What accuracy % do you consider a “good” game?

About precision, the more I analyse games with chess.com engine, the less I play attention to precision.

I will use that game for illustration  (it is short and I made no mistake so it makes it rather easy to analyse) :  https://www.chess.com/game/daily/390959223

•   First the engine is not consistent, it gave me two different precision scores (86 and 92)
• The engine tells me I have one or two imprecisions. I should have play Qe7+. I trust it, but when I analyse this game, I still like my decisions. After 8.. 0-0 I have a solid advantage (+3) , my king is safe, my minor pieces shine... During the game I did consider Qe7+ but I did not want to trade queens and I am not able to evaluate if my position would have been much better.

im rated 400 and my accuracy always falls between 73-79%

does this improve with the other or are they entirely unrelated?

like, can i assume 75% is mediocre play since the 400 rating is considered beginner? 

Bruh, I used to think 1800s and 1900s are chess freaks but they are far from good. Look at me for example my average accuracy in the last 7 days is 82.2 and I have a win rate of 70 percent right now, my average opponent rating is 1808 and my current rating is 1877.  I think to have a good game accuracy does not matter. Just see if you can understand what your opening plans and come up with a middle game plan and if you make it happen that is when you have a good game. I don't even know if any of the titled players will be able to get 95% every single game. Getting over 95% is just nuts and very hard to achieve in almost all of the games.

Immaculate_Slayer : Imma steal this from you. accuracy is !?

at least 90% or i'm a bit disappointed.

as a 1360 this is what i think about accuracy

anything less than 60 = garbage 

60-70 = not good but could be worse

70-75 = average but i hate the computer saying it is inacurate while the eval says 9.5 for me

75-80 = good game

80-90 = very good game

anything above 90 = i feel like magnus carlsen

this should be how you look if your around 1300. ofcourse there are stupid things like the coach saying: Kc8 is a blunder! while i am dead lost and giving my opponent a chance to mate me.

Depends a lot on what happened. If it's an easy game then I'm not all that excited about not making mistakes. If it's a game with a lot of calculation then I'll just be pleased to finish it without any blunders. Even then blunders come in many different flavours. If it takes me 5+ mins with the analysis tool working out why they're blunders, then I'm not at all disappointed that I missed them the first time through. Then there's the issue of the match timer causing rushed moves. How all this maps to accuracy is a secondary issue. Easy game, 90% is nice to see. Difficult game, I'd happily take 75% plus a win.

well for me a 1000 rated player I think about 80 is good

90 percent for me is gud

over 90 percent and im a 1500

Chess.com do not give you the accuarcy it gives you the accuarcy score. The difference is that you can do 20 nonsense move in a winning position and the accuarcy score is still high. Therefore I dont give much for the accuarcy that it gives. Instead I look at my misstakes and blunders. Moves that make the evaluation bar move a lot.

I'm elated at 80, happy at 75, and OK at 70. I know it's not a perfect science. But over time, those numbers correspond pretty well to how I feel about my play.

It improves, but it will also fall depending on your opponent.  If your opponent blunders and makes it easy on you, then your accuracy goes up.  If your opponent plays well and it is difficult to find good moves, then your accuracy falls. 

Link the game please.

Anything above 75%.

80% is decent, 90% is good.