4. Precision Scores
-
My precision: 69.9%
-
Opponent precision: 71.1%
26% of my games had precision below 60%. For my opponents, it was just 17%.
Games above 75% precision made up 38% of the sample for me and 40% for my opponents. That’s high for a rating group often labeled as "beginners who blunder every move."
-
My average game performance: 897
-
Opponent average: 887
Yet we’re both rated around 623. Something’s off.
My point is not that I play perfect chess. My point is that the games — mine and my opponents' — are being evaluated by the platform itself as high 800s or even 900+.
So while people critique individual errors, they often ignore the bigger picture. The data shows that many games in the 600 pool are not being played like traditional 600-level chess.
💡 Conclusion
Chess.com’s 600 today is not what it was five years ago.
-
Precision is often above 70%
-
Games are cleaner and more disciplined
-
Over half of the games are played at a level above 1000
Thoughts?
I just want to emphasize 2 points here - accuracy and that rating estimation at the end of the games.
The problem with those 2 is that they are taken way too seriously. You are mentioning that 600 today and 5 years ago is not the same. Well, hopefully not, chess is evolving, people should be better a bit. But it is not in the way you think.
Accuracy today and 5 years ago on chess. com is not the same. It is not calculated in the same way. 5 years ago, I had a game with less than 20 accuracy. Today it would be measured around 50-60 (I even shown such an example several years ago). They did it so people would feel better about their games. Today almost nobody scores very low for that reason, so accuracy has to be taken with the grain of salt, especially on lower level where it is more probable that someone will play with very low accuracy.
For instance, a few years ago, when new accuracy measurements kicked in, I had an unrated game with a lower rated opponent. In around 10 moves he blundered 3 times and resigned and had an accuracy around 70. That is completely crazy. One can't take chess.com accuracy as a serious tool for this discussion, especially if they compare it with accuracy 5 years ago when it was calculated differently.
As for rating estimation, that too is just a toy. You said it yourself, it is based on the ratings people have, plus almost always people are overrated with that accuracy. Just how you on average have + few hundred rating, I have many games over 2 000 estimation and I am sure that on average I am several hundred points above compared with my rating.
The only games where I score below my rating is when I mess up early and lose quickly, or when I play a bad unrated game against lower rated opponent and still win in most cases. These type of games are relatively rare, most of the time it is 1 800 + for me, with many games around 2 100 and more.
This metric is made for us to feel good as well. It is certainly inflated. Be sure that actual 2 000 are playing much better than those estimated 2 000 rating games I have.
What an interesting analysis! I should do something similar. In my case I need to disregard games that I resign with less than 10 moves because I suffer from a tendency to resign if my opponent chooses an opening that I don't feel like playing. Disregarding games with less than 10 moves, and looking at just the last ten games (not enough for any significance)
Won 2, drew 3 lost 5
my average accuracy when I win: 70.5 (opponent 59.5)
my average accuracy when I lose: 79.5 (opponent 78.1)
my game rating when I win: 925 (opponent 500)
my game rating when I lose: 1120 (opponent 1090)
my rating over this period: 483 (opponent 493)
The conclusion is that I play much the same and it makes no difference to the outcome (in fact I tend to play worse when I'm likely to win, better when I'm losing - go figure!). Certainly down in my sub-500 area, the accuracy scores aren't too bad. Of my last 10 games, I have accuracies above 75% in six, my opponents in three (six over 70%). This isn't random stuff. The game ratings are a load of rubbish; they don't really reflect the game at all, because they are based on your actual rating, not just the game. The exact same game will be given a different game-ratings if it were played by two different pairs of players.