Why are the bots so much easier than the players?

I'm able to defeat bots at the 1300 level on white and black as well as constantly winning against 1000 to 1200 bots. Do the people I face just have deflated ELOs?

A lot of people report the same experience, so you shouldn't think it's something wrong with you.

As for the reasoning, I don't know. It's interesting that chess.com chose to do it this way. I think it was a conscious decision to make the site more attractive to newcomers... but the exact reasoning I'm not sure. Maybe because some competitor sites have higher ratings, and also the tendency of new players to overestimate themselves. If a new player was being beaten up by very low rated bots that could be discouraging, and they'd go play somewhere else.

That's probably why. It's a shame, too, because that could paradoxically lead new players from leaving when they realize this marketing scheme, even if the intentions of the developers of Chess.com bots were pure.

Hmm, I don't know.

I do think it sets up unrealistic expectations for live chess. Let's say a new player thinks they're 1000 and then goes to live chess and they're 600. I think I'd be discouraged and want to play somewhere else, but it's hard to say.

the bots are programmed to make bad positional moves and blunders, so that their performances equate to their rating. this makes it easy to capitalise on them.

Literally with the chess.com site bots, all u have to do is sit back and just wait for them to make a stupid move then u take advantage. THe bots can't take initiative.

Human players take initiative, and our play is dynamic, so u struggle because u need to combat dynamic play with ur own dynamic play. Of course sometimes u win, sometimes u lose.

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. @llama47 and @soniasthetics are probably right. 

If I were to guess how the bots were programmed, they're supposed to make the same amount of blunders, mistakes, and inaccuracies of their supposed level. The thing is, they're probably not programmed into making *natural* blunders, mistakes, inaccuracies. h4 is a mistake, but in what position? In what position is it good? When would it be a blunder? It's why engines are unbeatable at maximum levels. They understand position, tactics, motifs, but in a non-human way. Same concept would apply in my belief. Their own mistakes are going to be non-human as well.

either that or their ratings are too low which is probably also right