So a player blunders and then picks all the best moves even though all of them are still losing because of the blunder, gives a high accuracy. Because of all the blunders the other player was forced to play the best moves.
Is accuracy, a joke?
Sort:
Sep 23, 2021
0
#63
accuracy only tells you when they made the computer move. Every time you are checked you probably make the only move you can make which is the same move the computer calculated. The person not under pressure can make what ever move they want and it probably not he move the computer sees.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/26039965157
I don't get it either. It' says I had a blunder and 3 mistakes, yet it's 96.8%
Sep 24, 2021
0
#65
So your playing a perfect game 9 moves in and you blunder.
Your 9 computer moves 90% accuracy
You 1 Blunder
After your blunder your opponent keeps attacking and checking you for the next 20 moves. You keep playing the only good move to defend against his constant pressure on your pieces.
30 moves with 1 blunder
100/30 = 3.3 per move so your at 3.3*29= 95 accuracy even though 20 of your moves where forced defensive moves that all originated from the 1 blunder.
Sep 24, 2021
0
#66
Its not some exact science, it is just to help you figure out what you need to work on. Go to the details screen and look at your accuracy buy pieces and pick knight or what ever and then go review the game again to see what you did with the knights as to what the computer thinks you should have done.
Sep 24, 2021
0
#67
Trollozor wrote:
you can lose with 98% : do 60 best or book moves and 1 blunder at last move 61
the fact that the winner can have lower accuracy than the loser in a game ended by checkmate means accuracy is badly calculated.
It is not badly calculated. Accuracy reflects how accurate you play. If you play 29 perfect moves and make one blunder that loses the game, you still played very accurate. Your opponent can make a lot of questionable moves and take advantage of your one blunder. Opponent wins, while you played more accurate. Your suggestion that the accuracy for the winner should always be higher makes me wonder, what would the benefit of that number be?
It's not a zero sum game comparing two players, it's an (attempt at) objective measure of performance. If you win with a 40% accuracy against an opponent with 80% accuracy, well done. But for future games against the same player, my money will be on your opponent.
Yes accuracy is a joke never take it seriously
Sep 24, 2021
0
#69
Accuracy is not a joke but it is not a measurement of winning. You can play great and be super accurate and then screw up the end game with pawns and lose. It is only a measure of how aware you are of tactics. People that are saying accuracy mean nothing are playing super simple games where the position is not that complicated. The more complicated the position the harder it is to find the computer move. Accuracy is only a measure of how well you find the best move but finding the best move at the correct time is what wins games.
Sep 24, 2021
0
#71
So here is a good example of how accuracy can help improve your game. I was black.
Whites accuracy with pawns is horrible, He did not move any rook the entire match, and he moved his queen 5 times and one of those was not counted as a bad move. This person needs to move his queen less and learn how to play a position with pawns.
Oct 5, 2021
0
#75
Duckfest wrote:
Trollozor wrote:
you can lose with 98% : do 60 best or book moves and 1 blunder at last move 61
the fact that the winner can have lower accuracy than the loser in a game ended by checkmate means accuracy is badly calculated.
It is not badly calculated. Accuracy reflects how accurate you play. If you play 29 perfect moves and make one blunder that loses the game, you still played very accurate. Your opponent can make a lot of questionable moves and take advantage of your one blunder. Opponent wins, while you played more accurate. Your suggestion that the accuracy for the winner should always be higher makes me wonder, what would the benefit of that number be?
It's not a zero sum game comparing two players, it's an (attempt at) objective measure of performance. If you win with a 40% accuracy against an opponent with 80% accuracy, well done. But for future games against the same player, my money will be on your opponent.
Highest is 99.7% and 100% in beta mode
Apr 7, 2023
0
#76
Maybe every move have their accuracy like: ,,Best move: 100.0'' or ,,inaccuracy: 41.0'' or something else..
and then analysis calculating the average... I don't now, I just saying my opinion...
Old thread, but it would be better if it was just calculated as engine consistency, and have a separate option for the gimmicks. I think it is especially stupid that anything is adjusted for opponent rating. Should be the moves and your response to them, nothing else should be taken into account. If you really want to get fancy, the estimated ELO should take time spent on moves into account. I am more concerned about cheating, and engine consistency is a good way to tell.
For example, I recently played a bullet tournament where on multiple occasions I somehow managed to achieve over 80% accuracy, against v. low ELO players (500-900) and STILL lost.
...I think this demonstrates both my points.
I just noticed whenever I lose a game, my accuracy score is horrible like 20% but if I win it is in the 90's even though, there is not a lot of differences in terms of mistakes and inaccuracies.
Yes. I get 20% accuracy when I lose with zero mistakes, and 90% when I win when I make a blunder or two.