you probably made a confirmation bias, we should test this for more cases to see if this is true instead of relying on some anecdotal evidence and some claims from someone in the field.
Good point mate.
Please test it if you have time to figure out algorithms with brute-force. I have a full time job and I play chess for recreation purpose only.
Does any casual player have time/resources for detecting an algorithm with brute-force?!
This is just start of new era. Welcome to the world for AI rising.
Cheers,
AB
"4 or 5 difficult opponents with lower ratings"
How does chess.com know which players are difficult other than by using their ratings?
This sounds like the other conspiracy theory stuff that pops up now and then.
If you find it addictive, maybe what you actually like is chess. If one day you win 5 and the next you lose 5, then maybe (like all of us) you have good days and bad days.
It's in chess.com's best interest to pair people of similar skill levels. That's what people enjoy and (other than ranking professional players) that's the whole purpose of the rating system to begin with.
it can measure by acurracy. i agree with op, it really looks like chess.com uses an algorithim to make people feel bad at chess and make them pay for the game. on lichess every match is a random victory or defeat, but here we only got sequences.
That's it.
On lichess there is not the such thing... and every new players connection looks like quite random.