Rapid Rating vs. Average Game Accuracy Correlation

Sort:
TroyJLarimer
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:

My average accuracy is 79.8 in blitz....but i am 1900 here....how?

The correlation I did was for rapid rating & accuracy. For blitz and bullet, the accuracies would be much lower with the associated rating.

TroyJLarimer
kroloboy wrote:
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:

My average accuracy is 79.8 in blitz....but i am 1900 here....how?

Because accuracy doesn't mean much outside of high level classical chess. 
In all other cases rating doesn't matter anymore than time control, playstyle, and large factors that happen in some games but not others. Some of these large factors can be long-drawn out endgames, a long series of forced obvious captures that might end up being the correct line. An opposite colored bishop game is the most obvious and classical example. 
Long story short your accuracy tells you more about these external factors and less about your overall strength, which is something that your rating does.

The correlation I presented was quite strong between accuracy & rating. I disagree with your statement that accuracy isn't important outside of high-level chess. Individual games may have much different accuracies for an individual rating, but the average accuracy through several games is clearly relevant.

Ilampozhil25

i am 1070 rapid and i have 18 games in the time period

average opponent rating 1020, 9 wins 7 losses do something with that

anyway the accuracy

78.86 on average

opponents accuracy

74.66 on average

so here a 4.20 (totally unintentional) accuracy plus translates to a 55.55% score

kroloboy
kairama15 wrote:
kroloboy wrote:
Ultimate-trashtalker wrote:

My average accuracy is 79.8 in blitz....but i am 1900 here....how?

Because accuracy doesn't mean much outside of high level classical chess. 
In all other cases rating doesn't matter anymore than time control, playstyle, and large factors that happen in some games but not others. Some of these large factors can be long-drawn out endgames, a long series of forced obvious captures that might end up being the correct line. An opposite colored bishop game is the most obvious and classical example. 
Long story short your accuracy tells you more about these external factors and less about your overall strength, which is something that your rating does.

The correlation I presented was quite strong between accuracy & rating. I disagree with your statement that accuracy isn't important outside of high-level chess. Individual games may have much different accuracies for an individual rating, but the average accuracy through several games is clearly relevant.

I'm not arguing the absence of a correlation. There clearly is one. But there will be strong outliers from player to player, of course less as they get higher rated. Someone who plays the london every game vs someone who plays sharp e4 lines every game is going to have a very different expected accuracy for the same rating.

ThatJoshGuy7

hi