Are Bot's ratings accurate?

I think that all bots will never be correct, but they should be in the general area. I also played 1600 Devon, Dash, and other bots that supposedly are good. I don't have a crazy rating or anything so I was also a little surprised when I defeated Dash the Halloween bot first try. I also checkmated Pierre in 7 moves because I played 1. e4 f5 2. Bd3 fxe4 3. Bxe4 Na6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qxg6 hxg6 7. Bxg6# and won. I call this the Pierre F-Pawn Issue. I kept doing this mate until chess.com fixed it which was in a couple weeks. I think that chess.com should change the bots rating a little bit and try to fix issues like the Pierre F-Pawn Issue. Thanks for taking the time to read this!

- Metal_Pineapple

no they are not accurate

I gotta tell you guys, i had a tough time beating 1300 Nelson...one thing i can tell is that at the assisted match this specific BOT made some ridiculous mistakes, and when i tried unassisted mode he was not fooling around. So my conclusion is that you can not use the assisted match mode to try to improve your game.

I am new to the game with a rating only 950 and also found Dash (1600) weirdly easy. I seem to be able to beat Dash but struggle against David (1400) despite the latter supposedly being 200 rating points lower. Maybe the Dash bot is overrated.

No.  

I have beaten the bots at the ~1800 level multiple times, and me below 1600.  Not just beth, but the christmas one and the wally fellow etc.   100 points too high, maybe 150?  Could also be nonlinear...   its hard to tell.  I destroy the next level down from 1800 easily, so those are far weaker than I am... 1400 or less. 

Computers have always struggled very hard to produce human-like games at lower levels.  Its very difficult to emulate a human's mistakes.  They generally use a mix of reduced depth (can only see 3-5 moves ahead or so) and randomization (pick from the top 3-5 best moves available randomly) and in some cases monkeying with the piece scores (make bishop worth 4 and knight 3, for a flavor) or material vs position preferences to emulate.  I used to play one called 'tal style' that made semi-sound sacrifices to wipe you out quickly (I think the 2000 normal bot plays like this!). 

In my opinion every bot does respond to the same move with the same move except the openings, I mean you can try that if you once defeated it, and you premove all the moves you still win if the bot starts with the same opening again. So if you try to defeat a bot with the same opening always and win that wont mean you are that good, but if you start with many openings, you clearly have the rating they have. Thats my opinion, hope it helps.

Yeah

yes that is called cheesing, and you can set it to 1|0 and do that for easy wins

Hmmm

I don't believe so. Many bots rated 250-1400ish randomly blunder material. This is because it is hard to simulate how humans blunder if you think about it. So bot blunders I think are a lot more obvious. I don't really know what I am saying, but hopefully this makes more sense you all than it does to me lol.

i don't know if thier rating is a blitz rating or a classical one

I can only speak for the Christmas bots.  I beat the 1600 bot easily, lost mostly against the 2000 bot, but still had several draws.  Considering my rating, I don't think the bots are accurate, but then again, maybe I am a bit better than I thought.  I carried a much higher ELO when I was on playchess and I just started on chess.com after a long, long layoff.

im 800 and can consistently beat 1300 bot but the thing is that the bot blunders 2-3 a game which is alot on purpose but the moves and calculations are around 1300.

I’m new to chess and can consistently beat Nelson already. Probably not a real 1300 player. But I played him many many times and learned how to beat him. The moves are not consistent every time as someone said, but they try to give each bot some sort of personality. Some are defensive, some super aggressive, they play different defenses. They may even adapt to me personally as I have noticed what seems to be patterns when I can’t handle a particular approach. Some know openings. Some are good at endgames. I’ve also noticed that more often than not, we will both score accuracies in the 80’s or 30’s together. That doesn’t seem quite random, although some bots are classified as adaptive. I don’t know crap about chess, but I am a programmer and these little intricacies are pretty obvious. The whole idea is to have some fun and I can learn the game to a point without embarrassing myself. I don’t think I am 1300 now because I beat Nelson a lot and never lose to Beth 9. Find a bot you like and relax. Or if you are a GM in training, maybe quit complaining about free bots. I said elsewhere I took the Düsseldorf test and scored 1320. It was a test and I treated it as such. I never give that much thought and attention to a chess game. I would never replicate the same answers in a game vs. a human probably. I like the bots. Also good for learning checkmates and endgames and so forth when real players want a fast resignation. The number of times I blunder into draws!

Play any bot in the 10 minute Category, when you can beat that bot or a bot at that level 3 times in a row you are close to that level or better. I beat a Piere in the 1600 range once after I payed 8 times and have been playing for 2 months but that doesn’t mean my rating would improve to 1600. 

I'm new to chess. After several games on chess.com my rating is only 325. But I just beat 1000, 1100, and 1200 bots. Seems strange?

Maybe its because I'm playing 10 minute against people but against bots there's unlimited time to think.

Interesting idea, sure can be the case IMO thx for posting it, dude