Are bots with low ratings just gifting pieces?

I thought I would test out low rated software available on the chesskids webpage. The 2200 bot played very reasonable and had to study some positions deep. Then I tested the 1600 bot and it just seemed very terrible. Are 1600 players really that bad or are the bots designed badly to play at 1600 level. There was no thought in the game below was personally just clicking buttons.

This is chess.com. I believe that most players here have little idea of what is on chesskids because the site is designed for children.

The "bots" here are unrated. I would be surprised if they are rated on chesskids. But I'll take your word for it.

The king walk and knight retreat in moves 8-10 confirm that it doesn't merit a 1600 rating. I would guess that such moves are designed to be encouraging to young kids.

If you want to assess the rated computers here, you have to play a timed rated game. 

Go play the 2200 and find out if it is designed for kids  I typed chess vs computer and it was first thing that came up on google.  I doubt many on here could beat the 2200 but the 1600 just plays like its badly programmed into making blunders.

I have played many times vs stockfish 8, komodo 10.2 always playing to draw as winning does seems impossible, only managing to draw a couple of games out of 100s but they are to few and far between. 

Engines like sos 5.1 are good as you always feel like you have a chance but have to put brain power into beating them.

Here are my approximate real ratings for each of the bots on chesskid.com (given ratings in parentheses)

1. Qwerty (400) 700
2. Reboot (600) 850
3. SafeMode (800) 925
4. Kilobyte (1000) 1000
5. Hyperlink (1200) 1100
6. Override (1400) 1220
7.  QuadCore (1600) 1350
8. Firewall (1800) 1500
9. CircuitBreaker (2000) 1650
10. Megahertz (2200) 1900

Here is my game vs OverRide (I am rated around 1430)

Real? How would you know? Is this based on your personal experiences with the bots as a 1430?

Incidentally, is 1430 your blitz rating on Chesskids? Your blitz rating here is 658.

I play at around a 1430 level untimed. I'm pretty sure my game vs the CPU was NOT a 600 game.

There is no such thing as "1430 level untimed".  All rated games are timed. Untimed games are not ratable.

It was played against a computer that a 658 rated blitz player beat easily.  While games are not individually rated, the computer would receive a rating after losing this game somewhere south of 600.  Therefore, one could say that it was a 600 game.

I am not trying to give you a hard time. The fact that you deem your untimed play in a game against a computer that threw a rook at you on the 9th move to be better evidence of your real rating than the 171 games you played here in live chess (blitz, bullet and rapid)  shows that you don't understand ratings.

I play at a 900 standard and an 1100 daily here on chess.com

Also, I was not playing blitz.

really

I'm curious about this also. My 8 year old son has a USCF rating of 520. He beat the 2000 bot 3 straight games, and lost 3 straight to the 2200 bot. There seems to be a big difference between the two.

OKAY, OKAY! ALL THE ARGUING! im pretty sure the chesskids bots are just a problem in the server

This has always been a thing with chess programs.  It turns out artificial intelligence is child's play compared to the successful programming of realistic artificial stupidity.

I won vs QuadCore and my rating is around 700(I didn't use hints.)

COMPS are stupid... Get a real 2200 and you're dead if you aren't equal in rating.

I haven't played OTB for ten years but have a FIDE rating of 2210. When my children starting playing on chesskid.com I looked at the chesskid bots but got totally crushed every time I played Megahertz (the top chesskid bot). I'm out of practice, but can tell when I am beyond outclassed.

So as a test we played Megahertz against Stockfish... four games four draws. So while the lower bots on chesskids are pretty weak, I think Megahertz's real rating is way beyond the 1900 suggested above 

There is not much economic motivation to develop chess software that plays humanlike at weak levels, so strong engines are instructed to make egregious errors in the effort to mimic weak players. Your best bet for realistic weak engines are engines designed by programmers who are not very good, and who did not begin by tweaking Stockfish. Ten or fifteen years ago, I had something like 64 engines on one of my computers and a few were weak enough to play like a human rated below 1700.

In reality most chess.com bots are not accurate at all either, for example a 1600 bot still blunders materials a lot.

1. e4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. d3 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Bb3 Nbd7 8. Re1 Nc5 9. Bc4 b5 10. Bb3 e5 11. a3 Nxb3 12. cxb3 Be6 13. d4 Qc7 14. d5 cxd5 15. exd5 Bd7 16. Qd3 Rac8 17. Nxb5 Qb8 18. a4 e4 19. Rxe4 Nxe4 20. Qxe4 a6 21. Nbd4 Rc5 22. Be3 Re8 23. Qd3 Qb7 24. Nc6 Bf5 25. Qd1 Bc2 26. Qd2 Bxb2 27. Re1 Rc3 28. Bd4 Rxe1+ 29. Qxe1 f6 30. Bxc3 Bxc3 31. Qxc3 Qxb3 32. Qxb3 Bxb3 33. a5 Kf7 34. Kf1 Bc4+ 35. Ke1 Bxd5 36. Nb8 Bb7 37. Nd4 Bxg2 38. Nxa6 Ke8 39. Ke2 Kd7 40. Nb4 f5 41. f3 Kc7 42. Kf2 Bh3 43. Kg3 Bf1 44. Ne6+ Kb7 45. Nf8 Bb5 46. Nxh7 Bc4 47. Nf6 g5 48. Nfd5 Bb5 49. a6+ Bxa6 50. Nxa6 Kxa6 51. Ne7 f4+ 52. Kg4 Kb5 53. Kxg5 Kc5 54. Kxf4 d5 55. Nxd5 Kxd5 56. h4 Ke6 57. Kg5 Ke7 58. Kg6 Ke8 59. Kg7 Ke7 60. h5 Ke6 61. h6 Ke5 62. h7 Kf4 63. h8=Q Ke3 64. Qe8+ Kf2 65. Qa4 Kg2 66. Kg6 Kg3 67. Kg5 Kg2 68. f4 Kf2 69. f5 Kg2 70. Qa3 Kg1 71. Kf4 Kh1 72. Qb2 Kg1 73. Qe2 Kh1 74. Kg3 Kg1 75. Qg2# For example, this was a 1900 bot, see what a mean