And for that matter, Stockfish 5 on Lichess wasn't that bad either which is rumored to have ~1700 elo rating. It wasn't easy for me but still manageable. But someone should do something about these overly inflated bot levels.
I Finally Got Out of 100 ELO!
Sort:
I think the elo for you and for other people is not correctly measured. In other world, people with your elo or you yourself are all better than your elo. I beat a 1300 bot and im rated 332.
Elo?
elo is the rating of players
Good job! Just yesterrdayy, I was able to get to over 200 elo, too. To be honest, I think I should be rated 500 to 800 elo but I haven't been playing many rapid games lately. Also, I find that >1000 bots are easy. For example, the Mr. Beast bot could have checkmated me in a couple moves but he didn't, allowing me to checkmate him.
im at around 680 elo but i can beat the 1800 elo bot. why are these bots so easy to beat?
i agree with you Aryanc0958 i think the elo of real people is not correctly measured
Elo is a comparative measure, so it has to be the bots that’s incorrectly measured. Your elo is a skill where you have a 50% win rate, it can’t be wrong or wrongly measured.
Also everyone knows the bots are ridiculously overrated
xtreme2020 wrote:
Elo is a comparative measure, so it has to be the bots that’s incorrectly measured. Your elo is a skill where you have a 50% win rate, it can’t be wrong or wrongly measured.
They are not measured anyhow. Their "rating" is not a rating at all, just a meaningless number written there. Win or lose, it never changes. The number written there can be complete nonsense, like 1 or 0 or a billion.
With some help from the community, I finally went from 100 elo and made it to 220 elo currently. Massive increase so pretty happy that I'm winning games.
Still not sure why I can completely destroy the 1500 bot called Antonio but lose to 200 elo players. Why are the chess bots just extremely inaccurate in their listed rating?