is 70+ rating is a good ?
Sort:
Yes it’s very good bro
Nice
Jan 27, 2024
0
#8
That accuracy is measured by comparing the best computer move to yours on each turn, and calculating how much of the advantage you held it you didn't play the top move. So to be consistently playing in the 70% accuracy range as a beginner is really good, probably means you aren't blundering pieces on the board or getting into really bad positions.
Jan 27, 2024
0
#10
Jahtreezy wrote:
That accuracy is measured by comparing the best computer move to yours on each turn, and calculating how much of the advantage you held it you didn't play the top move. So to be consistently playing in the 70% accuracy range as a beginner is really good, probably means you aren't blundering pieces on the board or getting into really bad positions.
The thing is, chess.com accuracy is not a serious tool. Two years ago they changed it in a way that now most of the people get at least decent accuracy. They did it because they want to encourage lower rated players. Now apart from what you said the accuracy has something to do with someone's rating (at least that is what was said when they first announced it). What is the exact formula, I am not sure.
Basically, now almost everyone is between 60 and 90, most of the time.
Previously I had bad games with like 18 accuracy, which is more difficult to do today.
For instance, I had an unrated game against someone rated like 600 or so, certainly below 1 000, it was 10 move or so game, where he blundered 3 times and resigned. His accuracy was just below 70, and his approximate rating was shown to be around 1 300 (approximate rating is not a serious tool either).
In any case, apart from all this, accuracy is dependent on the game itself. In a calmer game, it is easier to have higher accuracy than in a sharper game.
Here is a link and a graph that compares how it was before and how it is now:
https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured
Jan 27, 2024
0
#11
nklristic wrote:
Jahtreezy wrote:
That accuracy is measured by comparing the best computer move to yours on each turn, and calculating how much of the advantage you held it you didn't play the top move. So to be consistently playing in the 70% accuracy range as a beginner is really good, probably means you aren't blundering pieces on the board or getting into really bad positions.
The thing is, chess.com accuracy is not a serious tool. Two years ago they changed it in a way that now most of the people get at least decent accuracy. They did it because they want to encourage lower rated players. Now apart from what you said the accuracy has something to do with someone's rating (at least that is what was said when they first announced it). What is the exact formula, I am not sure.
Basically, now almost everyone is between 60 and 90, most of the time.
Previously I had bad games with like 18 accuracy, which is more difficult to do today.
For instance, I had an unrated game against someone rated like 600 or so, certainly below 1 000, it was 10 move or so game, where he blundered 3 times and resigned. His accuracy was just below 70, and his approximate rating was shown to be around 1 300 (approximate rating is not a serious tool either).
In any case, apart from all this, accuracy is dependent on the game itself. In a calmer game, it is easier to have higher accuracy than in a sharper game.
Here is a link and a graph that compares how it was before and how it is now:
https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured
Is that tied to the "estimated rating" or whatever, in which it shows that you played like a 1700 rated player, for example? Or does the "estimated rating" factor in your current rating?
Jan 27, 2024
0
#12
Stockfishdot1 wrote:
nklristic wrote:
Jahtreezy wrote:
That accuracy is measured by comparing the best computer move to yours on each turn, and calculating how much of the advantage you held it you didn't play the top move. So to be consistently playing in the 70% accuracy range as a beginner is really good, probably means you aren't blundering pieces on the board or getting into really bad positions.
The thing is, chess.com accuracy is not a serious tool. Two years ago they changed it in a way that now most of the people get at least decent accuracy. They did it because they want to encourage lower rated players. Now apart from what you said the accuracy has something to do with someone's rating (at least that is what was said when they first announced it). What is the exact formula, I am not sure.
Basically, now almost everyone is between 60 and 90, most of the time.
Previously I had bad games with like 18 accuracy, which is more difficult to do today.
For instance, I had an unrated game against someone rated like 600 or so, certainly below 1 000, it was 10 move or so game, where he blundered 3 times and resigned. His accuracy was just below 70, and his approximate rating was shown to be around 1 300 (approximate rating is not a serious tool either).
In any case, apart from all this, accuracy is dependent on the game itself. In a calmer game, it is easier to have higher accuracy than in a sharper game.
Here is a link and a graph that compares how it was before and how it is now:
https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured
Is that tied to the "estimated rating" or whatever, in which it shows that you played like a 1700 rated player, for example? Or does the "estimated rating" factor in your current rating?
I am not sure how exactly it is calculated in the game report, but generally based on the games I've seen, I wouldn't use it as a serious tool either, more like a fun diversion. Sometimes that estimated rating is ridiculous, like in the example I've mentioned - the guy blunders 3 times in a short game (and it wasn't a pawn, it was like - a piece, an exchange and a piece, or something like that) and the game says his estimated rating is that of an intermediate player, and the accuracy is not atrocious either.
In any case, I would look at the moves I played and evaluate them during the analysis, I wouldn't really put much stock on the accuracy displayed or the estimated rating in the game report.
Those 2 are more fun to see than they are too important.
Jan 27, 2024
0
#13
nklristic wrote:
In any case, apart from all this, accuracy is dependent on the game itself. In a calmer game, it is easier to have higher accuracy than in a sharper game.
Here is a link and a graph that compares how it was before and how it is now:
https://support.chess.com/article/1135-what-is-accuracy-in-analysis-how-is-it-measured
Appreciate the article, I know conceptually how the formulas work but didn't look at any of the math and didn't know about the grading curve.
Accuracy is compared to a few moments of stockfish. Also you are playing against someone your own rating range. If a 10 year old gives you a maths test you would expect a high accuracy, if a mathematician sets you a high complexity maths test, expect a low accuracy. In this case the difference from my example is low Elo players can stu
Can stumble into high complexity positions so this means you still have taken a test above your ability.
:tup
if your talking about acuracy 70 is like 1 blunder per game and 70 rating still isnt bad you got a world record if you got 70 because 100 is the lowest
i'm just beginer at chess and i want to ask is 70+ rating is a good score or not?