I am convinced that most players on chess.com is ai generated

I firmly believe that chess.com is using AI-generated players to compete against real players.

Reason 1: 80% of players intentionally decline rematches, regardless of the time format (rapid, blitz, bullet). This behavior seems unlikely for the average chess player.

Reason 2: An opponent is always available instantly, no matter the time of day.

Reason 3: Whenever there's any time lag, it always seems to affect my clock only.

Reason 4: Why hasn’t there been a mandatory best-of-three format implemented yet??

I am sorry you feel that way. Is there anything else I can assist you with?

I'll answer your statement, at least in my perspective. First point, for me, whether I'm denying a rematch offer is because I'm not in the mood to play the same player again. Second point, I don't get opponents in an instant whenever I press the play button. Usually, I have to wait 10 second to find an opponents

Is or are?

Number 4 would be solving a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist, and three games would be illogical with one player getting two whites. Let the players play however many they mutually agree to, whether that be 1 or 100, no problem.

How would you explain all the players here, before ai was available?

1) If you like rematches doesn't mean more than 20% must like rematches.

2) Try any non-popular time control and see it takes longer.

3) Can't comment on that. Chess.com had time bugs in the past, some bugs could be still present.

4) Mandatory? Maybe you mean just best of 3 option and if opponent abandons for 2nd or 3rd game you get wins? Idk. What's the point?

Online pvp chess has no value, you're worrying about it too much.

Chess.com has NO resources to simulate players using AI or something like that. Hint: all chess.com bots run locally using resources of your PC or smartphone, check yourself: game against bot continues even without internet connection. Chess.com did this because it would be too expensive to run hundreds of copies of engine on their server.

Maybe they have pool of bot players that secretly use your resources, try blocking komodo wasm files in your network security software or with extension idk and see if "real" players have stopped playing. If they're still playing - your theory is wrong.

yea #1 I doubt it

I understand your concerns, but I think there are other explanations for the points you've raised:

Reason 1: Declining rematches doesn’t necessarily mean someone is AI. Many players prefer to play against different opponents or may not have time for another game. It's a common preference, especially in short time formats like blitz or bullet.

Reason 2: Chess.com has millions of users worldwide, so it’s very likely to find an opponent at any time. The platform’s popularity ensures that there's almost always someone ready to play, regardless of time zones.

Reason 3: Time lag can be caused by network issues or server latency, and it's not uncommon for it to feel like it's only affecting one side. This is more of a technical issue rather than evidence of AI manipulation.

Reason 4: The best-of-three format isn't standard in chess. Players usually prefer one-off games, especially in faster time formats, as they allow for more variety and flexibility. Implementing a mandatory best-of-three could limit the preferences of a significant portion of the player base.

I don’t believe the AI theory with 300k+ players on-line most of the time you should expect a quick match. As for #4 I fail to see why this means less AI play, after all if you are playing a computer wouldn’t it be logical that the computer would immediately accept any challenge you want to make 2g, 3g etc.?

There's little incentive to play a second game with someone you beat, because now they have a better chance of beating you, if you lose to someone you just beat you lose a lot of time.

See this conspiracy theory all the time. If it was true, it would easy to detect these bots analysing patterns in the games - time usage, premoves, non human moves, weird errors etc and accounts - activity, rating progression etc. Chess.com would have to use alot of resources to achieve very little and risk almost certainly getting caught and losing reputation.

So yeah, if you give it a little thought your reasoning is weak, motive non existant and evidence speaks against it. Hope not to see this topic again.