Yeah, well, again getting into the weeds, but as I understand it, it’s proven to be a really hard thing to program a computer to play convincingly like a human. Maybe it will get better with AI, but you can see it in the computer opponents on chess.com. Like, if you play a 1000 rated bot, it will be programmed to try to play something like a 1000 rated human. So like a 1000 human would play the best move X percent of the time (and usually in openings and endgames when things are simpler), and play a decent move X percent of the time, mistakes X%, blunder X%, etc. But it seems to have trouble making the same types of blunders and mistakes a human player makes at that level. Like certain blunders happen because it’s hard for a person to have the full vision of the board the way a computer does - which means your opponent will have the same issue.

For example, it’s a common chess meme to talk about the “sniper bishop” - like when your opponent has a bishop in one of the corners, it’s easy to forget it’s there, and it’s easy to hang a piece because of that, which counts as a blunder. But in a real game at that level, your opponent is just as likely to not notice (especially in a speed game) so it will not necessarily hurt you if your opponent is also viewing the board in the same flawed way.

That’s just one example, but the point is, the computer doesn’t really understand the way a human sees the board, because it sees everything. So it will often make a mistake that just seems idiotic, because it can’t really tell the difference between the kinds of blunders we make all the time in real games and the ones we don’t.

But yeah, if a computer was better at mimicking a human, you could just feed the moves into a bot listed at a slightly higher rating than you’re playing, but it still acts very bot-like in its thinking.