Let's Play Chest!
Hi friends! Do you know that sinking feeling when a game is slipping through your fingers? It hits me in the pit in my stomach, and my inner critic starts shouting mid-game, "This is terrible! I can't believe you let that happen!” Waves of frustration, anger, and nervous energy pulse into my hands. I’m trying to look at the board and concentrate but the tilt is on. The game winds down and before long all my efforts to rebound and fight back result in a lost position. I bet you’ve been there.
When everything is over, I click Game Review because that’s what you’re supposed to do. The window opens, everything grays out for a second. Then, the customary summary appears along with my accuracy percentage.
Ugh.
I’ve played a handful of book moves, some good and excellent ones, but around move eight, the chess coach gently names an inaccuracy. They look like this:
Thanks Dante. At least, your snazzy follow-up is only a click away.
In this blog post, we're going to talk about inaccuracies. We’ll look at the ?! symbol and explain what it does and does not mean. We’ll review a handful of inaccuracy examples and make some general observations about inaccuracies that you can avoid. Working through this blog might help your game, so that when your opponent plays a less-than-precise move, you’ll be ready. And on your side of the board, maybe you can avoid early meltdowns and mistakes.
Be Precise: What the Term Inaccuracy Means
Some Inaccuracies Are by the Book
Is It a Sharp Line or an Inaccuracy?
A Recent Example, Only a Minor Inaccuracy
Be Precise: What the Term Inaccuracy Means
Whenever you make a move that represents a slight deviation from Stockfish’s assumed best line, it’s labeled as an inaccuracy. The computer calculates these differences in centipawns, and an inaccuracy is the smallest deviation from the best play. Many would tell you not to concern yourself with inaccuracies. It’s the blunder that cost you games. Stay away from colossal mistakes and you’ll be fine.
Other coaches and YouTube streamers suggest that when you are playing a lower-rated player that you should simply maintain a reasonable position and wait for your opponent to crack. They are a lower-level player for a reason this logic suggests. If along the way, you play an inaccuracy, don’t worry. As Gotham Chess puts it, with his characteristic flair: “Just cause a 3000-level cyborg says a move was [inaccurate] doesn’t mean anything!”
Rozman has a touch of truth here. We shouldn’t lose our minds over our accuracy score. We should not give a chess engines like Stockfish permission to tell us about our worth. They aren’t intelligent thinkers. It’s an app that processes and predicts; its grades about accuracy should be taken with a grain of salt. But I’d like to suggest that we should always stay curious. Looking past inaccuracies with only an eye for tactical blunders can really hold us back.
I will admit that I make my share of bad mistakes, but what I'm noticing is that more often than not I play an inaccuracy first. This initial move destabilizes the position, and a move or two later, I make an even bigger mistake or blunder. What I’m wondering is if I can edge closer to the middlegame without making these minor missteps. If so, I’m that much closer to a fully functional middlegame. If I can get to that place, it may in fact, be my opponent that misreads the position (even if ever so slightly).
When I see an inaccuracy in my game, I sometimes feel like I’m not worthy, but the best part is, we get to see what the best move was, thanks to the engine. —@SPK1729
The principle that I’m seeking to apply is the idea of attention to detail. The US military spends a great deal of time in basic training having soldiers make their beds daily, sweep floors, stand in lines, etc. Why? Because disciplined troops that care about the little things do better when when they are thrown into life-and-death situations. The training takes over.
Don't be like this guy, melt down, or flop through life.
Some Inaccuracies Are by the Book
Some chess inaccuracies are so well-known that they’ve made their way into chess lore. Billions of games have been played along these lines, and the computers now list the missteps as book openings. They don’t even register a ?! any longer. In the following instances, White’s move register as “book moves,” but seriously, you’re giving Black a chance to equalize by move #3. Why do that?
I thought I'd look. For ELO ratings under 1200, there are 31 million games in the Lichess database that reach this position. Only 8% find the best move to take control of the game and challenge this inaccuracy by White. It's a 57% win rate (at all levels) if you find the best move, 4...Nxe4. Sadly, many higher level player miss this ancient trick as well.
Let's look at another example: the Marshall defense. If your opponent inaccurately declines the Queen's gambit after 2. c4, can you take control of the position?
Black is on their heels from the start. This is very definition of inaccurate play. Let's see one more early inaccuracy.
Is it a Sharp Line or an Inaccuracy?
In this recent bullet game between two strong players on Lichess, White chooses a lesser known line in the Scotch Gambit to test Black’s resolve on move #6. Stockfish thoughtlessly labels White's choice as an inaccuracy.
The actual inaccuracy is 6…dxc3 because Black underestimates the open space they are conceding. These moves are the sort of thing we should look to avoid. Once you've made this sort of inaccuracy, you have to be perfect to survive. Black could have avoided these complications by simply trading knights. You are up two central pawns, why should Black try to pick up the knight as well?
Let’s look another kind of inaccuracy by reviewing a game from the classic era. Tarrasch opens with the King’s Gambit. His opponent, Walbrodt, as Black, makes incredible, bold decisions, especially on move #8. Walbrodt's wonderful attack is rolling, and Tarrasch makes an inaccurate move. Unfortunately, Walbrodt doesn’t see how to press things forward.
So what kind of conclusions can we draw from this game? The centralized White queen in the opening was calling out as a target, but Walbrodt fell back on his classic love of bishops (which I've written about before) and underestimates his own momentum.
A Recent Example, Only a Minor Inaccuracy
This recent game that was posted on ChessLife online between two IMs (Sathvik Adiga and Tatev Abrahamyan) shows another minor inaccuracy. Rather than missing a direct attack, Adiga resolves tension in a complex French Winawer position. What was missed was the chance to extend pressure in another part of the board.
Earlier I posted Dante's assessment of Qe2. I saw that in a game posted by @Sebu13 on the Improvers forum (and best of luck to him as he'll be playing later in the '25 CoachChamps Tournament). He plays a line in the Sicilian Defense, and his opponent reacts well until reach move eight. Black has been advancing on the queenside, and White needs to do something quick.
The minor inaccuracy was pressing the queen forward along that semi-open e-file too early in the contest.
Can we draw any conclusions about inaccuracies from these games? I think so. I'd summarize it with four ideas: tempo, loose pieces or squares, tension, and missed alignments.
-
- If we have tempo, don't give it away (remember our opening tricks and the sharp line)
- If we have initiative, stay on top of loose pieces or squares (remember Walbrodt's oversight).
- If tension exists, why should I resolve it? Can I open a new front? (see our modern French example)
- If the position is early, will my attack create an alignment I might regret? (see Sebu13's game)
These are some small details that I'm going to pay attention to reduce a few inaccuracies.
Thanks for reading!
