good day, master, blesseds from spain, good player you are, friend
Game review: 1 miss means 73% accuracy?!
Sort:
good
Sometimes the machine gives the review based on the POH of the game you played. Maybe you completely crushed this player but another player might not succumb to the same gambit.
Oct 26, 2025
0
#6
One miss in 30 moves sounds great, but that is not the best representation of this game or how accuracy works. Keep in mind that Book moves don’t count, there are 26 moves remaining. This is the breakdown of your game:
38% of the time you played the best move 38% (10 / 26 moves).
58% of the time you played a sub-optimal move (15 / 26 moves)
4% of the time you played a miss (1 / 26 moves)
That one miss was missing a mate in 2, which is something to look into but that wasn’t a big impact on the accuracy score. The problem is that you play too many sub-optimal moves, with 8 excellent and 7 good moves.
Classifications like “excellent” and “good” are somewhat misleading terms because they aren’t excellent or good moves, in the way the words are commonly used. These moves are weaker than the best move, but still good enough that they aren’t labeled as an inaccuracy. In my opinion it would be better to call them ‘okay’ or ‘good enough’, because that’s a better description of what these moves reflect: Players would still know that inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders are the priority to look into, but it would also inform them there is still room for improvement.
What the game review shows you is typical for games like this one. In your words you “completely destroy” your opponent, but there’s more nuance to it. What specifically happened is that you threatened a fork on move 13 (Na5). Lucky for you the opponent missed it and you won their Queen in exchange for a Knight. You are now up 6 points of material and the evaluation of the position is around - 4.5 to - 5.0. The game is essentially over. Once you reach that point the Game Review starts behaving differently.
The article on chess.com support about Move Classification shows you how they determine which moves fall into which categories. In essence, they base their evaluation of each move on how much that move impacts a player’s winning chances. Moves that decrease a player’s winning chances by 20% (percentage points) are called a blunder, when it’s 10-20 percent points it’s called a mistake and between 5-10 percent points it’s an inaccuracy.
Your position after winning the Queen is completely winning by a wide margin. Wide enough that most moves won’t impact your winning chances by more than the 5% (points) needed to be an inaccuracy. For example: In a position like move 20, you can play practically everything. Every move you can think of that doesn’t hang a piece is good enough, no matter how useless the move is (with very few exceptions).
Actually, moves where you are losing pieces don’t impact your winning chances by too much even. For example: On move 16 you can ignore the threat on the g-pawn, and ignore the top 5 engine moves, instead you can play Rc4 which allows your opponent to take your Rook for a Bishop and take your pawn as well. Doesn’t matter, you're still winning by a wide enough margin. So, it's good. If you want to really impact your winning chances, you will need really bad moves: Even if you play Rxc2, randomly sacrificing your Rook for a pawn, it’s still not bad enough to be considered a blunder, that would only be a mistake.
TL;DR: You didn't play accurately this game, that's why you only get a 73% accuracy score. But because of you had a big advantage after move 14,, none of your moves were labeled an inaccuracy.
I completely destroyed my opponent and had 1 missed opportunity in total of 30 moves. 0 inaccuracy, 0 mistake, 0 blunder. Why does it says I played with 73% accuracy?