I have a lot of games where I get 96+ accuracy and I am a bread.
91.3 percent accuracy whilst playing like a -200ELO. why doe
Sort:
Seriously though, there's a lot of obvious type moves in chess, especially if your opponent isn't very good at the game. A 91% accuracy is nothing out of the ordinary. It leaves space for a dozen or more big mistakes.
Jan 20, 2021
0
#4
How many best moves did you have, though? If you have 40 best moves and 3 blunders you’ll have a much higher accuracy than 43 good moves and no blunders.
Jan 20, 2021
0
#5
Instead of worrying about accuracy, you should look at the individual moves and see if you can determine why a move is best, a blunder, etc. You won't be able to explain them all, but knowing why a move is considered best, a blunder, etc. is more helpful than knowing your accuracy for the entire game.
Jan 20, 2021
0
#6
The accuracy stat is not a particularly useful measure. You can get high accuracy by playing long book lines, or by making obvious captures... you don't have to be Bobby Fischer to realize that capturing a free Rook is a good idea... and by playing forced sequences of moves. I've hit 99.4% accuracy before.
Aug 2, 2023
0
#7
High accuracy is good ok, but if you hit 96% and then lose by back rank mate it means nothing. This exact scenario just happened to me 20 minutes ago, so i think high accuracy means you know your moves, but you can still lose by one stupid blunder.
And you could even be rated 200 elo with 96%
played 91.3 percent but played bad - make it make sense