Fool’s Mate Should Not Be A Book Move

This game has 100% accuracy on both sides because Book Move is used instead of Inaccuracy & Blunder (https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/37965603619). Yet Scholar’s Mate is correctly seen as a Blunder for the one who falls for it.

I put this specific game on a Lichess Study and it accurately analyzed the game (https://lichess.org/study/lQepgCSJ).

This undermines the integrity of Book Moves and makes a complete mockery of it. 4 Player Chess Admin Luke Romanko joked that it could lead to people intentionally sandbagging so they could have a 100% accurate record (https://clips.twitch.tv/FrigidCharmingFriesHassanChop-Jrr8cy2IjHOEoCEc).

People are not going to want to analyze games here if the analysis is silly, if Lichess can do it right then so can you.

Book does not necessarily mean good. Book moves are moves that are either known openings or theory. Here they may also be ones that show up a lot in the master DB. 

You don’t think I know that? In the example I showed Book Moves are not programmed correctly as it replaces the quality of move analysis. Meaning that if you lose in 2 moves, chesscom says you never made a mistake when in reality you have an average of 504 Centipawn loss, 1 inaccuracy and 1 blunder. Look at my examples again please.

I'm just saying that Fools Mate is a known book opening. Maybe accuracy shouldn't really take book into account, at least in such cases, but it's probably not that big of an issue.

I know there is some work going on around the book implementation, but don't know the specifics or if something like this might be impacted by any changes 

Yes, falling for it is a catastrophic blunder and should appear as such.

ok

This game has 100% accuracy on both sides because Book Move is used instead of Inaccuracy & Blunder (https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/37965603619). Yet Scholar’s Mate is correctly seen as a Blunder for the one who falls for it.

I put this specific game on a Lichess Study and it accurately analyzed the game (https://lichess.org/study/lQepgCSJ).

This undermines the integrity of Book Moves and makes a complete mockery of it. 4 Player Chess Admin Luke Romanko joked that it could lead to people intentionally sandbagging so they could have a 100% accurate record (https://clips.twitch.tv/FrigidCharmingFriesHassanChop-Jrr8cy2IjHOEoCEc).

People are not going to want to analyze games here if the analysis is silly, if Lichess can do it right then so can you.