Does chess.com still allow RATED live game with the Computer?

benledi69

I thought computers were programmed and their play wld be consistent. Instead, there are sometimes stupid moves, other times I am crushed. I wld like to still have rated games available to try and understand why and avoid heavy defeats if possible.The references to engines leave me baffled but then I am computer illiterate , oh dear........

stevew44
TameLava wrote:

If you don't like chess.com you can leave... Also, Chess.com cannot make everyone happy. I side against having rated games against computers... Why do you care that much for your rating also? Do you play for fun? Or for the rating?

Gee ,nice to have a non paying member telling me to leave chess.com. If you did not understand my post I can not help you.

haiyangl
Blah
notmtwain
stevew44 wrote:
TameLava wrote:

If you don't like chess.com you can leave... Also, Chess.com cannot make everyone happy. I side against having rated games against computers... Why do you care that much for your rating also? Do you play for fun? Or for the rating?

Gee ,nice to have a non paying member telling me to leave chess.com. If you did not understand my post I can not help you.

You certainly have the right to state your preferences.

Your 6,000+ games against Computer1-easy dwarfs the totals of Macer75. How often did the computer repeat moves all the way to a lost position? How long did it usually go before varying?

I wonder what the record for most rated games against those computers  is?

Life_Of_Brian
TameLava wrote:

If you don't like chess.com you can leave... Also, Chess.com cannot make everyone happy. I side against having rated games against computers... Why do you care that much for your rating also? Do you play for fun? Or for the rating?

 

I don't hate chess.com. I just hate that they removed this feature and the way they did it.

Why does anyone care about ratings?  They care for the same reasons everyone else cares about such things like this in chess and other sports. It is a way of measuring progress.

Playing the game of chess is still "fun" without ratings, but more fun with them.

 

Here is an idea for chess.com:   Why not just make a separate rating for computer play? Combine it with the puzzle rating or make it separate. You have ratings right now for blitz, bullet, classical, etc. So why not just add one more rating system for computer-vs-human play. I would be very happy with that. In fact, it might even make me want to subscribe again.

TameLava

I guess that was harsh... Oh well.... BUT THAT COMPUTER RATING IDEA SOUNDS AMAZING

stevew44
notmtwain wrote:
stevew44 wrote:
TameLava wrote:

If you don't like chess.com you can leave... Also, Chess.com cannot make everyone happy. I side against having rated games against computers... Why do you care that much for your rating also? Do you play for fun? Or for the rating?

Gee ,nice to have a non paying member telling me to leave chess.com. If you did not understand my post I can not help you.

You certainly have the right to state your preferences.

Your 6,000+ games against Computer1-easy dwarfs the totals of Macer75. How often did the computer repeat moves all the way to a lost position? How long did it usually go before varying?

I wonder what the record for most rated games against those computers  is?

2 questions.

1 Is that the way you would talk to my face ?

2Why do you care what I like?

SandyMantis
Computers shouldn’t be rated. They are meant for practicing and learning tactics. Playing against a computer is a whole different experience than playing with a human. In conclusion, computer matches shouldn’t be rated because there is always constantly the same difficulty. If you are like rating 2000, you are always playing a computer at lvl 10, which is the same intelligence, but it is better for your learning to play people who are the same skill level as you and can vary in all aspects of the game.
SandyMantis
They could always make a separate rating. One for you against the CPU and the other separate rating could be the one where you play against other people
Life_Of_Brian
SandyMantis wrote:
They could always make a separate rating. One for you against the CPU and the other separate rating could be the one where you play against other people

 

It would be nice if people would read the thread before making comments. Please read my last post.

notmtwain
stevew44 wrote:
notmtwain wrote:
stevew44 wrote:
TameLava wrote:

If you don't like chess.com you can leave... Also, Chess.com cannot make everyone happy. I side against having rated games against computers... Why do you care that much for your rating also? Do you play for fun? Or for the rating?

Gee ,nice to have a non paying member telling me to leave chess.com. If you did not understand my post I can not help you.

You certainly have the right to state your preferences.

Your 6,000+ games against Computer1-easy dwarfs the totals of Macer75. How often did the computer repeat moves all the way to a lost position? How long did it usually go before varying?

I wonder what the record for most rated games against those computers  is?

2 questions.

1 Is that the way you would talk to my face ?

2Why do you care what I like?

Yes, I would ask those questions to your face because I am curious if you learned anything and I can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

I don't particularly care what you like. You are entitled to your opinion.

Again, I was curious if you have learned anything.

stevew44

Yes I have. thanks for asking. my post was mostly for TameLava. As my internet has gotten slower

I began playing mostly 15/10 games. It gives me time for terrible lag and lost connections. I try different ideas that I would probably not play in a normal rated game. Playing a unrated game with a computer is like f***ing with a rubber.

TameLava

I know, I feel like a child now... Why would I tell someone to just leave, if they are just wishing something could be changed? So stupid...

stevew44

lol..Thats ok. big of you to say tho

 

 

Christopher_Parsons
sammy_boi wrote:
notmtwain wrote:

Erik was quoted explaining the decision in another thread: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/suggestions/bring-back-rated-games-against-computers

PhD_in_everything wrote:

This was erik's explanation: 

Thanks for asking! We introduced computers more than 10 years ago when we didn’t have enough online players. We always had a plan to make them unrated once we had human players - and never changed it. We find that having the rating tends to encourage people to cheat and use engines to play against the computer - which isn’t allowed in rated play. But, engines ARE allowed in unrated play. We don’t feel that human ratings should be impacted by computer play. I can understand this feels frustrating and sudden and I’m sorry for that.

This is the real reason. It makes sense from a maths / ratings purity perspective, and I don't just mean people like macer playing tons of games against the easy one.

If they were really that adamant about it, they would rid this site of cheaters and not allow them to come back.

Christopher_Parsons

I am also frustrated by no longer being able to play a rated game against the Chess.com engine. It is a fairer game to play an engine, than many of the players here. 

stevew44
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

I am also frustrated by no longer being able to play a rated game against the Chess.com engine. It is a fairer game to play an engine, than many of the players here. 

Good point..