently and do pointless sacrifices
Yeah, but not above them, right.
The bots are actually not rated properly. I defeated Beth Harmon bot which was 2400 in the first game with no takebacks and hints. I was 1300 at the time.
Yeah I've beaten the 2000 adaptive bot and I'm 1600... Bots are pretty overrated unless they're 2100+ I'd say, the 1800-2000 ones aren't as hard as they're rating... but maybe that's just me.
What chess.com should do is have the bots play live games with humans, which would be an easy thing to do for them. From that they would quickly determine their true human ratings, which would be significantly lower.
The issue with bots is that it is extremely hard to make them play like a human. It would require a significant amount of work to mimic the real rating levels and playing styles that they profess to have. Instead we end up with vague approximations that are not convincing at all.
Still, I think the bots are a great idea and add value to the site. Maybe in the future chess.com (or someone else) can use machine learning and all the games played here to create realistic bots. Maybe collaborate with some university's AI department to have them develop the algorithms. Maybe this has been done already, somewhere...
When i was rated 800, i beat 2 1500 bots
(i got to 900 rating today!!)
code miko is like 100 but here shes like 400 xD
I beat the 1600 rated “Pablo” bot on my first try playing it like it was a 10 min rapid game. The bots are definitely overrated.
yeah in my experience the chess.com bots make random blunders that are often easy to spot. They're about as easy to notice as mistakes made by human 1000 players. At least for me, they start getting difficult to beat around the 1800 level, probably because I can't spot the mistakes higher rated bots make. That is my input, not sure if it was at all helpful
He made no blunders in the game
that is not what the game analysis says. it says he made 5 inaccuracies, 4 mistakes, and 1 blunder.
how do you know the bot made no errors?
Analysis, btw he made 1 mistake but no blunders
you must be reading the analysis incorrectly. he made 4 inaccuracies, 5 mistakes, and 1 blunder
yeah in my experience the chess.com bots make random blunders that are often easy to spot. They're about as easy to notice as mistakes made by human 1000 players. At least for me, they start getting difficult to beat around the 1800 level, probably because I can't spot the mistakes higher rated bots make. That is my input, not sure if it was at all helpful
He made no blunders in the game
that is not what the game analysis says. it says he made 5 inaccuracies, 4 mistakes, and 1 blunder.
He made that blunder at the very end, so it doesn't count as blunder, when he was just left with king and I was completely winning.
any bot under 1500 rating hang their pieces frequently and do pointless sacrifices
Yeah, but not above them, right.
above them, positional mistakes.
Very solid game my friend nice played
how do you know the bot made no errors?