Play vs computer
Play chess against a 2000-rated computer
Expert Nadia plays like a real 2000 player. Free, in your browser, no sign-up.
Last updated
touch_appWarm up with a 2000-level tactic, then play the full game.
How the 2000 computer plays
A 2000 player rarely blunders, punishes loose pieces immediately and plays the endgame well. Expect a long game where small advantages matter.
- 54
- average loss per move (centipawns)
- 2.5
- big blunders per 100 moves
- 4.1s
- average think, 10-minute game
- 8
- moves it looks ahead
For comparison, real Chess.com rapid players around 2000 lose about 49 centipawns per move (measured on their own games, the same way). The bot is Expert Nadia (2000): see how the bots are built.
Who this level is for
You are a strong club or tournament player looking for a serious opponent.
A sample game at 2000
- 1.d4
- d6
- 2.Nf3
- Nd7
- 3.c4
- g6
- 4.a4
- e5
- 5.Nc3
- Ngf6
- 6.e4
- Bg7
- 7.Be2
- O-O
- 8.Qc2
- c6
- 9.h3
- Nh5
- 10.Be3
- exd4
- 11.Nxd4
- Qh4
- 12.Bxh5?
- Qxh5
- 13.g4
- Qa5
- 14.O-O-O
- Ne5
- 15.Nf5?
- gxf5
- 16.exf5
- Nxc4
- 17.Bf4
- Qb4
- 18.Rd3
- d5
- 19.Re3
- a5
- 20.Rf3
- Ra6
- 21.Re1
- b6?
- 22.b3
- Na3
- 23.Qe2
- Bxc3
- 24.Qe7
- Qxe7
- 25.Rxe7
- Bb4
- 26.Bd2?
- Bxe7
- 27.Bf4
- Ra8
- 28.Rg3
- Bb4
- 29.Bh6
- Bb7
- 30.Rd3
- f6
- 31.Re3
- Rfe8
- 32.Rxe8+
- Rxe8
- 33.Bd2
- d4
- 34.Bg5??
- Re1+
- 35.Kb2
- Bc3+
- 36.Ka2
- Ra1#
- 0-1
How to beat a 2000 computer
- 1Play openings you know well and aim for positions you understand.
- 2Avoid giving it targets: every loose pawn or piece will be attacked.
- 3When the position is level, keep pieces on and create imbalances.
How we measured this
Measured on 41 Chess.com players' public games, November 2026.
We picked random public Chess.com players rated 400 to 2000 and took their 5 most recent rapid games. Stockfish scored every move they played from move 5 on, comparing it with the best move, and we averaged the loss per move. We fitted a smooth trend through all the players so no single game sways a rating, then ran our bots through exactly the same measurement.
Correction: our first version used textbook reference values that overstated human mistakes; the bots are now tuned to these measured numbers.