If I'm judging the game from a 2000 level standard, then it's not very good... but the reason isn't really fair. The reason is you're not forming a long term plan and sticking to it... that's not really something that I expect to happen until around 1600 at least. But you're pretty close to that right? So maybe it's about time for that advice.
So strong players who also cheat a bit by having studied games, tend to pick an area (queenside, center, or kingside) and focus their early middlegame efforts there. Sure some people say wait, alternating threats in two different areas is a known winning method for 100 years... yes, a winning method which is only useful after you have an advantage. So at first you pick one area (kingside, center, or queenside) and you should choose the one where you have an advantage in space, piece activity, or ideally both space and piece activity.
In this game you play c5, c4, Qb6... but then sacrifice an entire piece on the kingside. So automatically, it's easy to tell, you've definitely wasted moves / made blunders. You can't play in two areas like that.
Later you really get things going on the kingside... and notice that this makes sense. Look at the position on move 10. Your central pawns "point" to the kingside. In other words you have more space there. So the position gives you some non-zero amount of intrinsic advantages there. It's no surprise you ended up with legitimate pressure there.
So that's my critique. It's not a bad game, but the first half is chaotic. Black doesn't have an idea for what he's supposed to be doing. Just making random moves here and there. He gains some momentum on the kingside and runs with it. You play some tactics and ideas are obviously much better than a 1000 or 1200 level player. So you can be happy with that... but the players a bit beyond you, the 1600-1800 crowd, are much more diligent about picking the area where there are intrinsic advantages and focusing all their enterprising moves there.
Can anyone give me feedback on my game? I'm a bit confused about the game report, or maybe just a bit disappointed.
Context: I play Blitz at around a 800-1000 rating and rapid somewhere in the 1200-1300 range (climbing). My opponent at a little over 1450 was the highest rated player I have played at chess.com. I really enjoyed the game, the game was intense and challenging. After the game, before I looked at the analysis, it felt like one of the best games I've ever played.
Game report. The analysis was not so generous (64% accuracy for me and 44% for opponent) and I wonder why. Maybe I'm used to higher accuracy because in a bad game it's probably more obvious what the best move is. Or does the engine take rating into account (meaning a higher bar at higher ratings)? In this game I had to think about every move and I was very satisfied with how I played. And to see how bad the engine rates many of my moves came as quite a shock.
My question is, should I re-think how I play or are my moves pretty decent from a human perspective? Or is my evaluation of accuracy wrong?