Poggy Bots

I've played a lot of these bots and reached a level where I can't seem to win at all [Oscar (2100)] , so I thought I'd try other bots.  I've not kept my disdain for chess.com's extreme focus on Pogchamps and fluff (in place of, rather than in addition to, serious chess and educational content) a secret, so I decided to play a poggy streamer (or "influencer," a term that has taken a bizarre twist).  I played it a blitz speed (the game took less than 5 min. total) and made some obvious mistakes but the competition was too weak to put up much of a fight (really, making this post somewhat pointless as anything instructional or even showcase-y).

So I played a stronger "influencer," again at blitz speed, and the game turned really wild. Here my mistakes were more dire but the bot's mistakes were even worse (it probably would have won if it hadn't played 28...c5??).

Well done.

That should read 28...c5, sorry. I'll change the text

nice

To your point, I've been on here a year, and it's not clear to me what a Pogchamp even is.

So these “influencers” are bots, too?

this is crazy. 

I have played quite a few games against the Danny Rensch bot, and it beats me most of the time, but I have scored some victories and some draws.

Not bad for an old patzer.....

Well, they made bots based on particular poggers. 

Well, thank God there is no "Kamalakanta Bot" yet!

If there were, it would play like Bronstein.

Oh, how I wish!

From your mouth to God's Ears.....

Ok, what is a pogger? Being serious.

It is a cross between a podcaster  and a blogger!

In your first game, you had 78.2 % accuracy, whereas in your second game against a much stronger opponent you had 94.6 % accuracy. In your first game you had no mistakes, blunders, or missed wins, but in your second game you had four mistakes and one blunder - but your opponent had four mistakes and three blunders. All per Chess.com analysis. 

It's hard for me to understand how you can have an accuracy score of 94.6 with four mistakes and a blunder. I've noticed the same seeming discrepancy in my games against bots. Is there any sense to be made of the stats I've  cited?

Chess.com analysis is good as far as it goes but I wouldn't buy stock in it.

Cool to see the engine still thinks 16. Qxe7 is completely winning for white in the first game (+10)

I think the chess.com analysis is more than a bit wonky. Example, just played a short game where my opponent blundered and resigned (like 15 moves or something). Except for that blunder, no mistakes, blunders or missed wins on either side. However both scores where in the abysmal mid teens. Why? (Besides we suck). It was because we weren’t choosing the ‘best’ and only choosing ‘excellent’ (second best). So why is it wonky? It didn’t consider the difference between the best and the excellent move. In an open game there can be a huge difference (like between winning and losing). However, this game was closed and in most cases the difference was meaningless (like .1 or .2 difference) and often changing the deeper the analysis. So take it with a bit of salt…

I don't know if I ever heard an American use the term "wonky."  (to be fair, I'm not sure I ever heard anyone use it before.)

Thanks Полина.

From my experiences here in the past year, I doubt anything could surprise me.