✔=fixed: "... the way moves are scored is now based on your rating."

JD, Amaleki, Dylan, et al - 

Can someone please clarify what the following actually means?

"...The new Accuracy scores, based on CAPS2, replicate the feeling of being graded on a test in school. This is because the way moves are scored is now based on your rating...."

https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured

Thanks.

It means that a move classified as a mistake for an 800 might be like a blunder for a 1600.  Or an excellent move for an 800 might be like a good move for a 1500.  I think like that.

Thanks,

KM400

Not exactly sure what your question is, so I may be stating the obvious, but it sounds to me like it's saying that your 0-100 accuracy score after each game will be more forgiving for lower-rated players. Kind of like not expecting a second grader to ace a pre-calculus test (hence the test comparison). So lower rated players like 400s will get higher accuracy scores and not be punished as much for blundering mate in 3 and the like.

You are saying that if a amazing move is made by a 1800, then that would be best and if the player was 1200, then it would be a brilliant move

I think it seems weird. The validity of a move should be more objective. A blunder of a queen will always be a blunder of a queen.

Apologies. There is an error in the article. CAPS2 is not rating-based. We will fix

Ken Regan’s statistical analysis considers chess ratings in evaluation performance. See https://studylib.net/doc/13879886/intrinsic-chess-ratings-kenneth-w.-regan-guy-mcc.-haworth

an many other scholarly articles available online.

Dylan wording issues also appear in https://support.chess.com/article/364-how-does-the-game-report-analysis-work:

NOTE: Unlike previous versions, Accuracy and move descriptors now take rating into account. 

Thank you!