Elo scores in different rating pools are not directly comparable at all, only the difference in ratings in the same pool is significant (although generally comp

Elo scores in different rating pools are not directly comparable at all, only the difference in ratings in the same pool is significant (although generally computer chess rating lists try to make them look reasonably close to the FIDE list). More big problems in comparing these ratings: intransitivity of chess strength, variation of strength for different time controls, volatility/time variation of human strength, and the much lower statistical significance of human rating lists. There's probably more that don't come to mind. But anyways, yeah, it's pretty indisputable that computers absolutely massacre humans at chess these days.