Forums

# what level of accuracy should a 1300 player get on average?

Sort:
What level of accuracy should a 1300 player get on average?
100
64%
65-75

I have played many games opponnet 1000 bullet rated had above 85 accuracy. Surly cheat and should not be above 75% .

This question can't be answered since Chess.com came out with revised accuracy.

Accuracy is now adjusted for rating, so a 70% accuracy level doesn't really mean anything any more.

# How is Accuracy in analysis determined?

Each game review shows you an accuracy score, and classifies all of your moves. But how are the accuracy and classifications decided?

### Accuracy Scores

Your Accuracy is a measurement of how closely you played to what the computer has determined to be the best possible play against your opponent's specific moves. The closer you are to 100, the closer you are to 'perfect' play, as determined by the engine.

Chess.com’s Accuracy score is now powered by “CAPS2”, an improved version of the original Chess.com “CAPS” (Computer Accuracy Precision Score) algorithm.

Moves are still compared against the top engine recommendations, but the math on how these are calculated has changed. Why? Well, most chess players - even low-rated ones - make a lot of the best moves!

Previously, CAPS (v1) looked to create a 0-100 band within the normal human player range. So, scoring perhaps 40% “Best” moves, which is very low, was equal to single-digits on CAPS. And, scoring a very high number of “Best” moves, but not a perfect game, was often rated 99.9 on CAPS, even though it wasn’t played perfectly.

This made some people feel bad (on the low end), and led to a lot of cheating allegations (on the high end). The new Accuracy scores, based on CAPS2, replicate the feeling of being graded on a test in school.

You will notice that the majority of scores now fall mostly be between 50 and 95, which provides a more intuitive understanding of how accurately you played in your game.

The image below shows Accuracy scores from CAPS and CAPS2 for players rated between 1000 and 1500.

Figure 1: Accuracy scores for players rated between 1000 and 1500.

justbefair wrote:

This question can't be answered since Chess.com came out with revised accuracy.

Accuracy is now adjusted for rating, so a 70% accuracy level doesn't really mean anything any more.

It never meant anything relevant anyway. Meaning even less is a bit hard to imagine.

I have an average accuracy between 70 to 85% and my peak rapid rating has been 1212 since still as of this year so.......(and this is just my guess my only credit is that I'm really into chess.....) I would say if your average accuracy is between 75% to 88%....perhaps....somewhere around there....you could be a 1300 or if not a 1300 just doing bad! For the studying player is a whole other affair. You could be playing with better accuracy being a 1200 than 1300 but only after careful study and correct study too! But if this is all because you want to be a 1300, go higher

Over 90% in almost every game, considering my opponents' accuracy level.

70% if my match history is anything to go by.

It's worth noting that your accuracy depends upon the complexity of the match. If your opponent trades off pieces quickly or blunders material, you'll have a much better chance of getting a high accuracy score. Matches which are difficult to analyse can have many mistakes and inaccuracies without one player achieving a dominant position so both players can end up with low accuracy scores.

The accuracy number can be very misleading.  A long and simple endgame (such as Q+K vs K) can result in a very high accuracy, whereas a well-played wild game can have a low accuracy score because the moves weren't "perfect".

Rather than worrying about accuracy, I'd focus on using the analysis to identify blunders and missed wins.  And the occasional great and brilliant moves (for bragging rights).

Totally agree with Knights_of_Doom, the complexity of the game matters a lot for accuracy. Personally I find my high accuracy games tend to be more boring because it usually means the other person made some blunders or the game has a ton of easy moves.

I have an accuracy rating of almost 80%, and sometimes 90%, and I still haven't been able to break 1200. 1194 is highest. I have a really good excuse, I'm 64 years old and don't study much.

I am rated 1900 rapid, 1800 blitz. My average rapid accuracy is 78%, for blitz it's 74%. Accuracy depends on how calm your opening repertoire is, how calm your playing style is and how fast you trade pieces. The faster you trade pieces and the calmer you play, the higher your average accuracy will be. High accuracy games are often boring, especially if a 1200-1300 player plays them. Why? Because they are not capable of playing high accuracy chess in positions which aren't boring (neither am I usually).

Accuracy also depends upon time control. From the OPs match history we can infer that they're talking about Rapid.

If a 1300 player plays an exciting wild game, middlegame lasts up until move 40, everyone is sacking pieces and getting checkmated and the 1300 ends up with 95% accuracy in such a game, well, you then click the report button.

dude0812 wrote:

If a 1300 player plays an exciting wild game, middlegame lasts up until move 40, everyone is sacking pieces and getting checkmated and the 1300 ends up with 95% accuracy in such a game, well, you then click the report button.

The site is full of people at low 1000 elo who play extremely well and with a very low centipawn accuracy. 30 or 40 centipawn loss is very common for 1000-1200 elo on this site.

In any case, you should not accuse people of cheating during games, even if their rating is less than yours. Let it to the experts of this website.

55-80
But with chesscoms accuracy system anything can happen