Chess.com Computers

The computers on chess.com are not very good. Does any one else think so too?

Here are some reasons:

1. When they give an approximation rating like Easy-1200 Medium-1600 Hard-2000, none of that is accurate. An easy computer plays around like a 500 USCF rated person.  Hard-2000 is approx. USCF 1300 or 1400.

2. Easy and Medium computers SACRIFICE FOR NO REASON. Why do they do that? Any 1200+ ONLINE rated player would know not to do that.

3. The way the computers on chess.com show their level of skill is by "wasting a move". in the diagram shown below, I play an Easy computer on chess.com. 1. d4 d5  2. Nf3 Kd7?

What computers?  When I click the 'play computer' link, I do not see a board but do see an invitation to 'download java'.  Not, downloading and running software is not something I'd rush into.

So, have you tried playing the site's computer(s)?  Did it work out o.k. for  you?

sftac

ps.  Oh!  And for your example, the King can play the role of a minor piece -- it's good practice to bring out the minor pieces early.  In the higher levels (D, C, etc.), we learn that exposing the King needlessly carries a high element of risk.

The king plays the role of a minor piece better in endgame. Not on the 2nd move.

I test these computers in the past and heres what I found\

Hard = 1207 FIDE

Medium = 906 FIDE

Easy = 605 FIDE

Silly =308 FIDE

chessmaster, I think the Easy and the Medium computers are even lower than that. They sacrifice things for no reason.

Below 1200 FIDE is not a grade, it doesn't exist.

 Unless if you are a sucker like me

This is completely untrue.

I don't see why Ke2 plays the role of a minor piece. 

Here is a fast game that Teary played against the Hard (2000+) computer just now (and yes, Teary knows he could have probably done better, but he was just playing quickly).

Now, Teary is a fairly decent player with OTB tournament experience, but he is nowhere near 2000. And if Teary can beat the hard computer, then its rating is certainly inflated.

You're right... this move develops the king as a major piece which dominates the center and the entire board.

elo in general it doesnt maatter if its fide or whatever since talking about computers.

Java is one of the most widespread programming languages, and in order to run them you need to have Java installed. No harm here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28programming_language%29

As to the topic raised: Why would it even matter how bad the Chess.com computer is, if the most powerful engine in the world is freely available? I don't think it would be worth it for chess.com to pay the computing power for stronger play by engines. I can't even understand why they're there in the first place.

a 1200 does not understand tactics.

According to author NM Dan Heisman:

800-1000 USCF: Able to "see" the board but sometimes misses pieces on the perimeter (such as a far-away Bishop); can make some plans but has no idea what is important in the position. Misses simple mates for both sides and still may put pieces in take occasionally. Still marked by level 4 understanding, i.e., sees primarily parts of the board and piece moves, but doesn't chunk as much of the position as a Level 5 player would.

1000-1200 USCF: For the most part no longer puts pieces in take, but still has difficulty seeing and avoiding simple combinations. Has a tendency to come up with unnecessarily complex solutions to simple problems. Is able to see ahead on the board but still has difficulty understanding what is important in the position.

1200-1400 USCF: The beginning of higher level chess. Players no longer just win because one player gave away more pieces than the other. Level 5 chunking is now becoming apparent in a player's analysis.

And just based on Teary's tournament experience and recent game with the hard computer, he would say that the hard computer is roughly equivalent to an 1100-1300 rated USCF player (and it might be a lot higher if chess.com would bother to give the computer an opening book!).

I've challenged the HARD computer a few times.  Twice it had me at a disadvantage, and then totally missed my easy checkmating combos and blew the game.

In chess.com's defense, it's not easy to program a computer to play perfectly at a certain rating.  But moving the king like in the original post is a definite no-no, haha.

I play a lot of Chessmaster.  You can pummel the easier opponents all game, but if you try to checkmate them, they start playing like a grandmaster.  They'll throw away all of their pieces and play stupid moves, yet manage to see every checkmate you can toss at them.  Computers just aren't human yet.

But this also doesn't make sense because it depends on the pool, therefore if you meant to the equivalent chess.com elo, of uscf elo, it would be different.

I know! I crush the hard computer every time like a soda can

Zirtoc: I actually like that feature of the checkmate thing (keeps me on my toes) and it does have a limit for example the lover level below 2000 usually can see 1-8 mate combinations and above 2000 can see 8-14 move combinations and the top computer chessmaster and a few grandmaster personalities can see up to 20 move mate combinations total!

Cofail: This true I forgot to think about that and thanks for the correction.