Hate to boast but this win is sheer poetry

Congrats, the win is nice......  but; black blundered into the loss; without the blunder no beautiful crush.   Still, I enjoyed the game.   chrs.  

Thanks for the reply my friend.......My opponent only made ONE blunder 

Well the Qd2 was a lemon as black had ... Ng4 to snag the d-pawn or the bishop pair.
That said the Ng3 / Bd3 / Qd2 placement was great for the mate attack after black played the awful ... h6
Too right you should be proud of the quick win but not due to the 95% accuracy.

Nice game! 12.Nh5 must have been satisfying to play. 

Your win accuracy is not what decided the game.  Your opponents horrible play did.  Be sure to send them a thank you card.

I think accuracy is more of an indication of a player taking advantage of a blunder or some other weakness in your opponent's game.

A 2200 player will crush a player that's 1800 and play "very accurate."

An 1800 player will crush a 1200 and play very accurate. 

People on chess.com analyze thier game and think they get 90%+ accuracy and think they are playing like a high level chess engine. But players are really just playing moves that any reasonaby higher rated player would see.

I guess the perfect example is a bullet game between Magnus Carlsen and some random GM. It was an online game and the opponent GM didn't know it was Magnus Carlsen. It was obvious that GM Magnus Carlsen had a huge advantage with pattern recognition. 

In other words, "accuracy" on chess.com is a reflection of seeing patterns/tactics. So your accuracy means your spotting tactics/patterns against your opponent. At 700, it would be highly accurate for the level 700 opponent to find a tactic in which he takes his opponent's "en prise" queen.

At the grandmaster level, it would be accurate to spot a mate-in-10 that consists of sacrificing both a queen and a rook, in order to mate with 5 other pieces.

I do not agree.

Well I agree that high accuracy for a low rated or middle rated player does not mean he is a top player on computer level. However, it means that the player played the right moves given the situation he was in, and given his opponent. If many moves are regarded as the best moves by the engine, you played right... The difference is in the counterplay by you needed to play right against the opponent. If the opponent played better moves, you need to react to those better. 

So it measures how good you played! (Given your opponent). Thats why the situation is as you described with the 2200vs 1800 and 1800 vs 1200.

@pfren: I agree with all of your notes. The engine may have said you made "no mistakes" but the previous post just showed several inaccuracies you made. This point has been made several times before, but the perfect play is dependent on the quality of your opponent's moves. Taking a free queen may be the best move, but that is obvious and relies on your opponent to play that bad. 

"My opponent only made ONE blunder" — Bill-Hicks

This shows a poor understanding of the game as one blunder is generally enough to lose a game if exploited with near-accurate conversion. 

At least at one point I am not sure that’s a fair evaluation.

2 e5 I don’t believe deserves the question mark.

While all your points are fair, I would also mention the following. e5 cramps blacks game and promotes a king side attack. After 2 ... c5 white has moves like f4 and Nf3 to reinforce the pawn, and if the d file is opened the backward d pawn and hole at d6 could cause black issues.

After e5 the position is balanced, losing whites first move advantage a bit quicker than most king pawn openings to be sure, but I don’t think deserving of the question mark.

Can we all agree that unless you beat a 2200+ player, no win is poetry?

Blacks moves 10-13 were all bad.

Betting you despise Alekhine Defense...

Your opponent didn't play the Alekhine Defense, and that is one of the rare situations in which e5 is appropriate. Your opponent was playing the French Defense, to which the most common response is 2. d4.

Whoops, I just confused StinkingHyena and the OP. Never mind.

That pesky Knight

No problem. But my point still stands, it’s not a bad move, or even a questionable one.

First look at real life examples. A decent number of games have played around the master and IM level. White is winning more than their fair share (I assume surprise factor).

Secondly, the main tries of d5 and c5 lead to an advance French, not a bad opening for white. 

Finally, the all knowing cpu puts it at even.

Anyway, I spent far too much time thinking about a rather obscure move...

I forgot about the advance French. Good point.

I was completely wrong, after 2. ...d6 3 exd6 Bxd6 4 d4 it’s basically a Rubinstein where black is a move up, that can’t be good for white (computer might say it’s close to being equal, but I wouldn’t want to be the white side). Pfren suggested this, that’s why he is an IM and I’m a patzer...