Let’s be honest you played more like 1200-1300 and chess.com rating is not accurate and the game didn’t even go to a endgame otherwise your accuracy would have been more like 60%.
I am 950 rated player but played this game like 1700 rated player
Sort:
May 10, 2023
0
#3
BrillZeam2805 wrote:
Let’s be honest you played more like 1200-1300 and chess.com rating is not accurate and the game didn’t even go to a endgame otherwise your accuracy would have been more like 60%.
LOL, so if chess.com rates it at 1700, it is 1200 in actuals? Likewise, when you're rated at 1200 in rapid, you're more likely playing like 700 player?
Also, how can you be sure that in endgame accuracy would have dropped to like 60%? How did you calculate that when it is 95% in opening and mid game? Why are you angry? What happened bro? Is it your 'that time' of the month? Are grapes really sour??
May 10, 2023
0
#5
the chess.com rating estimates on those reviews have been known to be VERY generous. also he blundered his queen and the endgame didn't play out. we don't know for sure whether it would have carried on, but i myself have blundered endgames and lost my accuracy points. the accuracy just means that you had a solid game, it doesn't necessarily mean that you would be that rating. you probably already know that.
and congrats on the win!
Yeah you are right I play like a 1000 rated player and chess.com says I played like 1500, even i know I didn’t play like a 1500. If I did I would have been 1500. Also there was a test that 2 guys did that they played the exact moves like grandmasters with 97% accuracy and chess.com said that they played like 2000 rated player. It also depends on the engine depth as well. The reason you got 95% is probably because of a weak engine. If it was a strong engine you would have gotten 65-75% max accuracy. I’m not angry I’m just stating facts that goes over people’s heads.
And the facts sure did went over your head Tejas-Poshi.
This was my game 3 days ago.
Your opponent played poorly. Failed to challenge you and hung his Queen. Still, you can only play against the moves you're presented with but this isn't a 1700 level game.
May 14, 2023
0
#14
Tejas-Doshi wrote:
Felt like two grand masters are playing.
💀
You definitely played well, but 1700 is a stretch, let alone GM…
May 14, 2023
0
#15
Tejas-Doshi wrote:
BrillZeam2805 wrote:
Let’s be honest you played more like 1200-1300 and chess.com rating is not accurate and the game didn’t even go to a endgame otherwise your accuracy would have been more like 60%.
LOL, so if chess.com rates it at 1700, it is 1200 in actuals? Likewise, when you're rated at 1200 in rapid, you're more likely playing like 700 player?
Also, how can you be sure that in endgame accuracy would have dropped to like 60%? How did you calculate that when it is 95% in opening and mid game? Why are you angry? What happened bro? Is it your 'that time' of the month? Are grapes really sour??
yea the chess.com rating thing is not accurate u can just go to the details tab and change your rating to like 0 and it will change drastically.
It say I play like 800 but I’m 400 lol
May 14, 2023
0
#17
The estimated elo is just a gimmick. The number changes depending on the player's elo. You can test it yourself: get the system to analyse one of your games at your current elo. Then change the elo number in the PGN - add or substract 500, 1000 points, and run the analysis again.
The Estimated Elo will give you a completely different value even though the match is exactly the same.
Just forget about all these gimmicks and use what chess players have always used to measure accuracy: centipawn loss per move, averaged centipawn loss, etc.
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
The estimated elo is just a gimmick. The number changes depending on the player's elo. You can test it yourself: get the system to analyse one of your games at your current elo. Then change the elo number in the PGN - add or substract 500, 1000 points, and run the analysis again.
The Estimated Elo will give you a completely different value even though the match is exactly the same.
Just forget about all these gimmicks and use what chess players have always used to measure accuracy: centipawn loss per move, averaged centipawn loss, etc.
Why does that happen?
xor_eax_eax05 wrote:
Just forget about all these gimmicks and use what chess players have always used to measure accuracy: centipawn loss per move, averaged centipawn loss, etc.
Well, I guess "centipawn loss" is a 21st century invention, while accuracy is just another gimmick by chess.com.
Other than that, I agree with the first part of your post.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/77345548359?tab=analysis
This game I played and as per Game Review Analysis of Chess.com, this was my Best game which lasted for 30 moves with accuracy of 94.9% with 0 blunders, inaccuracies, misses, mistake while playing with Black pieces.
As per chess.com I played this game like I am 1700 rated player, though I am around 950 rated player in Blitz.
Till 30th move, neither I nor my opponent got advantage of +-1 in Evaluation bar. Felt like two grand masters are playing.