Accuracy scores are not absolute. They are adjusted for rating.
https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured
Low rated players... I just don't get it, must be old
Sort:
Jul 1, 2022
0
#3
Just grab Stockfish and some GUI client, such as Chessbase, and run the games through Centipawn analysis, preferably in a multicore processor.
All Im going to say many people are not cheating. The 1000 elo bracket range in short time controls is completely bonkers, I've faced many players in the low 1000 who are definitely NOT 1000 elo strength, and they are not cheating either.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#4
Chess.com has many great players worldwide, and not everyone cares about ratings. They play a few games, just to relax, before returning to their lives. A low ratings player can play very well.
At lower ratings (like mine) what I notice isn't so much bad play, at least not consistently. It's unevenness. I can rate 500 in one individual game and then 1600 the next.
Feb 12, 2025
0
#6
Przypadkowo wrote:
At lower ratings (like mine) what I notice isn't so much bad play, at least not consistently. It's unevenness. I can rate 500 in one individual game and then 1600 the next.
That's still true at my level.
One game, I play like a Master.
The next game, I play like a chimpanzee.
ThkTwiceAgain wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to share an observation of mine. It startles me thb.
When a player rated 829, playing a 479, in MY head it seams that this game features 2 players just having fun and learning to play all the rules of chess, how pieces move etc.
I don't grasp it is possible to (legit at least) play a level of 3 brilliant moves, 2 outstanding moves, score 93,9 accuracy over a 31 move game. With complex positions. These included 2 amazing sacs (rook and knight) btw. Oh , it was a rapid game.
Sure, cheating could be an issue perhaps, but apart from that, how is it possible that people with these capabilities seem to be (stuck??) in a pool of players of absolute beginners.
IMHO the level op play resembles at least 1700, maybe stronger.
I'd like to hear your opinions pls
As ever, high regards,
TTA
No offense 1600-1700 hundred rapid is basically 800s on steroids
Feb 12, 2025
0
#8
justbefair wrote:
Accuracy scores are not absolute. They are adjusted for rating.
https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured
That doesn't say anything about accuracy being adjusted for rating. It's simply false.
Hi all,
I would like to share an observation of mine. It startles me thb.
When a player rated 829, playing a 479, in MY head it seams that this game features 2 players just having fun and learning to play all the rules of chess, how pieces move etc.
I don't grasp it is possible to (legit at least) play a level of 3 brilliant moves, 2 outstanding moves, score 93,9 accuracy over a 31 move game. With complex positions. These included 2 amazing sacs (rook and knight) btw. Oh , it was a rapid game.
Sure, cheating could be an issue perhaps, but apart from that, how is it possible that people with these capabilities seem to be (stuck??) in a pool of players of absolute beginners.
IMHO the level op play resembles at least 1700, maybe stronger.
I'd like to hear your opinions pls
As ever, high regards,
TTA