Are the bot characters’ ELO ratings accurate?

u just played a trash opening my guy

Bots are not comparable to real players.  Give a real player more time, they will make a better move.  Not a bot.  Bots, therefore, have implicit, unstated time controls.  For example, to be a 1200 rated bot means to platy as well as a 1200 rated player who has X seconds/move.  I don't know, however, what X is.  Anybody?

I'm 400-500 elo but I win 40-50% of the time to 1000-1400 elo chess bots, and also if lucky, 1500 elo bots. I think there is an actual problem...

Bots play at 3600 and intentionally blunder their rank down. At 1500, they may blunder 21 pawns worth of pieces. Even at 2700, bots may blunder a queen.

Is it the bots ELO that are inaccurate, or is it that people's chess.com ratings aren't an accurate barometer of ELO?

the idea that several million people are all equally overrated implies that they're accurately rated

But not accurately to life, local and FIDE ratings are consistently hundreds or over a thousand points lower in any given category; they all use a similar system, but ChessCom's ratings compared to FIDE's are massively inflated.

As far as Bot ELO compared to ChessCom Elo, the former is always significantly higher than their record would imply

I don't think so. I'm about 900 rated and its not hard for me to beat bots that are 500 elo higher

No

Not at all. I'm 1200 and I have beaten up to 2300 rated bots, without that much difficulty. 2500 rated bots are a bit too good, so they do definitely get harder with increase in rating, but their ratings are not accurate. Or i'm just secretly 2300. I prefer the latter.

I don't think the bot ELO ratings are accurate. I usually struggle with players around my ELO (200 - 300) but I can easily beat bots with higher ELO

Hi,

Regarding bot ELO, does anyone know why chess.com does not let bot reach naturally their ELO?

I mean, like anyone of us, when bots play against humain, they will quickly reach a relevant elo (at least relevant to the ones human have here on chess.com)

Any idea?

Well, many people play against bots so they don't lose rating points, so they can stop the game whenever they want, and they're not stressed about losing. Their rating isn't relevant to the ones humans have here on chess.com for that reason : many people play against bots that a rated higher than them. I've played against Ding Liren, Nepo, Antonio, and I'm 1000 rapid. I've also played against Martin, Jimmy, Elani, and Aron just to get the three crowns. Hope that's helpful.

Either you're beating the bots with hints and takebacks or you're straight up lying. My rating is about 1000; One out of 3 times I can beat the 1300 bot. I can't beat a bot rated 1450 no matter the time control (Unless I cheat or use takebacks). You cant beat a bot that is 700 above your actual strength. When you are around 400 elo you can't even see tactics

Blud wdym, im 700 elo and i can beat 1400 bots consistently, just play passively and you'll win, because bots are dull, so they can always counter aggression, and because they use stockfish or komodo as a base, you just have to play mainline standard openings and gameplay and don't be aggressive, and you can win most bots up to 1400. If you play something like danish gambit or halloween, they already have some database stored so they know what to do. Just play classic ruy lopez or london, and slowly build your position from there.

My current rating is 695 and I've beaten upto Isabel(1600). I find bots upto 1400 hardly any challenge but after that it seems like a huge jump. I think it's because bots under 1400 make serious blunders that are hard to overlook, after that it becomes subtle.

Nothing about the bot characters is accurate. Their ratings are significantly above their playing strength. Their photos are caricatures. Their personality profiles were written by someone who failed psychology.

Agreed. I'm literally just starting out, rated 500. I find a 600 player very difficult but beat always beat 1200 bot easily.

Mittens