Forums

Are the bot characters’ ELO ratings accurate?

Sort:
p8q

To @psychohist and @Ritterschildt

Time control is key: playing vs bots in challenge mode in this site there's no time pressure. The difference playing engines blitz vs classical is around 300 points.

@psychohist is almost 1300 rating. Isabel is 1600 rating. So it's expected he beats Isabel in classical TC 50% of the time.

Also @Ritterschildt pointed out another key issue: psychology. Playing vs bots there's no pressure, because rating points are not at stake, no medals, no tournament, your are calmed down and that makes you play much better. Therefore, your rating vs bots should be much higher only for this reason. That, plus time control, both factors combined should make you play hundreds of points stronger vs bots.

About the game analysis, or game review, it's based on the character of the game. If the game wasn't complicated tactically, was dull, etc... It will give you a huge accuracy and rating estimation. Even bigger than GM level. But that's not because we played at GM strength, that's because we didn't get complicated positions during the game. Also trading all pieces at first sight, simplifying fast to the endgame, will usually give as a result high accuracy (low centipawn loss) in the analysis of the game. Also the estimated rating will be provided according to the rating of players: a game 1300 vs 1300 players will give around 1300 rating performance estimation (sometimes 1100 sometimes 1500... but always around 1300 unless the game was a disaster). And that same game (all moves exactly the game) played GM vs GM will give as a result 2600 rating performance. So, don't trust that estimation. It's garbage

psychohist
p8q wrote:

To @psychohist and @Ritterschildt

Time control is key: playing vs bots in challenge mode in this site there's no time pressure. The difference playing engines blitz vs classical is around 300 points.

@psychohist is almost 1300 rating. Isabel is 1600 rating. So it's expected he beats Isabel in classical TC 50% of the time.

Also @Ritterschildt pointed out another key issue: psychology. Playing vs bots there's no pressure, because rating points are not at stake, no medals, no tournament, your are calmed down and that makes you play much better. Therefore, your rating vs bots should be much higher only for this reason. That, plus time control, both factors combined should make you play hundreds of points stronger vs bots.

About the game analysis, or game review, it's based on the character of the game. If the game wasn't complicated tactically, was dull, etc... It will give you a huge accuracy and rating estimation. Even bigger than GM level. But that's not because we played at GM strength, that's because we didn't get complicated positions during the game. Also trading all pieces at first sight, simplifying fast to the endgame, will usually give as a result high accuracy (low centipawn loss) in the analysis of the game. Also the estimated rating will be provided according to the rating of players: a game 1300 vs 1300 players will give around 1300 rating performance estimation (sometimes 1100 sometimes 1500... but always around 1300 unless the game was a disaster). And that same game (all moves exactly the game) played GM vs GM will give as a result 2600 rating performance. So, don't trust that estimation. It's garbage

While in principle time control should be key, in my case I'm impatient and find it difficult to use all the time even in rapid. If I could be patient enough to take advantage of classical time control, I would probably play better, but I'm not.

The average rating for my live game experiment was 1239. The average rating in the analysis was 1500. That's a significant difference. Either we played better than our numerical rating, or chess.com analysis overestimates ratings.

I agree the character of the game can affect things, because an uncomplicated game can make it easier to find the best move and not make a mistake. I'm still skeptical about reaching grandmaster levels of accuracy by the analysis rating at a sub-1500 level.

haddes09

Hi i win the 80% or some here ; against any bot except 2000 elo i can easily win vs the most of bots but i cant beat a bot with 1500 elo because It haves More elo than It pretends

I can draw against a 1600 or maybe win because my FIDE elo Is 1578 but i dont know how It can beats me!!

TumoKonnin

nope

p8q

I got useful information:

I talked on the phone with the president of a chess club that has computers and students often play vs chess.com bots. He said in his experience c.c 1200 bots won 50% of the times vs his students that have 850 c.c rating.

He also has Rodent IV in the computers (he installed it under my recommendation almost a year ago) and according to his experience that engine set at 1200 is 1200 classical and 1400 blitz 5|5, compared to his students c.c rating.

Therefore, looks like komodo 14.1 (chess.com bots engine) is less accurate (overvalued) than Rodent iv for a rating under 1600. But above 1600 they both match in strength.

There's hundreds of students in his club. So, I trust his figures. Plus he is comparing with his students c.c rating, which is a more accurate comparison, since many of his students don't compete in FIDE tournaments, and others with this low rating didn't compete enough times to get accurate FIDE rating.

Thus, If I had to measure my rating from 1200 ahead, I'd use Rodent IV. No idea under 1200. I should have asked, but i don't care much under that rating.

Anymous106
Not very accurate
JBarryChess

I think the bots ratings are overstated by 25% to 50%

p8q
JBarryChess wrote:

I think the bots ratings are overstated by 25% to 50%

What made you think so?