Flawless game

I have ran today's game between Nakamura and Anand through Stockfish engine ( http://en.lichess.org/0Y3H1NHk#0 ) and acording to analysis they both played FLAWLESSlY. I did that because it was obvious that they played a highly quality game.

I was thinking about this concept a bit and I remember that when I ran some Capablanka's and Carlsen's games a few weeks ago they also had 5-6 centipawn loss without a slightless innacuracy ( though their opponents didn't :) ). So, this is a first game that I spotted in which both sides played perfectly.  Now, let's imagine that Anand instead of Naka played this same opening against some top engine such a Stockfish 6 or Komodo ( and all other conditions including his biorhythm repeat ). Could he draw? Or maybe engines would find some better moves in certain positions ( different attacking strategy ) and they would crash Anand?

Is this game proof that humans can play perfectly ( I'm not saying absolutely perfectly, let's say that only God can play like that ) or game of these players is conditional - if the other side had played better move the one would eventually lost?

The computer analysis on lichess is very limited by time. That makes the strength of the analysis much lower.

You should run it on a standalone engine on a strong modern computer and see if you get the same results.

OK, I'l do that. I mean, a I don't have a very strong computer but I will let analyse it :)

Truman  You need to realize that even the very best chess engines make mistakes.

Sure, but my question was could Nakamura or Anand draw against the best engines with this kind of play?

Probably not.

The 'flawlessness' of the game is based on the moves that were actually made in the game and the strength of the players.

And because both are very strong and, relatively, equal, the engine would have to go quite deep to find meaningful 'mistakes'. (If you use a stronger engine, you will see more inaccuracies.)

However, during a game against a computer, it can spend the time it needs to find deep lines that are generally stronger than even a GM.

If you were to run such a game through a strong engine, you might see it finding tons of inaccuracies made by the GM.

There are zillions of positions where a human can play just as well as the very best chess engines.  In fact, if you threw out random positions, the vast majority of the positions would be positions where a human can play as well as the best chess engine.

There are a few positions where a human can play better than the very best chess engines.  I have run across some of those myself.