Why are there so many random AI opponents in rapid games?
Assume for a moment, some percentage of the 400,000 members in Play are bots of some sort. It is impossible to determine, from the perspective of any opponents or spectators, who is responsible for those bots.
People break the site's TOS and get their accounts closed. Even if the assertion that there are a significant number of bot accounts is true, it's certainly doesn't mean they are the site's. Staff have said that's not the case and for those that don't believe then, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to prove it
That said, if you feel you are facing someone using a bot or had someone use a bot against you, you should report them.
https://support.chess.com/article/209-how-do-i-report-someone
Every time I win, it is through skill and guile. Every time I lose, my opponent cheated or it's a bot.
Even if the assertion that there are a significant number of bot accounts is true, it's certainly doesn't mean they are the site's. Staff have said that's not the case and for those that don't believe then, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say or do to prove it
I mean... there'd be ways to give strong evidence, but it'd take a stupid amount of work. You'd get some benchmarks from known chess.com bots and other engines then look at members in the chess.com population to see how they compare.
Then you'd go through the same type of process for lichess and chess24.
In the end you'd want to show that among each site's inhuman population, chess.com's has an unusual sub population. To act as evidence, it could be unusual for different reasons, but for example one simple way could be that it's similar to the weakened versions of Komodo that chess.com uses for its bots.
---
But yeah, as usual the explanation that people are paranoid and can't think clearly is infinitely more simple than a grand conspiracy.
They have 0 games in every time control except the one you are playing and they play like f gods
Of course, in contrast, ideas like this are just nonsense.
Inside of chess.com's evil lair:
Danny: We've done it! We're secretly populated the site with millions of bots [evil cackling]
Erik: Excellent, soon our plan to drain the brain energy of every person on earth will be complete
Danny: Indeed
Programmer: I have bad news sirs
Danny and Erik: [hissing noises]
Programmer: Our bot army is indetectable in every way... except one fatal flaw. For some reason we can only make them play one time control... no one is sure why.
Danny: Then just fake the stats for their other ratings. Make it say they have played all sorts of games even if it isn't true!
Programmer: We tried, but it just doesn't work. We can build this huge website with dozens of features, but something like that... the technology simply doesn't exist yet, you're asking for the impossible.
It seems like there are two sets of AI, one for when your rating dips and another for when you reach a certain threshold.
When you win, your rating goes up.
Players are paired with others of similar rating.
This means the more you win, the harder your opponents become.
This means winning streaks are inevitably followed by losses for everyone except the best players on the site.
The same happens with losing streaks but in the other direction.
I was making ridiculous moves and taking several minutes at a time doing it. I even won the game.
Meanwhile your opponent is saying...
"I just played a guy who made weird moves for no reason and took a long time doing it. Obviously this was a bot and chess.com was trying to make me win the game. I was so insulted that I lost on purpose."
It's just weird that I can play as a guest on the advanced setting and win way more games than I do when I'm signed in. Now, when I do play as a guest, we're talking players between 800 and 1600, which I can say with certainty because it's listed right there next to the opponent's name, I play really well and win against players who also play really well. You'd think I'd get beat more frequently playing opponents within this ratings bracket, but that's not the case. Now, there are only so many people who cheat on this game, and I do report each and every one of those that I suspect are playing much too well for their rating. But I find it hard to believe that every other game (sometimes every three or four games, give or take a game) is against a human being who is cheating.
The only explanation I can come up with for winning more games playing as a guest against players ranked much higher than myself (I beat a few 1600s just last night) than I do when I'm signed in is that I'm playing AI's created by the site designed to prevent me from rising too high too fast (or rising very high at all). The real answer, of course, would be in the comparison of game data between those who pay for membership and those who don't (free trials being in the "those who don't" category).
This thread is a great example of why I still read these forums from time to time despite not generally spending much time on this site anymore. It can be really funny just reading these things. I have no idea how someone manages to convince himself that because his opponent doesn’t respond to chat, the person on the other end just absolutely must be a bot. There couldn’t possibly be any other explanation for chat nonresponse 
You ignored my very last comment. Wouldn't the site have the motivation to make players think they aren't as good as they really are so they buy the services the site offers promising to make them a better chess player?
It's also weird that a site-recognized national master rushes to defend the site, leaves out certain details of the thread he (or she) is responding to, and focuses only on the unresponsiveness of the opponent and how "ridiculous" and "funny" the thread is. It wasn't just about the fact that the opponent was unresponsive. I was literally making terrible moves to see how "the human opponent" responds. They kept on playing as if my moves were normal. You'd think they'd send a response saying "why were your last 8 moves complete blunders?" or "why are you letting me win?" Instead, no response at all. I even waited a ridiculous amount of time in between moves. No "hurry up," no nothing,
You ignored my very last comment. Wouldn't the site have the motivation to make players think they aren't as good as they really are so they buy the services the site offers promising to make them a better chess player?
Don’t give them any ideas lol
It would be really funny if what you were claiming was true, and honestly I wouldn’t put it past em, but I also don’t think anything you’ve said in this thread is evidence to that effect. I’m just enjoying this because it’s good content
You ignored my very last comment. Wouldn't the site have the motivation to make players think they aren't as good as they really are so they buy the services the site offers promising to make them a better chess player?
Don’t give them any ideas lol
It would be really funny if what you were claiming was true, and honestly I wouldn’t put it past em, but I also don’t think anything you’ve said in this thread is evidence to that effect. I’m just enjoying this because it’s good content
I absolutely hope it ends up on YouTube,
“Site-recognized national master” lol it’s USCF-recognized; honestly the site took a long time to recognize it compared to another site which was able to verify my title much more quickly.
As a response to your comment, most opponents don’t chat. Period. Especially not unprovoked. I don’t know why you expect them to complain to you that you’re being weird if most of them are just there to play chess.