Yeah i think this also, it's easy to cheat in chess game, so If your not professional player in chess it's better to stay away in that. But if your pro you can match those people who use bot to win the game.
How do we know that the OP is not going to do exactly the same? On the other hand, someone like Vladimir Kramnik or Vishy Anand could easily make fools of these bots and people behind them, if he ever wanted to, of course.
You can't create service where only top of the tops pro prayers could play and win with Chess bots.
When money is on the line people will cheat for sure. So this is a reason we don't have now, and won't have in the future any pvp chess platform where you can win money.
This is just not realistic.
I'm still pro-human, as it were. Algorithms, even the newest ones, still need hardware to run on. If I remember correctly, every time a reigning world champion had been playing against a machine (for example Kasparov versus Deep Blue), the machine had been either a general-purpose top-of-the-notch supercomputer or a custom built device with massively parallel processing technology crafted specifically for playing chess and nothing else. And even in these cases the outcome was far from predetermined. I understand that today's regular computers are a lot faster and have a lot more memory than they were and had some twenty years ago. But I still think that they are not quite there yet to crush humiliatingly a grandmaster level chess player.
Besides, what is an estimated elo of a chess algorithm? Any chess match is time restricted, and would the algo show the same elo on some decrepit hardware given the time limitations for making a move? In my view, an estimated elo of such an algorithm is more hype than reality.
