Is it possible to get 100% accuracy in a game?
Sort:
Slayerofbishopsandqueens
Mar 29, 2024
0
#1341
Yes, just use stock fish!
eddythebinbag wrote:
chess vibes got 100% accuracy when he played the traxler in his speedrun. idk why everyone is saying no
Oh, i watched that video + chess vibes is called nelson
Gendo720 wrote:
No I'm 99.5%.
Succesful fried liver is 100%
I have a few. Normally just a theory line when my opponents run out of theory too early.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/105447608989?tab=review&move=27
This is a example. White did not know 12. Bg5+ and then it's just over.
No
Technically, if not looking from the perspective of an engine, yes, but when a computer analyzes a game it is very hard to get 100% accuracy as it usually tends to set the maximum at 99.9%, so anything above 99% accuracy can be considered as a perfect game
I did it today.... I have never thought that I could make 100 accuracy. It ended in 8 seconds because I knew about this line. I realized how powerful it is to have a knowledge in openings....
Apr 3, 2024
0
#1354
Temporating wrote:
My brother just got 100% perfect chess game by a few moves. So yes it is possible
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/101505217295?tab=review
This was a cracker!
Yes, enjoyable.
vishruthakshaya wrote:
Technically, if not looking from the perspective of an engine, yes, but when a computer analyzes a game it is very hard to get 100% accuracy as it usually tends to set the maximum at 99.9%, so anything above 99% accuracy can be considered as a perfect game
None of this is even remotely true. Or sensible.
Apr 3, 2024
0
#1357
Here's one giving a popular anti-Q-pawn gimmick the door.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/105905342083?username=indian-giver-67
Probably not
Actually there is just play a game without leaving theory (where you still get book moves)
It’s easy in a short game. But not in a long game. For instance, I had a long game and got 96% because I was able to form a queen:bishop battery with doubled rooks on a file to triangulate an attack on the king. All I had to do was deflect a defender and then sac a rook. Fritz said I had .04 centipawns deviation from a perfect game, which it said was otherwise flawless. But I got 96% on Chess.com. So somewhere Chess.com thought I made a mistake.
What was interesting is that Fritz gave me a brilliancy for the deflection and Chess.com gave it to me for the rook sac, which was the obvious follow up to the deflection.
What was interesting is that Fritz gave me a brilliancy for the deflection and Chess.com gave it to me for the rook sac, which was the obvious follow up to the deflection.