Shouldn't book moves be considered part of your "percent best moves"?

I think in the old analysis book moves weren't listed, but now they are a separate category.  

So an example calculation for a 30 move game, where you had 10 best moves according to the computer and 5 book moves, 

% best moves = 33% (10/30)

Counting book moves as best moves then 

% best moves = 50% (15/30)

I think book moves are by definition best and should be counted.  Looking at the above stats, the first stat tells me that 2 out of 3 moves I fail to find the best, but it is more accurate to say I find the best half the time.  

This is why they need to do away with all these engine terms.

But do you look at/ use these stats?  I like to look at my % best move stat as an indication of how well I played.  Much more useful than the accuracy stat, IMO.  But if you are making book moves they can't really be criticized as inferior moves.  Not counting them in "best moves" can be really misleading.  Some openings have book moves over 20 moves deep!  I don't know how far the online engine takes it, but if 2 GMs are playing 20 moves of theory the engine would report zero percent best moves?  

"But do you look at/ use these stats?"

No...because i am incapable of playing like an engine, and i don't play people that are so good that i need to.  I can blunder like mad and still win.

"I like to look at my % best move stat as an indication of how well I played."

And if you don't understand the "why" each move, it doesn't matter how many "best" moves you make.  I can memorize some opening lines that run 20-30 moves deep, but if i dont understand "why" im making those moves, it doesn't matter. 

"Much more useful than the accuracy stat, IMO. But if you are making book moves they can't really be criticized as inferior moves."

Sure they can.  "Book" moves get updated, and improved on all the time.You can go through a database of games for an opening you like to play.  Find a line that has an amazing win percentage of something like 68% at the GM level.  You know what that means to us mortal players? Nothing.  And if a line wins that much, and hasn't been played in a couple of years, you better know why.

"Not counting them in "best moves" can be really misleading."

No its not....as i stated earlier.  "Book moves" are improved upon all the time. 

"Some openings have book moves over 20 moves deep! I don't know how far the online engine takes it, but if 2 GMs are playing 20 moves of theory the engine would report zero percent best moves?"

This is nothing but ego stroking.  Find me a GM that would have an issue with a book move not being labeled a best move.  If you're in this game, just to feel good about yourself and how often you play "best" moves?  You're in this game for the wrong reason.  I actually enjoy my mistakes (which their are plenty of) because they allow me a wealth of study improvement.  

Basically I think as much as engines have helped the game, i also believe they have hurt the game.  You have people spewing engine speak with no clue what they are saying.  I think it gives people false illusions of improvement.

Does it matter what a moved is labeled as?  Isn't the goal to understand the move, and the "why" behind the move?

"And if you don't understand the "why" each move, it doesn't matter how many "best" moves you make. "

Sure.  I'm not selling this stat as some magic elixer so don't read too much into it.  I'm just saying that it is interesting to me to see how many best moves I made according to the engine.  I have found that in general, my percentage has gone up as I have improved, and I can almost predict my number after a game depending how the game went.  It's just a statistic, but like any statistic should be calculated correctly.  

Sure they can.  "Book" moves get updated, and improved on all the time.You can go through a database of games for an opening you like to play.  Find a line that has an amazing win percentage of something like 68% at the GM level.  You know what that means to us mortal players? Nothing.  And if a line wins that much, and hasn't been played in a couple of years, you better know why.

I understand that opening books have variations, but if the variations are part of the opening book then they just represent a viable strategy.  So I think that any move that is part of an opening book variation should not be discounted and be part of the best moves total.  

But you don't care about the stat in general, but for people who do...

I get what you're saying, and i wasn't trying to bash you for it.  Its just that i see so many of these posts where some are so wrapped up in playing the best move.  When chess.com started the whole CAPs thing, you had 800 players posting their CAPs score, and asking if they played like a GM?  Or...."I played 90% perfect moves.  Am i a GM?" 

Like i said...I do think for some, they ego stroke is what they are after more than anything, and somehow end up thinking they will magically become titled players.

If you're in this game, just to feel good about yourself and how often you play "best" moves?  You're in this game for the wrong reason. 

I doubt that anyone plays chess for that reason.  

Does it matter what a moved is labeled as?  Isn't the goal to understand the move, and the "why" behind the move?

Of course.  You apperently  have jumped to conclusions that my question must mean all kinds of bad things about my understanding and motivations.  You are just not a data guy I guess. 

If you make ice cream for a living, the point is to make the best ice cream.  But I would be tracking lots of statistics, like specific gravities, variations in ingredient quantities, measurement errors, raw material variation, freshness date control, (with a goal of reducing variation and error to improve overall quality - quality assurance 101).  

Now over at Hillbilly farms, they would tell you  "We don't need no gol darn graphs and statistics to make ice cream, its not about that!"

Whatever.  I graph my blood pressure and cholesterol as well.  

Have you seen some of the products out there?  No...not everyone is concerned with quality.

So here is an example of how I find these stats useful.  I lost a game today.  It was close, and came down to an endgame where we each had knight plus 3 pawns.  I should have at least drawn, but my strategy was bad and I lost.  

Stats on the game shown below.  I was white and played more accurately than my opponent, despite losing.  The other piece of info is that he played pretty darn accurately, so there is no shame in losing at that high (for me) quality of play.   That makes me feel better.  So maybe that is about ego stroking as you say, but I like that information and to get whatever kind of positive info I can out of a loss.  

On the other hand, I can win a game and computer analysis will show me that I  made a terrible move that I didn't even realize, and if my opponent saw it, I would have lost.  I don't feel too good about those kinds of wins, but still good info to know.  

The problem with this, is that there is nothing in this post that tells you "why" you lost a N+P ending, or how to play it better the next time. 

"The problem with this, is that there is nothing in this post that tells you "why" you lost a N+P ending, or how to play it better the next time. "

I already posted what I used it for. I didn't bother posting the 10 million things it is not good for, but you are right.  

My problem with the end game was that I left my knight guarding the pawn on the A file to prevent it from promoting, so my opponent had king and knight on the other side of the board vs my king, which allowed him to progress his 2 pawns on that side and promote one.  

The computer helped me figure this out as the evaluation of my position went down when I moved my king toward the H file and suggested I should have moved toward the A file, obviously to capture the A pawn which would then allow me to activate my knight against the pawns on the other side of the board. 

Very useful, that computer!

Then I replayed the endgame against the computer with my new found strategy, and easily got a draw.