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

When I did my best. That's a good game.

@powerpunch107 the only reason you got 97% accuracy is because your opponent played horribly. If your opponent plays horrible you can spot lots of opportunities to win, and you won’t make any mistakes.

When I accidentally go to move a piece and it keeps giving the “err” sound a bunch does that lower my accuracy? I am a noob mid 500 ELO but as of late trying to level up it had taken me 1 year to learn and see some tips and tricks playing game after game to start to go for wins instead of surviving I went from 260 to 570ish and going for 1000

I say 80% or above

i feel like the engines idea of a win is mating in the least. possible moves. for example it doesn't like when I trade queens up a piece or rook because there was a faster way to win, but for me It actually increases my chance to win by eliminating counterplay

My average accuracy recently is around 85 percent, I’m about 1380

It all depends on your rating, anything below 50% is bad for the 100-300range I would say, but 60% is pretty good for that range. For 301-600 accuracy above 65% percent is pretty good. For 601-900 anything under 70% is bad. 70 to 75% is pretty good. However, it also depends on what you’re playing, if you’re playing bullet I would consider 50% accuracy beyond good. But if that was classical Chess, I would consider that horrible 

Accuracy doesnt matter. 

If the game is easy, you will have a higher accuracy than a game with tactics all over the place

This is a difficult question to answer, as it is highly subjective. A good chess game for me would be one where I feel I am improving and learning from my mistakes, regardless of the accuracy percentage. However, if I were to provide a numerical value, I would say that a good chess game for me would need to have an accuracy percentage of at least 80%.

That rules the tablebases out then.

Rybka is connected to the Nalimov tablebases in this game but it only just scrapes in as White and fails miserably as Black.

Who would have thought a tablebase could make a total of 3 inaccuracies, 2 mistakes, 4 blunders and a missed win in just 34 moves?

(By the way the numbers are just a score, not a percentage of anything. You need to drop the "%".)

A comment on how pointless the topic is given the "accuracy" score doesn't represent accuracy.

It obviously represents how closely you match SF whatever version they have in at the time in some impossible to discover way, so to that extent it's a comment on the engine, but probably also on the analysis routine. if you try your 100 score games with SF11 again after they put back SF15 you could find they get slated. 

It'll even criticise itself playing at longer time controls.

I wanted to get out of a game I'd accidentally got into as quickly as possible when I first used the play interface but I couldn't find anything that said "resign", so I tried giving away my queen. Coach's comment was "good move".

Depends on your rating, there's a forum on Chess.com somewhere about the average accuracy per game on multiple rating ranges. a 1250ish player, like me, should have a 79% accuracy. 

With that accuracy % you should be at least 1700, accuracy mostly depends on skills levels, better you become  better your accuracy gonna be, my advice, study and study you will see the result 

Question: Is an accuracy of 80.9% good for a 450 elo player against a 530 elo player? It's my new high score and I want to know it's good or bad

Accuracy on low levels just means you played better than him, ofc 80% is good, but 450 is a real low rate, no meant to disrespect try to study a little bit if you have the chance  

I know lol, but in a good game it is very hard to get 95% accuracy unless you are really good

if the opponent give u all the pieces you probably get that accuracy , so mostly depends on both sides.

@w24ha I said in a good game