Please provide games in pgn format so a proper analysis can be performed. I've seen games from GPT(3.5 and 4) that seem impressive at first glance as well. Once you go through the moves in detail you learn that:
1. It plays a ton of opening theory. So unless you have grandmaster level opening knowledge it will likely get a superior position out of the opening.
2. Once it does, tactical sequences tend to work. It can play a lot of common tactical sequences, sometimes 10 moves long. These sequences can have identical or highly similar algebraic notation in many different positions.
3. This can usually be spotted if you play enough games. Eventually it will attempt a sequence like this when it makes no sense or even includes illegal moves. Or you'll catch it always responding the same way in certain situations. Patterns like this tend to emerge with enough games in every case I've looked at.
I have yet to see a game not explainable by completing common opening theory and tactical sequences.
These claims are pretty unhelpful without detailed analysis of the games by a sufficiently strong player.
1. It plays a ton of opening theory. So unless you have grandmaster level opening knowledge it will likely get a superior position out of the opening.
2. Once it does, tactical sequences tend to work. It can play a lot of common tactical sequences, sometimes 10 moves long. These sequences can have identical or highly similar algebraic notation in many different positions.
3. This can usually be spotted if you play enough games. Eventually it will attempt a sequence like this when it makes no sense or even includes illegal moves. Or you'll catch it always responding the same way in certain situations. Patterns like this tend to emerge with enough games in every case I've looked at.
I have yet to see a game not explainable by completing common opening theory and tactical sequences.
These claims are pretty unhelpful without detailed analysis of the games by a sufficiently strong player.