And for that matter, Stockfish 5 on Lichess wasn't that bad either which is rumored to have ~1700 elo rating. It wasn't easy for me but still manageable. But someone should do something about these overly inflated bot levels.
I Finally Got Out of 100 ELO!
Sort:
I think the elo for you and for other people is not correctly measured. In other world, people with your elo or you yourself are all better than your elo. I beat a 1300 bot and im rated 332.
Elo?
elo is the rating of players
Feb 10, 2023
0
#6
Good job! Just yesterrdayy, I was able to get to over 200 elo, too. To be honest, I think I should be rated 500 to 800 elo but I haven't been playing many rapid games lately. Also, I find that >1000 bots are easy. For example, the Mr. Beast bot could have checkmated me in a couple moves but he didn't, allowing me to checkmate him.
im at around 680 elo but i can beat the 1800 elo bot. why are these bots so easy to beat?
i agree with you Aryanc0958 i think the elo of real people is not correctly measured
Sep 25, 2024
0
#9
Elo is a comparative measure, so it has to be the bots that’s incorrectly measured. Your elo is a skill where you have a 50% win rate, it can’t be wrong or wrongly measured.
xtreme2020 wrote:
Elo is a comparative measure, so it has to be the bots that’s incorrectly measured. Your elo is a skill where you have a 50% win rate, it can’t be wrong or wrongly measured.
They are not measured anyhow. Their "rating" is not a rating at all, just a meaningless number written there. Win or lose, it never changes. The number written there can be complete nonsense, like 1 or 0 or a billion.
Sep 25, 2024
0
#12
It’s a number that symbolizes comparatively what their skill is at chess. Sure, if you don’t care about it it doesn’t matter but me personally I do, and considering they’re trying to say it’s rigged against them I’d guess they do also.
magipi wrote:
xtreme2020 wrote:
Elo is a comparative measure, so it has to be the bots that’s incorrectly measured. Your elo is a skill where you have a 50% win rate, it can’t be wrong or wrongly measured.
They are not measured anyhow. Their "rating" is not a rating at all, just a meaningless number written there. Win or lose, it never changes. The number written there can be complete nonsense, like 1 or 0 or a billion.
Your information is incorrect. Bots are precisely measured in simulated tournaments and reference of their rating is real FIDE rating of GM masters who played against engines. Take maia (humanized AI chess bot) and stockfish both downgraded to 1400 Elo and after certain amount of games you would see them play with equal amount of wins/losses. In my test it only took 10 games to show the equality.
Next, you claim that rating is something that has to change after each game otherwise it's not a rating. True for situation when a player of unknown strength has received some initial rating in the pool as result of some initial games against rated players. His rating needs further corrections, increments or decrements after each game.
But bots don't learn or get dumber. And their precise rating was established once and they don't need rating changes. It's that simple.
im not so good at egelsk
YAYYYY
Nice, but you have a long way to go, my friend.
Sep 25, 2024
0
#17
noobtrainee wrote:
But someone should do something about these overly inflated bot levels.
Agreed lol, I think every bot in this site has an inflated rating by at least 300 points or more. Maybe just to make players feel good about themselves? Hard to say, it's confusing
da_phoenix14159 wrote:
im at around 680 elo but i can beat the 1800 elo bot. why are these bots so easy to beat?
Because your actual Elo is closer to 1800 than you think while chess.com Elo is inaccurate and compressed towards bottom. Bots are not overrated. It's players who are underrated.
It depends on how often can you beat that 1800 bot. If that's roughly 50% of games, consider 1800 is your rating as well.
Sep 25, 2024
0
#19
basketstorm wrote:
It depends on how often can you beat that 1800 bot. If that's roughly 50% of games, consider 1800 is your rating as well.
Lol, this is what I mean by "lying to make people feel good about themselves". Even chess.com ratings are massively inflated compared to otb ratings
TipsyTrickster wrote:
noobtrainee wrote:
But someone should do something about these overly inflated bot levels.
Agreed lol, I think every bot in this site has an inflated rating by at least 300 points or more. Maybe just to make players feel good about themselves? Hard to say, it's confusing
Wrong. Rating of bots (engines) is the correct FIDE rating. Bots are well calibrated. Chess.com uses Komodo. Written by GM Larry Kaufman and others. Most engines including Komodo were rated not arbitrarily but precisely within the pool in which actual chess players and grandmasters competed and FIDE rating of those players was used to get proper relation to strength of humans.
Weaker bots were scaled down from stronger bots and their rating is not arbitrary either, it's all statistically proven.
With some help from the community, I finally went from 100 elo and made it to 220 elo currently. Massive increase so pretty happy that I'm winning games.
Still not sure why I can completely destroy the 1500 bot called Antonio but lose to 200 elo players. Why are the chess bots just extremely inaccurate in their listed rating?