Some games from the most recent chess engine tournament look whacky as hell. Like if you showed the games to a grandmaster they would probably estimate it was 2 completely new 400 elo players.

I think some of the moves the engine suggests in human games look whacky to human grandmasters.

Hikaru Nakamura is a top GM that does commentary streams — and frequently comments things like “but what do I know about chess?” when responding to AI suggestions. It’ll suggest a weird move that seems to leave a mess on the board while insisting that everything is great. And obviously if you actually tried to play against Stockfish from that position, it would crush you.

Looks like 400 ELO, but hey — what do we know about chess?

One of the big issues with engines is that they don't assume they're playing against human players. Of course in an engine v engine tournament they're not. But it makes it hard to use them to study things, especially below elo 2000. Many times the chess.com "best move" seems utterly ridiculous, and when I click for it to follow through on the suggested move line, it shows the opponent making a response no human would ever ever make. I think we need to have some sort of division between "this engine will win any game ever" and "this engine will always win against a human."

There's been times when the chess.com calls my move a mistake, and suggests something nonsense that leads to a guaranteed mate in 15, when I got a (non-guaranteed but real) mate in 5 from my move, because I know I'm playing against a human. The engine move is more guaranteed, but very illogical unless your brain can do the equivalent of the 30 turns of minmax.