Does Chess.com use Bots as Players on their live Games?

So yes, they most likely do. And certain mods are probably kept out of the loop. It's an AI world, and of course they would use that technology. Feels bad for the players at the lower end of the rating spectrum, but its still best for those players to ignore the player and focus on the game. Having bots playing weaker in patches and stronger in other patches makes the game feel weird for sure, but the best way to get around it is to beat them and move past those bots level so that you can face humans again.

I mean certain players use bots in the titled tuesday and still get away with it, its just a symptom of the world were are living in and the technologies available.

They certainly do use automated players. It is cheap, easy, can always have false live players, and it is a means to drive away non-paying players from using the games. They are not ethical on this site and I think I am done with them.

The site does not use bots in the player pools.

I've been playing chess.com for more than a year, I've never played a cheater

I see at least 3 banned players at your first 1-3 pages of game history. Chess.com is full of bots for creating an effect of fullness of chess players, for punishing non subscribed users. I stop play here and use FIDE official website. It is not ideal too btw, but support more adequately react for cheating

You can put yours opponent's elo search window as tight as possible and within seconds you will find a player even at 2200-2300 elo or even higher, where less than couple of thousands people total play. Statistically this makes no sense, but it the case here. With each year they bot situation is getting worse due to less people playing since the latest chess boom.

There are 123,323 members playing right now.

There are 362 titled players online right now.

They are not

This is straight up wrong, there's no banned players in my history

There's one in September and one in March ... didn't look closely or for more.

You can tell if they are humans if they play braindead moves that no computer has the creativity for. Trust me, I'm a 900ish that has played hundreds of games, and I haven't encountered any cheaters, just people elo manipulating and trolling. They are definitely humans if they use scholars mate or England Gambit. I would, however, be concerned if they play the

Sveshnikov at >1000 elo.

Erm actually it's called the Englund Gambit and it's a trash opening

When I play a lot of games, chesscom asks me to verify I'm not a bot. Members are probably spinning up bots and selling the accounts later. But as for cheating, there seems to be a correlation between someone who has created their account in the last few months and has played about 70-300 games give or take, its within that frame they can't seem to control themselves emotionally, they assume you are cheating because they randomly blundered and so they then passively cheat the rest of the game. Just quietly report and move on, I get a lot of points back that way. They should have a filter to only matchmake people with 1-2k games played I think, then the players feel a lot more authentic.

20 players banned for the lack of fair play and 6 players banned for abuse in your game history I see

The reason I am not playing 45/45 and 60/0 games is that I had to wait for at least 20 minutes for a game, sometimes more. If they were using bots, I would get those games the way you describe. And all that on 1700 level, even much lower than that. If they were using bots, that would not happen. There are more gaps in the pool that have the same problem as well. In blitz and bullet there are simply enough people around 2200 level for everyone to get games quickly.

I don't know if chess.com uses bots although I have my doubts. But what I am reasonably sure of is if they are catching the number of cheaters they say they are, there are a large number of cheaters who aren't being caught. It is easy to catch a bot playing perfect chess. It isn't so easy to catch a bot intentionally playing less than perfect chess. There are still ways to try and catch such (variations in move time being one way), but to believe they are catching them all; it just isn't logical.