Can somebody explain me this?

if you compare it with picture below.. 

It is a same game. Do mine 'review accuracy are just gimmicks' apply here?

It's possible your opponent ran it at a different strength than you did. The higher values show on the archive.

All I have is basic. You can close the thread Thanks for the answer Martin

I just ran the game at Maximum and got the following:

LOL! so the thing is only as accurate as the reviewing engine, right?

so that means the engine itself don't know the correct accuracy...i watched a game played by stockfish...stockfish won..and the stockfish itself shows that his move was a good move and there was a better one!!...

so the engines deviation is +/-2ish. SO if I run across a 98 to 99 player I will know what it means? lol Asking for a friend obviously.

I tend not to pay attention to these engines anyway. Last time it was offering me such an antipositional move, I felt like I could beat on that engine alone

The deeper/longer an engine runs on positions, the more difference you can possibly see in accuracy. Engines are also not deterministic; running multiple times, even at the same strength, may see variations in the outcome.

No it won't. Unless the position is extremely complex where a low strength evaluation can't see deep enough into a position, a blunder is almost never going to change to a brilliant (and probably it's actually never)

engines are playing 4 dimensional chess

guys..i deleted my comment...i respect engines!!

anyway...engines doesn't use engines to play game.and there r many players using engines...

Okay now you guys explained me Phenomenon of High Accuracy to a very High Accurate Degree. How do you explain this:

Is this some sort of book move black needs to be aware of?

Lol

This is not the worst of it. I have seen things discussing this with people that pains the eyes. For example the explanation to 4th move.

to trust engines here would be a big mistake during reviews

"Like always, the computer changed its mind" lol. I wouldn't look too much into it, could quite literally be a bug with the display software and source code

engines gets confused..lol

True. But I feel sorry for people without skills who rely on reviews and analysis after the game. If moves like Qf3 aren't marked like a mistake and if comments to d3 are this poor, people will quite naturally struggle to improve taking this at face value.

I am not talking about the need of human analysis but say you will use these lines for verification of your thoughts and then try to learn them. I don't understand why would I be giving away pawn with d5 for nothing

I checked that d5 with LC Stockfish and I take it back although the comment is super confusing, there need to be given longer line, it is playable and leads to equality more or less, black will still keep small advantage.

What I don't understand why keep as a book move Qf3 if in Masters Database on LC it scores 60-20 for black and although I didn't run full on analysis, it turns slight advantage for white to slight advantage for black.

I have no issue with the move itself but the fact that it is given book sign and I thought book moves should be good ones, not the ones that will lose advantage.

I am only objecting to this because if you are a beginning player reviewing your game, it wouldn't cross your mind that the move is generally bad and even in this case gives black already chances to comfortable equality and in some cases advantage.