How wouldn't it be? I can see how depth 20 isn't the best but it produces more tangible results it seems, at least to me.
Chess analysis accuracy percent
Sort:
It makes people feel better about their chess abilities, I guess.
Ok so in a similar vein, how come, when I played someone recently, and they were apparently using engines (they went straight from 1300 to 1700 in one month) i could not manage 10% accuracy against them - ok yep i am terrible at openings - but when i play other people, like some people above 1300 i have managed to get 70, 80 % accuracy?
My question is really this: how can how great they are playing, affect how terrible my accuracy is? Because it really seemed to have a devastating effect on my accuracy. Shouldn't they be independent variables?
Does anyone understand what I am trying to say?
I just wanted to express that this function needs a lot more work it seems... or perhaps should be removed...
Case in point:
Black gets a 99.2% accuracy which is complete BS in my opinion. I don't trust these percentages and pay them no mind but I'm afraid others might. White gets a 93.4% here as well.
I personally think that the percentages shouldn't even be a thing... What good do these inaccurate numbers bring anyone? I think the eval graph is plenty and far more accurate. Thoughts?