HOW am i still 700 rated?!? PERFECT GAME

I got a perfect game, that means 100% accuracy, i spent some time at the start of the game wondering if i was gonna play the italian game or the ruy lopez, i went with the italian, guy went Nf3, so i started playing the fried liver, guy immediately blundered with h6 (this also made me think for a moment, like, really?), anyhow i took on f2. Again this guy blundered his queen, again, i paused for a second to wonder:"how is my opponent this bad, usually the 700s i play with are engines". Finally i took the queen with Nxd8, then he resigned. I'm not gonna get ANY better, I've peaked, this is as good as i get. https://chess.com/live/game/26479212325

How do i upload the game and not just the link??

Blunders

Yes all the opponent did was blunder

 

For the record, your result is a bit skewed due to the fact that your opponent resigned, eliminating all future moves from the calculation. Additionally, accuracy score usually ignores book moves (as they are opening theory). So your accuracy is based on your non-book moves until resignation. Essentially, the engine evaluated 4... h6? 5 Nxf7 Rg8  6. Nxd8. You got a perfect score for playing 2 best moves and your opponent got the lowest score possible for playing 2 worst moves. 

Congrats on your score, looking forward to your results in longer games

 

Because you consistently play awful games, that is how you are still 700.

Hope this helps.

that was the most passive aggresive thing i have seen lmao

The game did not have 100 accuracy even though you only played book moves and best moves because when look at your Evaluation bar, you will see that some book moves reduce your advantage a bit like when it was +0.24, then you played a book move which made your position +0.1. It should have been 100 accuracy but the computer is itself very arrogant and only gives 100 accuracy to games with 3-4 book moves.

But anyways good game

 

isnt it impossible to get a 100 accuracy

like not even bots can get it

interesting

Hardly aggressive to say someone is bad at a game, especially when it’s true.

He seemed to be under the illusion that because he handled a single extremely short game well that he was suddenly good at the game.

I simply pointed out that this doesn’t logically follow, because he consistently performs poorly in the majority of his games.

Unless you are a professional, I don’t see someone calling you bad at a game as something you should take personally, as it’s just a game.

This is a good game, but the only problem is that you won because the opponent blundered, which is basically just getting lucky. Once you can play against players who make good moves and win, you will rapidly gain rating.

When the opponent blunders his Queen, you don't need to be Magnus Carlsen to decide that capturing it is a good plan.

Being Magnus Carlsen HELPS, mind you...

I dont know 

 

 

He would probably avoid the hanging queen and head straight for the checkmate while allowing that queen to survive.

Just because you did good in one game doesn't mean you DESERVE like 1000 rating. Checking your stats, you have a bunch of losses in your career, which negates any rating you got from wins. Win most your games and your rating will increase. Its all about consistency.

 

LOL. How about my accuracy (and my rating)

SAME XD 

I am trying to get good ok but i get really nervous when playing against a real player :c