What constitutes accuracy?

I was a professional poker player for twenty-four years.  I would play the same hand completely different against a weak player than I would another pro.  I expect the pro to make the right move so that limits my possible plays  With the weak player I can be extremely confident that the only way their going to make the right play is by accident.  That changes what the 'correct' play would be from a poker perspective.  

The chess.com computer tells me I'm being inaccurate, making mistakes and blunders more often when I'm playing the lower rated bots than they do when I'm playing the higher rated bots.  That got me thinking,  Computer playing computer, I've got to agree with the computers assessment of what constitutes 'accuracy'.   But playing humans is different.   It's said that poker is a people game played with cards.  What is chess?

Hello fellow poker player

Chess is a little bit different because poker can be a bit more exploitative whereas chess is much more objective; this is also true at the lower levels of chess too. 

Think of the chess computer engine like a poker HU game utilizing NASH equilibrium. The chess computer highest play is the objective best the computer sees and what most all players strive for. The main differences being that chess isn't "solved" as HU poker is and that poker tends to be more exploitational than chess in adjusting. In chess, the exploitations tend to be more objective and taking advantage of some opponent flawed move or plan whereas poker exploiting tends to be more based on strategy adjustments.

If you want to know more about what chess "accuracy" literally is, then it is taking the "best" engine moves and comparing them to your game moves. However many centipawns (unit of measure computer uses worth 1/100th of a pawn) "worse" your move is to the engine denotes how "bad" your move is (blunder, mistake, innaccurate and so on). 

Somewhat surprisingly, chess accuracy isn't always that reliable of a statistic outside of context as many players misinterpret what exactly "accuracy" means and not realizing that the engine playing objectively best might not be the best option in practical play versus a human prone to error. 

Chess "accuracy" is also called CAPS (computer aggregated percentage score) and IM @DanielRensch gives good a little summary here:

I don't know much about poker, so this is coming for a chess players perspective. 

If you are talking about how inaccurate traps/moves may be good VS low-rated opponents then maybe you are right, However, the engine always assumes that your opponent will play the best response, after all, they have complete control of their moves.

Thank you for responding.  I'm not sure I was looking to be 'right' as much as... Well, okay - back to poker.  When a young pro or dreamer would ask be for advice, I'd tell them, "It's all one long game.  Don't think, "I lost $400 tonight!"  Instead remember that you're up $2100 for the week, $6200 for the month so far and what-a-bout for life?"  Making the correct poker decision in a hard to read spot is a lot easier when you're not worrying about the money.  A lot of them came back and told me that mindset made all the difference.

Anyway, until I read your post I hadn't realized that I was fishing for someone to suggest something like the chess grand-master 'mindset' that will make all the difference.  We probably all remember as neophyte chess players listening incredulously as someone explains that sometimes checking the king is NOT the best move.  Chess became larger to me when I learned that and I looked at the game differently - my mindset changed.  Just was hoping someone would blurt out the final answer... 

One thing to keep on mind is that "accuracy" is not an established chess thing. It is quite new, the invention of chess.com developers. Charitably we can call it an experiment. Less  charitably we can call it complete nonsense.