> I feel like I've been playing against it a lot in chess.com, with the tremendous amount of cheating that is going on online, every 1 out of 6 or 7 games is an engine user
This statement seems a bit funny because in order to have a good idea that they cheated, you would have also had to been analyzing the game with the chess engine.
Regardless, unless you truly an amazingly player, nearly any chess engine made in the last 15 years will destroy you and incremental improvements on stockfish have absolutely not effect on that.
> This statement seems a bit funny because in order to have a good idea that they cheated, you would have also had to been analyzing the game with the chess engine.
You analyze the game after it is played. When your opponent managed to have a 99.9% accuracy in a 1500+ ELO blitz/rapid game, it's highly unlikely that they managed to do that without some computer assistance.
I'm 1500+ ELO, play blitz/raipd, and get 100% from time to time.
It's usually because I played some book moves and then my opponent fell into an opening trap that I knew and they didn't [1] and I knew exactly how to play for the win to checkmate, because I've done it before many times and remember the post game analysis from them. I didn't come up with the moves on the spot.
This statement seems a bit funny because in order to have a good idea that they cheated, you would have also had to been analyzing the game with the chess engine.
Regardless, unless you truly an amazingly player, nearly any chess engine made in the last 15 years will destroy you and incremental improvements on stockfish have absolutely not effect on that.