I can readily admit that I'm awful at chess. I'm really weak but I try my best when I'm playing. I try to find openings and all of that when I can, but I can't get over this weird feeling of inadequacy whenever I play. I'll practice with a bot rated around 1000-1200 and I can win with some difficulty and thought, but when I play a real person at 300-400 I get my lunch shoved down my throat. I don't want to jump straight to the cheating card since that's rarely the case. I can't help but feel that there is a SEVERE disparity between engine ELO and real person ELO. Do the bots need to have their ELO crunched down to match their real world equivalents?
Engines are designed to find a he best moves. There are configuration options to dunv them down and attempt to make them play like a certain rating, but those are just approximations.
It's extremely hard to get a bot to play like a specific rating, especially when even players at specific ratings can vary a lot in what their strengths and weaknesses are.
Anything sub-1600 on a bot is overrated, as compared to a similarly rated person, sometimes by a lot. As you go farther up the rating scale, the differences are less noticeable.
I can readily admit that I'm awful at chess. I'm really weak but I try my best when I'm playing. I try to find openings and all of that when I can, but I can't get over this weird feeling of inadequacy whenever I play. I'll practice with a bot rated around 1000-1200 and I can win with some difficulty and thought, but when I play a real person at 300-400 I get my lunch shoved down my throat. I don't want to jump straight to the cheating card since that's rarely the case. I can't help but feel that there is a SEVERE disparity between engine ELO and real person ELO. Do the bots need to have their ELO crunched down to match their real world equivalents?