Why are the bots easier to beat than real players?

That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that but thank you for letting me know!

In the article link it tells you how to play the bots but also you can play opponents with usernames komodo1, komodo2,...komodo35 in unrated Live Chess games which will give you the Man vs. Machine Achievement.

My observation on the Nelson bot is that he doesn't really favor the queen.  He uses a couple queen traps during the open, but if you defend them, he turns into a "normal" 1300 bot and often will trade queens if he has the opportunity which is the opposite, IMHO, of what someone that favored the queen would do.

No psychology is involved.

I am a 1300 rated player and I beat the 2000 bot by making mindless moves that are not blunders, I don't know how

I’m 350 rated and any bot below 1100 is extremely easy.

don't necropost lol.

I've beaten bots up to 2400. So I assume they do have inflated ratings. 

They often play strange moves that I can't understand. I play them for a laugh without taking it seriously as a means to improve my game. 

It's difficult to emulate human play. Really, the bots' programming just seems to be a pattern of solid moves interspersed with totally random mistakes, which of course decrease in number as the strength increases. However, this formula means that even the GM bots will make absurd, totally unrealistic errors...

I've been wondering about this for a while because I am only about a 400, but I would say that I beat the 1300 bot about 6 times out of 10. On top of this, when I use my "daily analysis" with the automated coach, I realized that it really doesn't like Danger Levels. Every time I play with this philosophy, it labels my move as a blunder, which is very annoying because I will consistently win by checkmate, and then I'll look at my analysis and I'll have upwards of 5 blunders almost every time. Does anyone else experience this sort of thing?

the necro ;-

Yea, the bots self destruct sometimes to balance the ratings, the computer loses only when it chooses to, it's not an achievement. 

The bots seem to play in 'streaks' for me. Either every single piece is protected and untakeable and everything is perfectly woven together. Or they just do the most rediculous blunders. I've even purposely left hanging pieces right next to them for multiple turns, and they refuse to take them. 

Isn't that only for Daily games? I'm not sure you're allowed (or supposed) to use a book move feature or your own personal notes in say a 15/10 rapid. 

They aren't allowed to use opening books in live, no.

I think the reason for this is that when a human misses a move, it's because they didn't see it. when and bot misses a move, they saw it and chose not to play it. if ratings are based on accuracy, and accuracy is based on percentage of blunders and good moves, then a bot is going to miss moves no player ever would, like a bishop a square from their queen. but it is no less likely to spot a bishop across the board. (just an example). 

I'm only rated 400 and I just beat EmirBOT (1000) and SvenBOT (1100) and I didnt even get any hints or takebacks (challenge mode) so I also agree that bots make very un human moves, nobody would do in real life, i tried playing humans and i LOST EVERY SINGLE GAME (they were all below 1000) i blew my whole rating just from that..!

As in my opinion, playing with players under 1110 rating is one's piece of cake. Playing with bots above this rating feels like playing with real humans. After all, these bots are trained to make mistakes or errors through professional programming. This creates differences between the ratings of bots and how often they win. This is the mutual advantage for beginners as they can play low level bots (250, 400), intermediate players can challenge medium level bots (1000, 1200) while advanced players can play with high level bots (any rating above 2000).