Easier to win against computer than human beings?

Dear Chess.com community,

I'm trying to improve my chess but I'm a bit puzzled by the games I've been playing. I lose very badly against 900/1000 rated players (lose concentration? or blunders?) but when I play the 1250 computer I can win. I even managed to get a draw from the ~1950 computer on chess.com (after losing to it a dozen or so times!). Anybody experiencing the same thing and has an easy explanation? Are computers not as sophisticated as human players, maybe they lack some crucial strategy element? ~1000 rated players n chess.com seem superior in strategy and moves in comparison to 1250 computer on chess.com. Is there supposed to be a big difference between ~1000 and ~1250? Thanks and I hope this is not a silly question, it's my first time posting here.

Engine opponents can be good, but there are also a few problems with engine opponents.

First of all there's no such thing as a 1200 rated engine, so they take e.g. a 3000 rated engine, then force it to play badly in some way. One way is limiting its thinking time (to fractions of 1 second) another is limiting its search depth (so it only looks a few moves ahead).

Sometimes the engine is required to blunder some pawns (or more) in the opening, but then will play at master strength the rest of the game. If the engine is running on chess.com's side (not in your browser) then its strength may vary depending on how many people are playing it at the same time. If it runs in your browser it's even harder to give an accurate rating because everyone's hardware is different.

So for these reasons engines are not good practice partners (their blunders are artificial, ratings are just rough estimates). But also engines play mostly by calculation. So a weakened engine's strengths and weaknesses are completely unrealistic. It will play beginner level strategic mistakes, but instantly defend against 5 move deep tactics.

On the other hand human opponents know which moves are difficult for you to handle. They know because they'd have trouble handling the same moves. So even when humans don't play as precisely, their moves give you lots of practical challenges that an engine wont... especially when they're losing. Yes there's something to be said about a 3400 engine playing staunch defense, but a weakened engine will just shuffle around and let you trade off everything and queen some pawns in the endgame. Sure humans will do that too, but humans also tend to freak out when they're losing and e.g. sacrifice stuff near your king for one last chance instead of waiting around quietly to be finished off.

Thank you, this actually helped! The computer's moves seemed sort of artificial/unrealistic.

and the Computer10 which claims a 1900 elo for Blitz. I Managed to win twice. I played unrated. while watching some 1800 players lose to it. does it play some times weak and sometimes hard?

Yeah I think it depends on how many people are playing it at the same time.

It's not a silly question. I have also noticed the same thing, that generally computers are much easier opponents than humans at the same rating range. I think this is due to the fact that engines can't really generate plans, and for lower rated engines, there is certain randomness included in their moves. They can play few very precise moves and then make a completely irrelevant move on the other side of the board than where the action is. So in order to beat computers (atleast under 1500 rated ones) is just to make solid moves and keep all of your pieces protected. If the game lasts long enough moves, the computer makes a completely random move at some point, regardless if you have some serious threats or not. Humans on the other hand usually are able to visualize where the action is and what are opponents threats. They are also much more able to create multiple move threats against weaknesses you have. Humans also don't really make completely irrelevant blunders, but it's more likely due to missing some piece is hanging, or failing to see a tactical combination. For example, if you are making a play on the kingside, you can rest assured that majority of human opponents will take actions on the kingside to stop your threats. Generally a computer does too, but at any given time they can make a completely irrelevant move which you can capitalize on.

If you want to get better at playing chess, I would suggest limiting your play against computers, and play against humans instead. I don't think playing against computers is bad for learning, but there are big differences in the gameplay when you try to play against humans after that. It's also worth noting, that playing against same level computer can be vastly different in two games. Sometimes even the lowest rated engines can put few absolutely precise moves in a row, and then let your pawn capture their queen for no reason. Especially if the game gets to an endgame, where every move counts, lower rated computers almost always blunder a king move or pawn move in overly simplified position that not even lowest rated players would ever do (like not pushing a pawn that can not be stopped, instead letting you queen first, just to make some irrelevant king moves).

Thanks for your comment Taskinen. I was hoping to get better by playing computers, I should stick to playing humans. Problem is I myself keep doing irrelevant blunders, just like a computer. I'm so bad at chess I would probably lose to myself

Thanks for the thoughtful question and replies.  This helps clarify things for me greatly.  Humans, here I come!

Computers don't know how to blunder like humans.

So they make the most obvious mistakes and innacuracys.

Try the computer Isabel. I am yet to beat her and I have beaten the 2000 

Hi all,

I noticed the same exact thing: I now win easily against Nelson and sometimes (rarely) against Antonio, while I struggle a lot to reach 800 ELO and recently I lost 70 points quickly. My personal explanation is different from those proposed above:

1. While playing against a computer I get all the time I want to think (I can easily consume 20min) and

2. there is a lot less pressure as my opponent is just a computer. I am sure many of us feel quite a bit of pressure while playing 10min rated games vs playing unlimited time against a machine in a unrated game.

What do you think? Am I right or wrong?

I often win against the 1300 bots but lose to bots like Sven!

In bots under 1600 i notice blunders/mistakes are very obvious and dumb, like gifting a piece. But above 2300 bots mistakes are more subtle and positional/strategic, more like human mistakes.

Bots in chess.com: I easily beat all the way to 2200 bots. Then at 2200 i start to feel some resistance, but still beat all 2300 bots with no problem. I'm going to start now playing 2450, let's see. I already drew vs Aman (2550 rated) at the first try.

Bots in Chesmaster 11: In Chessmaster i win all the way to 2700 rating. I start to feel resistance at 2300. More than 2600 i win, but thinking more seriously.

However, vs 1000-1200 human chess.com players crush me easily and i get long losing streaks where my human opponents get 0 mistakes, 0 blunders. So, i don't know what to think.

Thanks, I had the same question. And great answers about how the computer decision making works. It's very different from human intuition. Go Humans🙂 Except I guess maybe my rating isn't as good as I thought😆

Mines the other way around. I can beat 1000-1300 or 1400ish players but man if I cant beat the ai David to save my life. Blunders then they plays 5 turn deep chess all of sudden playing master moves. 

That's interesting, i felt chess.com bots under 2000 much easier than humans here under 1200. Maybe it's because i played bots at 20 or 30 minutes games and humans always i play at 5|5 minutes.

So, maybe it's because of time control. At what time control do you beat humans 1300-1400 and what time control do you lose vs David (1400) bot?

Chess.com doesn't even update Stockfish to version 14 (like lichess.org actually do), and that engine is free. So i don't expect they are going to improve the bots personalities, which the real streamers complain their bots don't even play their openning moves, or don't even say their typical sentences (except for xQcow "bang!" words) XD

For example see minute 0:48 where she said she doesn't play that openning:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/some-bots-rating-strength-needs-to-get-fixed

That's very lazy from chess.com, cause to create an openning book from someone is very easy and fast to do. Look how easy it is that i did it myself a couple of times to create Chessmaster11 personalities.

Furthermore, some chess.com bots don't have their playing strength right, they need to get fixed, that's why i won vs Aman bot (2500 rated) easily.

I already said in this forum:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/some-bots-rating-strength-needs-to-get-fixed

buy nobody paid attention and chess.com still didn't fix it. I think we are only a few who enjoy to play vs bots and that's why nobody cares.

It is harder to win of computers.
Good of chess.com bots is that they don't low  rate every time I loose.

l