blunduscarlsen wrote:
Hi everyone. I was going thru my analisis and had 91.1 accuracy. Is this bannable? (I have 400 ELO)
they put into account how bad your opponent played, so if the moves were easy to see, you'll be fine
Is 91.1 accuracy normal?
Sort:
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/76353781105?tab=review
I dont think so your opponent might be just bad and you move a move that any human being do
I remember when I didnt knew any openings to play so i was just using bongcloud because opponents mostly blunder their pieces while hunting the king once when i did it my opponent was trying to scholars mate me and then when i moved my king i hung mate in 1 making my opponent accuracy 100 and i got 0
Why is that bannable? It's most certainly not, because, in fact, your opponent played very bad in that game, and therefore you just were able to take an advantage of this (it wasn't hard to find right moves in such a position), so your accuracy is high.
I got against a bot who's 2600, with a long long game
Mar 28, 2025
0
#48
stv0rec wrote:
Hi everyone. I was going thru my analisis and had 91.1 accuracy. Is this bannable? (I have 400 ELO)
I see where you're getting at unlike everyone else
stv0rec wrote:
Hi everyone. I was going thru my analisis and had 91.1 accuracy. Is this bannable? (I have 400 ELO)
your opponent played terribly, making it easier to find the best moves, if 91.1 accuracy was in an extremely complex position, it would be suspicious, but they would need more evidence to bad you.
> had 91.1 accuracy. Is this bannable?
That number alone is definitely not enough for a ban. Many other factors would need to concur.
If you didn't cheat, don't worry
> The Centipawn analysis indicates the game you played was not played by a human alone.
This is not true. I looked at the game and I see no evidence of that.
> there is zero chance this game was played by a 500 Elo human player
Again, not true.
As others pointed out in the forum, both the accuracy and the ACPL are perfectly possible in a game where the opponent blunders a piece in the opening. OP might have played reasonably well for their level, but the game was not challenging at all. Any strong player (not just me) can agree that both players in this game are weak (<1000) and no single move suggests otherwise; all the threats and mistakes are shallow and obvious and there's no single suspicious moment.
Is it possible the OP cheated "in a clever way" (not picking engine's top choice, etc)? Yes.
Is it possible the OP played this game cleanly? Yes.
Do the moves, accuracy and ACPL constitute proof for either scenario? No, but they suggest the latter IMHO (H = human in this case).
> This is why you have that weird checkmate at the end of the game.
This has been pointed out as a suspicious moment. I see at least 2 logical explanations for those moves in the end:
1) Amongst really weak players, clumsy checkmates are the norm
2) The player is trying to avoid stalemates and 3-fold repetition. The check from d8, which I assume is the "very strange queen move before the checkmate" seems perfectly reasonable to me when trying not to repeat nor stalemate.
If there were any other factors suggesting cheating, then this argument is great to explain "clever cheating". But in itself it's not a proof of cheating; you cannot prove perfection by proving imperfection
> Here is the latest GM Carlsen game played on Chess.com
This kind of comparison is absolutely pointless. There are so many reasons not to compare ~400 players with GMs or superGMs. To start with, no serious GM playing seriously would play 2.Nc3 against the Alekhine. But comparing accuracy or ACPL makes no sense when you play against a whole different level of opposition. For example:
> Your error rate for the game was .07 centipawns. And shows most likely cheating. As that is a better error rate then even GM Magnus Carlsen can play.
That argument is wrong. Carlsen would likely have that .07 ACPL (or less!) when playing against the OP's opponent in this particular game. The OP would likely have a much bigger ACPL than Carlsen when faced against Carlsen's opposition. That's no proof of anything.
If the OP had that ACPL and that accuracy when faced against a GM (or simply against a ~1800), then that would be suspicious (provided the opponent plays at their normal approx. strength).
Apart from that, as pointed out by others, outliers happen. You're more likely to play at your best when given a free piece in the opening. But of course we wouldn't be surprised if the OP made some blunders later in the game, which didn't happen. So it's maybe a "better-than-expected" performance in one single game. Not enough proof of suspicion. I would congratulate the OP for the victory (and accuracy) and wish them to get those great stats when faced against more challenging competition.
Note that I have no proof that the OP did NOT cheat either. Just saying I have no reason to think otherwise.
I'm not aware of other data for this specific case (all my opinion is based on just the moves, as everybody else's in the forum).
> I think we're on the same page though that if we think a player cheated, we'll just hit the report button and trust the chess.com team to figure it out!
Yes! Absolutely, that's what everybody should do
Let me also remind you not to harass or accuse players in the chat or forums. See the Sportsmanship section in our Community Policy:
https://www.chess.com/legal/community
chess.com takes cheating very seriously. Read more about it here:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-com-fair-play-and-cheat-detection#what
I agree. The game looks like something a 500 would play. Nothing suspicious in the game.