Recent game where i got 99% accuracy!

sid0049

I got 99% accuracy in this game.

 
What's the highest accuracy level you have got?

 

WSama

Nice game.

cheeky_chicky

98.9

 

SNUDOO

99. something is my highest. 

ek9sjs

99.6 accuracy

dfgh123

One of my opponents hung his queen and still got 98.2 I failed to notice the hanging queen and got 97.8.

SNUDOO
GMproposedsolutions wrote:

The formula is clearly flawed, lol. This is not about you in particular, it's the formula itself in how it's applied. If 96% accuracy can beat 97% in a game wouldn't you think something is wrong?

No, here is a counterexample. Two GMs play flawlessly, with GM number 1 (let's say) making slight inaccuracies. GM 2 puts on the pressure but blunders an entire rook (or something) and resigns. Obviously GM 2 has better accuracy, but one mistake turned turned the game.

Khallyx

I remember a game where I had about 97% accuracy, but a few mistakes and blunders. I still don't know what that was about.

Giraffe_Chess

Nice Caro-Kann game! The Caro-Kann is a long-time favorite of mine, and I've been playing it for about a decade now. I can attribute many wins throughout my journey to the NM title to the opening. I love the positions that arise from the Caro for Black. In fact, I just uploaded a video of me playing 10+0 games, many of which are in the Caro-Kann, with live commentary and analysis (Here’s the link: https://youtu.be/O1kOYk3FnPw). Hopefully this helps improve your game! If you enjoy it, please subscribe! Every subscription means a lot to me, so if you subscribe, I’ll really appreciate it.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpRYz_ElTJC-FUq4unehOfg/

Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/giraffe_chess/

WSama
dfgh123 wrote:

One of my opponents hung his queen and still got 98.2 I failed to notice the hanging queen and got 97.8.

Whoa! Did you call the cops? Well did ya!

dfgh123
WSama wrote:
dfgh123 wrote:

One of my opponents hung his queen and still got 98.2 I failed to notice the hanging queen and got 97.8.

Whoa! Did you call the cops? Well did ya!

Don't you think it's strange you can hang your queen and get 98%

TwilightPrince2020

i once got 99.66 on a game, and even magnus carlsen, in all of his games that i analyzed has not got that

blueemu

This one was 98.9 accuracy in a 33 move game. It's always tough to get high accuracy scores when your opponent also plays well.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/daily/200865884

 

Monie49
13
Optimissed
GMproposedsolutions wrote:
SNUDOO wrote:
GMproposedsolutions wrote:

The formula is clearly flawed, lol. This is not about you in particular, it's the formula itself in how it's applied. If 96% accuracy can beat 97% in a game wouldn't you think something is wrong?

No, here is a counterexample. Two GMs play flawlessly, with GM number 1 (let's say) making slight inaccuracies. GM 2 puts on the pressure but blunders an entire rook (or something) and resigns. Obviously GM 2 has better accuracy, but one mistake turned turned the game.

It's an additional example, not counter-example. The accuracy ratings still do not determine the outcome and a high accuracy rating may have a couple of blunders involved. Two blunders and having a 96% accuracy points to not weighing blunders sufficiently.

That's correct. It also over-weights against moves it doesn't like because it isn't interested in positional chess. But going in the other direction, we've all assumed that we've played quite well when, in fact, we made a losing blunder that both sides missed. It's really a bit silly to give a percentage score  that weights more against a player for using a slower, less tactical strategy, though sound, than it would if he played perfectly and then made a losing blunder.

BlindThief
Optimissed 

That's correct. It also over-weights against moves it doesn't like because it isn't interested in positional chess. But going in the other direction, we've all assumed that we've played quite well when, in fact, we made a losing blunder that both sides missed. It's really a bit silly to give a percentage score  that weights more against a player for using a slower, less tactical strategy, though sound, than it would if he played perfectly and then made a losing blunder.

I hate that about the computer: it’s one thing to say “it was a real blunder to leave my knight hanging for my opponent to take.” It’s a bit different to say “wow, I missed a tactic that involved trading off multiple pieces with an in-between move to boot that would have given me a rook in favor of better positioning my bishop.”

The computer sees them the same and they’re worlds apart.

and I think I got a hundred once or twice on games ending in less than 12 moves. If not 100, I remember getting a 99.6 recently