Is 100 accuracy even possible for chess engines?

@chamo2074, 

IDK, it just feels like sometimes engines have innaccuracies within them, like for example a good move would be seen as an innaccuracy, or a excellent move would be seen as just a good move, etc.

I just feel like it is dependent on the algorithm and either what the engine prefers or what it is trained to see to get higher accuracies, but in this way I don't feel it is correct, and should be changed by people who maintenize and build the chess engines. Perhaps it is a lot of work and is a small tweek, but knowing full accuracy would be a nice tribute rather than knowing 99% of it. 

But I guess that is just my perspective on the matter.

Yes, I can give an e.g, if engine can do something without sacrificing, the sacrifice that leads to the same thing is an innacuracy

Well, the color code usually says that both are alternatives, the engine sometimes underpromotes to a rook when it leads to the same, no idea why. Same when it repeats moves and then play the correct move, I have no idea why they do it

no,,, 

Can anyone program 10x10 chess with two additional pieces Generals (it is like an upgraded Knight) who moves like a king but covering 2 squares instead of 1 (i.e. covering not 9 squares, but 25) and that are situated between king/queen and bishop. Pawns moves 1,2,3 squares from initial position and en passant rule applies. All other rules are the same, just castling will be longer by 1 square (3 squares instead of 2).

https://www.chess.com/a/2HXP8S8SS2GEcn

by mistake. I was posting (copy-paste) to another place

Yeah, it just seems sometimes that the engines have preferences @chamo2074, we may never know, but regardless it is something to take note.

I think opening moves aren't so accurate

U have to get a game done with only book moves.