I use centipawn loss average from Stockfish analysis to determine how accurately I played.
I've stopped caring about chess.com accuracy after I read somewhere the chess.com accuracy gets tweaked depending on the elo bracket you are in. I dont think it's very relevant.
The chess.com accuracy figure is just a chess.com thing - in analysis, the standard metric is centipawn loss - to either evaluate moves individually, or a sequence of moves.
25%
My average accuracy is 75.29, but I think that’s because I play bullet games which bring down my accuracy because you have to play fast. Usually I get about 80% accuracy
If you played a 5 move game 100% accuracy is really easy. You must’ve played a really short game, and also your opponent had 64.7% accuracy
A good game isn't a matter of CAPS accuracy.
Certainly a game that's very one-sided can't be called a good game. A strong attack must encounter strong resistance and lead to a real battle, before I would class it as a good game.
@blueemu I agree. Someone would win very quickly if the game is one sided, and you wouldn’t make any mistakes unless your opponent played well. If they blunder every move, you won’t miss a single chance, and will get 100% accuracy.
@blueemu I agree. Someone would win very quickly if the game is one sided, and you wouldn’t make any mistakes unless your opponent played well. If they blunder every move, you won’t miss a single chance, and will get 100% accuracy.
Here's my idea of a good game... an irresistable force encountering an immovable object.
The immovable object won.
A Heroic Defense in the Sicilian Najdorf - Kids, don't try this at home! - Chess Forums - Chess.com
It all depends on your rating, if you are rated 600 you'd love to get 80% accuracy but if you're rated 2400 that would be considered a failure.
im at 350 and ive played a 92 accuracy game and a 91 accuracy game before https://www.chess.com/game/live/66079949175 the 92
https://www.chess.com/game/live/66148939757 the 91
Pity the fools who judge the quality of a game by the chess dot com engine % feature.
Suffice to say that chess dot com evaluates Anderssen's immortal game against Kieseritzky as patzer stuff: 77.8% for White and 63.6% for Black.
90%+
Pity the fools who judge the quality of a game by the chess dot com engine % feature.
Suffice to say that chess dot com evaluates Anderssen's immortal game against Kieseritzky as patzer stuff: 77.8% for White and 63.6% for Black.
Wow interesting
I don't caps score is not a very useful stat. I could smash a noob and choose to capture all his pieces before goign for mate and get 50% caps with no chance of ever losing the game.
Pity the fools who judge the quality of a game by the chess dot com engine % feature.
Suffice to say that chess dot com evaluates Anderssen's immortal game against Kieseritzky as patzer stuff: 77.8% for White and 63.6% for Black.
Wow interesting
Well... load the pgn yourself, and see: It claims that White played zero brilliant moves, one inaccuracy, one mistake, and two blunders.
Yup. Computers simply don't recognize Human concepts in chess.
"Suppressing the opponent's counter-play" is one concept that computers NEVER seem to understand. When a Human player gets a winning material advantage, his first thought will be to deprive the opponent of any counter-play so that the advantage is secure and the opponent can't "muddy the water" with obscure complications. Computers don't even seem to recognize the concept of "counter-play".
I favor whatever degree of accuracy the game I'm winning has.