My best score is 1350 in rapid and I managed to beat the 2000 point Chinese.
Your elo and highest level bot you've beaten
Sort:
My highest is 940 and I beat 1500 Antonio bot
My rating here is currectly 1650, but it recently was 1400 a long time.
I beat Nelson 1300 ten out of 10 games, but does put up some fight, giving me a piece but then requiring me to pull tactics to get another.
Antonio 1500 bot beat me 4 wins and 2 draws. I doubt I can beat it.
I've not tried the stronger ones.
The lower rated bots don't fight at all and just drop pieces everywhere. So I don't play them anymore.
Antonio does not make 1 move blunders. I have to spot them 3 moves deep. It catches mine though, keeping me on my toes. It knows how to attack and defend, forcing me to do the same. I got my draws by accepting a sacrifice and then defending well enough that it chose perpetual check rather that fight me a piece down.
Nelson will give me its queen only if I set up tactics and properly trap it. It is not a good defender at first and will 1 move blunder a piece. But then it plays full strength to make a fortess which I must use tactics to break into. Sometimes it will blunder an extra piece. It can do surprise attacks too if I really let my guard down. But if I put up any defense, it backs off and lets me regroup.
The lower rated bots drop so many pieces so fast that they are not fun to play, except to be on my toes to catch each drop.
I'll have to try the 1600.
elo is 450 ish
defeated a 1400 bot a singular time, and each chess.com 1300 bot at least one time.
The discourse below is entirely unsolicited but figured it might be worth elucidating
defeating 1300 bots without a foundational understanding of the game? I wouldn't entirely call it chance, as moving from instinct, intuition, and serendipity, in conjunction with a growing understanding of positions and tactics, are a conglomeration of elements virtually incompatible, at large, with the (wu) wei we have defined "chance" in the hyper literal "non-intuitive operational" realm, that is synonymously pending with the status quo "reality," bringing into question the phenomena of chance and whether it is merely a perception and conclusion that arises from a deficit of wholeness and complete perception, however I can entirely verify that sometimes, if my openings aren't entirely terrible, and my "opponent" hasn't made terrible moves, I sometimes operate from a raw and limited understanding of tactics and sometimes from a feeling or sense that a move is right. I suck at chess but my intuition is sometimes on point. more often than not it is not. but its not the kind of chance we've termed and understand as chance, as there is rhyme and reason to it, whether we can discern and articulate or not. The key is to be able to expand it so as to effortlessly discern, articulate, positively reinforce, and assist others in cultivating their own intuitive faculties; for it is not the dichotomy of reason and rationale, or somehow relegated to the right hemisphere; it is, in essence, the fusion of right and left hemispheres.
Theory must undoubtably be studied and understood to compete and share in a community of understanding, but chess is an immense amount of fun when operating "in the dark," so to speak. it like a kind of blindfolded chess in which one really has no idea about the game, other than a vaguely growing understanding that cannot be rationalized quantified or articulated entirely. Could one grow to understand and master the game without the study of other sources and masters? I think it's possible as we are essentially learning from trailblazers of the game that "discovered" these things on their own accord, however it would take an exhausting amount of time, and few people have that kind of time as did the wealthy lords and dukes and trust fund victorians and privileged upper class men that had the luxury of making chess the unwavering focus of their lives. part of me wishes I could be one of those lucky or privileged few, to endeavor in a journey of self generated discovery; not relying on the discoveries of others but rather discovering the very same things they did. I wouldn't want to play the game if entirely reliant on external sources, but thats been my personal relationship with learning across the board.
Chesserroo2 wrote:
My rating here is currectly 1650, but it recently was 1400 a long time.
I beat Nelson 1300 ten out of 10 games, but does put up some fight, giving me a piece but then requiring me to pull tactics to get another.
Antonio 1500 bot beat me 4 wins and 2 draws. I doubt I can beat it.
I've not tried the stronger ones.
The lower rated bots don't fight at all and just drop pieces everywhere. So I don't play them anymore.
Interesting that Antonio is so much tougher than Nelson.
shaktidevii wrote:
elo is 450 ish
defeated a 1400 bot a singular time, and each chess.com 1300 bot at least one time.
The discourse below is entirely unsolicited but figured it might be worth elucidating
defeating 1300 bots without a foundational understanding of the game? I wouldn't entirely call it chance, as moving from instinct, intuition, and serendipity, in conjunction with a growing understanding of positions and tactics, are a conglomeration of elements virtually incompatible, at large, with the (wu) wei we have defined "chance" in the hyper literal "non-intuitive operational" realm, that is synonymously pending with the status quo "reality," bringing into question the phenomena of chance and whether it is merely a perception and conclusion that arises from a deficit of wholeness and complete perception, however I can entirely verify that sometimes, if my openings aren't entirely terrible, and my "opponent" hasn't made terrible moves, I sometimes operate from a raw and limited understanding of tactics and sometimes from a feeling or sense that a move is right. I suck at chess but my intuition is sometimes on point. more often than not it is not. but its not the kind of chance we've termed and understand as chance, as there is rhyme and reason to it, whether we can discern and articulate or not. The key is to be able to expand it so as to effortlessly discern, articulate, positively reinforce, and assist others in cultivating their own intuitive faculties; for it is not the dichotomy of reason and rationale, or somehow relegated to the right hemisphere; it is, in essence, the fusion of right and left hemispheres.
Theory must undoubtably be studied and understood to compete and share in a community of understanding, but chess is an immense amount of fun when operating "in the dark," so to speak. it like a kind of blindfolded chess in which one really has no idea about the game, other than a vaguely growing understanding that cannot be rationalized quantified or articulated entirely. Could one grow to understand and master the game without the study of other sources and masters? I think it's possible as we are essentially learning from trailblazers of the game that "discovered" these things on their own accord, however it would take an exhausting amount of time, and few people have that kind of time as did the wealthy lords and dukes and trust fund victorians and privileged upper class men that had the luxury of making chess the unwavering focus of their lives. part of me wishes I could be one of those lucky or privileged few, to endeavor in a journey of self generated discovery; not relying on the discoveries of others but rather discovering the very same things they did. I wouldn't want to play the game if entirely reliant on external sources, but thats been my personal relationship with learning across the board.
Beating a 1400 bot is pretty great for your level, maybe you're actually gifted.
Im sure its possible to become a master level player without using external sources to study the game, obviously it would be double the work and effort trying to gain the needed knowledge.
I haven't yet "studied" chess in any form I would say. I haven't studied any end games or openings. When I started out I watched a 5min video on london and KID openings, which you could call studying but Ive kept it at minimal. I find learning by playing and reviewing my games is the only way I like learning the game, atleast for now.
Kotshmot wrote:
shaktidevii wrote:
elo is 450 ish
defeated a 1400 bot a singular time, and each chess.com 1300 bot at least one time.
The discourse below is entirely unsolicited but figured it might be worth elucidating
defeating 1300 bots without a foundational understanding of the game? I wouldn't entirely call it chance, as moving from instinct, intuition, and serendipity, in conjunction with a growing understanding of positions and tactics, are a conglomeration of elements virtually incompatible, at large, with the (wu) wei we have defined "chance" in the hyper literal "non-intuitive operational" realm, that is synonymously pending with the status quo "reality," bringing into question the phenomena of chance and whether it is merely a perception and conclusion that arises from a deficit of wholeness and complete perception, however I can entirely verify that sometimes, if my openings aren't entirely terrible, and my "opponent" hasn't made terrible moves, I sometimes operate from a raw and limited understanding of tactics and sometimes from a feeling or sense that a move is right. I suck at chess but my intuition is sometimes on point. more often than not it is not. but its not the kind of chance we've termed and understand as chance, as there is rhyme and reason to it, whether we can discern and articulate or not. The key is to be able to expand it so as to effortlessly discern, articulate, positively reinforce, and assist others in cultivating their own intuitive faculties; for it is not the dichotomy of reason and rationale, or somehow relegated to the right hemisphere; it is, in essence, the fusion of right and left hemispheres.
Theory must undoubtably be studied and understood to compete and share in a community of understanding, but chess is an immense amount of fun when operating "in the dark," so to speak. it like a kind of blindfolded chess in which one really has no idea about the game, other than a vaguely growing understanding that cannot be rationalized quantified or articulated entirely. Could one grow to understand and master the game without the study of other sources and masters? I think it's possible as we are essentially learning from trailblazers of the game that "discovered" these things on their own accord, however it would take an exhausting amount of time, and few people have that kind of time as did the wealthy lords and dukes and trust fund victorians and privileged upper class men that had the luxury of making chess the unwavering focus of their lives. part of me wishes I could be one of those lucky or privileged few, to endeavor in a journey of self generated discovery; not relying on the discoveries of others but rather discovering the very same things they did. I wouldn't want to play the game if entirely reliant on external sources, but thats been my personal relationship with learning across the board.
Beating a 1400 bot is pretty great for your level, maybe you're actually gifted.
Im sure its possible to become a master level player without using external sources to study the game, obviously it would be double the work and effort trying to gain the needed knowledge.
I haven't yet "studied" chess in any form I would say. I haven't studied any end games or openings. When I started out I watched a 5min video on london and KID openings, which you could call studying but Ive kept it at minimal. I find learning by playing and reviewing my games is the only way I like learning the game, atleast for now.
wow 1900 is incredible! thanks very much for your feedback, thoughts and insights; and I admire your gift 
I just played against the Isabel bot. 1600. My rapid rating is now 1650. Isabel is much less agressive than Antonio. It still won, but it let me survive till the endgame, with my bishop and knight against a rook. I did not know how to use the combo until it was too late. It was fun.
Antonio usually beats me in the late middle game, attacking my king.
My current rating is 1217 but it is not quite reliable since I have played few games on chess.com. I'm a lichess player and I practically only use chess.com to play bots. My best achievement is beating 2200 Noam and drawing with 2300 Francis.
Aug 25, 2023
0
#12
Kotshmot wrote:
What is your elo at your best format, and which bot have you been able to defeat on chess.com?...
My "best format" is chess.com rapid and my current rating is 2030, but I don't play bots much at all; bots "think" differently and don't really play human-like moves. I'd much rather play human players. When I play bots with no time limit, I can beat bots around 2000, but I seldom ever play bots higher rated because it is too much thinking to invest into a game with a bot when I could be using that mental energy towards rated games with human players or for things like study or chess.com puzzles for improvement; this seems like a better use of my time and mental energy.
Technically, I've got 3 crowns for each bot, so 2840 Caruanabot (Fabiano Caruana bot) is the highest I guess I beat, but all the bots over 2000 I just beat by playing 1 min bullet against them and then flagging to win on time.
This is my favorite bot game of mine with no time limit: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/playing-chess-with-holly-on-christmas-day-botvinnik-style
and this is another bot game of mine with no time limit which I like, but also highlights that bots can blunder even at the higher ratings; this game is cool because I intentionally set a trap against the bot and it fell into it like a human player might! https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/i-swindled-a-2000-bot-d
Aug 26, 2023
0
#15
I don’t think I’ve ever met a 1900 who plays the chess.com bots 😂 don’t you get really frustrated with how enginey they play?
I am 1200 and the highest i have beaten are 2000 rated bots
I am 1000 elo but the highest I have beaten is Li( 2000 elo). Now many must think how such a low elo player can beat Li. Well actually my rating on chess.com is low because I haven't played many games yet.
1370 in bullet and the 2000 lebanese girl
My current rating in Rapid is 981. The highest I reached on this profile is 1017. I don't play a lot of online games (mostly with friends), I actually tend to play against bots. The highest I currently beat is Wally (1800 Elo) and I beat Samay, who has the same rating as Wally (1800). I am currently fighting with the regular bot (engine) , set at 1900 Elo, called tournament player.
I managed to beat him once and draw the game twice. I only count my victory as a true win, if I manage to beat the same bot at least 3 times in a row. If I fail, I have to start again. That counts for every single bot that I have beaten up to this point.
So, I don't yet count the 1900-engine, since I can't beat it consistantly. I will continue this fight. I must come out victorious.
What is your elo at your best format, and which bot have you been able to defeat on chess.com?
Also if you want to tell/remember, how did you achieve your win. Interesting to know if the higher level bots blunder.
I'm 1900 at rapid and so far I've been able to beat Noam (2200) and Francis (2300). Actually I would say Noam seems a little harder to beat because he doesn't get involved in very sharp stuff.
I was able to convert against Noam a pawn up and Francis got check mated in a funny tactical sequence.