1. Chess.com uses glicko ratings not elo. Even the title makes an obvious mistake.
2. You left out which illegal moves it tried, which is valuable information.
3. Your qualititative analysis is almost non-existent. Some rudimentary analysis shows that it is simply predicting the most likely sequence of moves given the context of previous moves. That's why it makes massive blunders and illegal moves when a very common tactic is almost possible, but not quite. It tries anyway because it's the most likely sequence. This is also why it keeps giving multiple moves at a time.
5. It plays way more theory than the players it's playing can possibly know and there gets a strong position out of the opening where these tactics are more likely to work. This skews its rating upwards.
We use necessary cookies to make our site work. We also set performance and functionality cookies that help us make improvements by measuring traffic on our site. For more detailed information about the cookies we use, please see our privacy policy.
✖
1. Chess.com uses glicko ratings not elo. Even the title makes an obvious mistake.
2. You left out which illegal moves it tried, which is valuable information.
3. Your qualititative analysis is almost non-existent. Some rudimentary analysis shows that it is simply predicting the most likely sequence of moves given the context of previous moves. That's why it makes massive blunders and illegal moves when a very common tactic is almost possible, but not quite. It tries anyway because it's the most likely sequence. This is also why it keeps giving multiple moves at a time.
5. It plays way more theory than the players it's playing can possibly know and there gets a strong position out of the opening where these tactics are more likely to work. This skews its rating upwards.