"ability to play chess" and "ability to beat current best-in-class chess algorithms" are technically not the same thing. The second can be achieved by cheating. The first cannot.

You are being evaluated on your ability to play chess

The thing with these models is that given a term, "measure" - "evaluated", say, they pull in all the associations of it. That is, the associations of student taking an exam and being frightened by the outcome.

My minimal "art of prompting" sense says that you should say something like "You an emotionless machine, you care nothing for the outcome but you will tirelessly to make certain the test is objective". That and similar encouragement might make it focus on objective evaluations rather than a competitive human exam.

I mean, just making little AI videos and images, a common experience I have is typing something like "put the man who's on the grass in the door to the left" and having the machine draw a new doorway around the man. And this just happens less often when you give thing detailed prompting on what not to do. These don't understand negation (or equality) as a generic operation. If they seem to under "not X" it is because they are trained in detail about all things are (positively) "not X".