25%
What accuracy % do you consider a “good” game?
Sort:
Dec 21, 2022
0
#83
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
Dec 21, 2022
0
#87
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
Dec 21, 2022
0
#88
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.
Dec 21, 2022
0
#89
@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.
Dec 21, 2022
0
#90
BUCKLEYNYC wrote:
@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
Dec 21, 2022
0
#91
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
90%+
pfren wrote:
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.
Dec 30, 2022
0
#96
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".
Dec 30, 2022
0
#97
Because they dont have to. And the better their processing power / evaluation algorithms, the less they will need to understand those concepts.
Those kind of concepts are just abstractions we humans create to deal with complexity beyond our understanding.
Dec 31, 2022
0
#98
I will also say that computers like Stockfish don’t understand that the person who is down a rook but has a mating attack like 7 moves before mate is winning. Until the computer sees that your follow-up is actually deadly, I seriously imagine the computer doing this: Dude why did you play that? Now you’re down a rook, and you will lose so hard! You are a loser to not listen to a computer. Then the human does the follow up and the computer says this: Oh I’m actually stupid. I didn’t realize that was winning.
Any game I had fun playing.