Your software (noctie) was pretty fun to play against, but it's probably no more than ~1600 ELO. Having it assess me as 2574 after beating it was nice on the ego, but a bit silly. The comparison to Lichess ratings also seems a bit off. 2574 ELO is probably much higher than 2809 Lichess unless there's been some serious rating deflation going on over there (been a while since I played on that site).
I assume you're using an accuracy correlation, but those fail in lots of situations. For instance if somebody is substantially better than somebody else, they're probably going to have near 0 pawn loss, but that's only because the opponent never posed any problems to them.
Style issue also tend to break these correlations. E.g. - Capablanca was much more accurate, by this metric, than Kasparov. But that's because Capablanca had an extremely solid style. In reality, he would probably not fare well against Kasparov or most modern super GMs, even though many of them are far less accurate on paper.
I assume you're using an accuracy correlation, but those fail in lots of situations. For instance if somebody is substantially better than somebody else, they're probably going to have near 0 pawn loss, but that's only because the opponent never posed any problems to them.
Style issue also tend to break these correlations. E.g. - Capablanca was much more accurate, by this metric, than Kasparov. But that's because Capablanca had an extremely solid style. In reality, he would probably not fare well against Kasparov or most modern super GMs, even though many of them are far less accurate on paper.