When would you call your game "good" ?

What metrics do we all use to classify (subjectively :) )  any of our games as good?

For example =>

At my level, I think I've played a good game if it was

- Blunder-free (not "inaccuracy free", to borrow a chess.com term)
- Showed reasonably clean technique (i.e. Won a "won" game)
- Played what the position demanded of me at all times.

Certain fringe factors may include:
- A nice combination
- Taking down a stronger player in a non-cheap manner.

Curious to see what kind of responses players of different strengths come up with.

For me I think that a good game means that I played to the best of my ability. This doesn't mean that I completely destroyed my opponent. It means that I did everything that I could to make the least amount of mistakes possible, capitalized on my opponents mistakes, and overall did what was necessary to win the game, all the while being a good sportsman about the situation and never making fun of my opponents no matter what their skill level is.

when i call a game good, at least over 70% of my moves have to be good. done. lol =D actually, i think thats really common, so to be GOOD, i think i will have to have a nice sac and part of the game worthy of a puzzle.

That's pretty much exactly what I think.

I'm 2400 here and I agree with Shivsky's list. I seem to blunder quite often really. I'm having a series of games with manymercsmike who is 2500, and the number of blunders we've perpetrated is shocking. I committed two downright blunders in the last game alone.

almost never.  BUT when i get done what i aimed to get done, i feel pretty good.  if my opponents makes blunders and i win--it seems less "good."

I think my best game here was a loss. He was a mich stronger player than me, and I was in big trouble, but I kept finding really good defensive moves, and I made him work hard for his win. I have gotten a few trophies from opponents here, but the one I got from him I treasure most, because I think he meant it when he said I played well

A "good" game is one that I felt good but haven't yet analysed with an engine. Once I analyze it and realize all the mistakes, all those games go from "good" to "bad."

lol, but... foooood
But what factors make you feel goooood
Before you analyse with an engine?
Is infact the real question =)

My criteria for a good game is how entertaining and challenging it was. Winning or losing doesn't matter. I'm just happy if I play exciting chess.

Well said

Pfft. Of course winning matters.

 Well said. Apart from unrated to me lol. Unrated ftw.

A good game for me is when I almost never give my opponent the initiative, whether it be achieved via a piece sacrifice or just general sharp play.  It' doesn't necessarily have to be a win for me to consider it good.  It can be a draw as well.  Heck even a loss sometimes, as long as I feel I didn't back off.

This is an interesting point.  ALL (human) players blunder, right up to your World Champions -- witness Fischer's clunker in Game 1 against Spassky, or Kasparov's disaster in Game 6 against Deeper Blue, etc.  Chess is a game of mistakes.

The difference, I think, is in the degree of them.  A blunder to a 1200 player might be hanging a rook, or not noticing that your opponent had done so.  A blunder to a 2400 player might be a bad pawn move that weakens a key square.  Two GMs playing each other are going to make mistakes back and forth, but they're usually so subtle that a weaker player would not be able to take advantage of them before making even worse mistakes of his own.

Perhaps because of that, I find my better games are the ones where I made few and/or fairly small mistakes, and often as a result managed to take down a better player than my usual class.  My truly memorable games are the ones where my opponent also made few mistakes, and I managed to triumph anyway.  It takes a worthy opponent to make a true classic!

all good answers.  i think ive played a good game if i can say i enjoyed it, win lose or draw.  i played a great game if i beat or draw a better player or execute a nice combo.  i played a wonderful game if i beat a better player WITH  a nice combo.

I guess for a club player, a "good" game is where on average, your moves are, say, 0.1-0.2 points weaker than the "best" moves. A "great" game might be one where a quick 10-sec/move analysis with a weak engine like Chessmaster finds, say, 95-100% "agreement" (not the same as percent match; CM will "agree" with inaccuracies as long as the error is small enough).

Of course, there are special occasions. Like the first time you had a chance to make a smothered mate.

It was a good game if I had fun playing it.

The games i am most satisfied with are the ones that are full of tactics on both sides. Ofcourse the good ones are when ive calculated to a win.

No blunders.