When I started playing chess I could not win against a 250 rated player. Then I started to just play bots and moved up the chesscom bot ladder and was finally able to beat Noam. Now when I play anyone 500 or under I usually win easily.
As someone that plays against bots a lot, I can tell you their schemes do change. It's not always the same. You'll face various openings, however the bots do prefer a certain style a higher % of the time. Also, they do play at various skill levels. I've seen a 1500 rated bot play a 1050 game to a 1750 game according to the chess.com analysis.
As someone that plays against bots a lot, I can tell you their schemes do change. It's not always the same. You'll face various openings, however the bots do prefer a certain style a higher % of the time. Also, they do play at various skill levels. I've seen a 1500 rated bot play a 1050 game to a 1750 game according to the chess.com analysis.
That rating estimation is not really a serious tool.
First of all, I've seen people estimated around 1 200 when they blunder 3 times in 10 moves.
Second, even if it was not so, that estimation is usually way too high anyway for all but the sharpest games. For instance, if I play a calm game where many moves gives you an ok position, and then you exchange some pieces, get to the endgame, there is a high possibility the estimate will be over 2 000, even if you had some inaccurate moves.
Only in games where one or 2 moves keeps you in the game, and other loses, the estimation will be more closer to my rating, sometimes even below.
There are 2 reasons, first it is not easy to make a smart rating estimator that will take into account how difficult is a certain position and only then estimate your rating. Second, the site has to earn money, so stroking someone's ego by showing him a bigger rating is not a bad way to do so.
So, the estimation is interesting to see, but don't take it too seriously. AKA, lower estimation (and accuracy after the game) doesn't mean lower level play. It could be, but it could just be an indication that the position in the game was simply more difficult as well.
Plus bots are usually overrated compared to humans of the same rating, especially lower level bots.
Yeah it is
Not really, if one wants to get better at chess. It is not completely useless when you are starting out, but even then, it is better to play against humans.
It is fun to play against bots sometimes, but bots do not play like humans. Their mistakes are more out of the blue, less logical from our human point of view. You attack the queen with the pawn, and the bot moves the king thus losing the queen and castling rights, and similar...
If the aim is to get better at chess, playing humans is much better than playing against bots.
Playing against chess bots can be good for practicing specific skills, such as openings or tactics and for consistent training, but it's not a complete substitute for playing against human opponents.
Yes ,Bots are here to help.Please read my post on Clubs section.Consider Bots like real entities.From the moment that Bots are here to help,we can consider protect Bots.
Use Maia... it's a chess engine, but it uses a neural network trained to make human moves. It's ideal for training because you can setup the position you want and play a bunch of realistic games. Training against a traditional engine .... it's not bad and I'm sure it helps but this is better - Maia Chess
Hi this is Zoey, In my opinion I don't know how to play this so
at the masters rating of my 460.......im finding just the board time playing bots provide im making less horrible blunders AND when i do i get to take it back and use it as a teachable moment and after a while i play the bot with no take-backs. I actually hope to reach a point that my chess memory becomes good enough to exploit a bots actions......
Sometimes I play strong bots and in the middle game I make a move and wait for the bot to react, then I take back the move and try a different move and see how they react. That way I am learning better moves because the bots always plan ahead depending on your position on the board. It is fun.
chess.com's bots seem strange. Does anyone know where you can play against good bots that play like humans?
I play the bots that are atheist twice my ELO...otherwise it is a waste of time.
I feel like it isnt bad if you want to practice openings and play bots better than you. The lower level bots blunder for no reasons and might as well play unrated games if you want to play people who blunder
I play the bots that are atheist twice my ELO...otherwise it is a waste of time.
Bots with a rating below 1600 play just as poorly in my opinion.
Playing against bots that are equal or stronger than you is not bad as you can still analyse the games and find where you did mistakes and the games are a bit interesting since they all have different styles of playing and test your tactical play for attacks and defence in new ways . The ones closer to your level are also a good way to explore/practice new openings and you can also learn a thing or two like an appropriate move in a particular type of position or the unseen purpose of moving a piece