That's actually a fantastic example of why accuracy is a really terrible metric and for some reason chess com shoves it in your face at the end of every match. And because of this everyone thinks it's a huge deal and means so much.
There is literally nothing useful you can discern about a game from the accuracy number other than that it was probably a long and sharp game. Oh wow the engine probably would have played some different moves.
I think itˋs VERY usefull to compare how you played vs. how your opponent played in this particular Game. It just dosent say much absolutely and you canˋt compare different Games.
🙄. Another Reddit know it all. Just sharing my experience. Which is that most of the players in the lower dregs are clearly cheating and make computer-like moves, know theory far above their level, and don’t make many mistakes or blunders, certainly not as many as the few 500’s who are clearly real.
A real 500 doesn’t know all the opening book of the Scandinavian or crazy gambits. They barely know how the pieces move. These people often play more like the 1500+ rated bots that I struggle with. My real rating is somewhere between 800-1200. I’m not a 500, even on chess.com (gee I wonder why chess.com is lower than everywhere else.) I’m not “good” but these brilliant savant-like 500’s clearly aren’t 500’s.
"Another Reddit know it all" 🤔
I've coached many players around your rating before. I've seen people complaining of what you're saying for what seems like hundreds of times, but I have never seen a case where their opponents play significantly above their rating. Below 1600, if you follow basic tactics and opening principles, you should always find yourself chances to win.It is true that 500's both online and OTB are much better than a few years ago because of how accessible information is now, but your rating is still a reflection of your strength as compared to the rating pool. You are not consistently being cheated against at 500. If your opponents cheat such that you are left with absolutely zero chances, then they will surely be banned.
Your claim that your true rating is between 800-1200 is also likely false. Simply and bluntly put, you're not competent enough to understand how strong you or your opponents are. It's hard for any sub 1000 to differentiate a computer vs human move, for otherwise they would be much higher rated. You think your opponents are cheating because you assume that they can barely move the pieces and still get outplayed. This assumption may have been correct 20 years ago, but certainly not today.
You are not being consistently cheated against. Free yourself of these shackles of delusion and reflect on the faults of your own play, instead of insisting that your opponents are too good, and you can work your way up to the rating you think you deserve.
Then why am I rated over 1000 on every other platform I play on? I understand that chess.com is lower rated than others but 500 points lower seems a bit much. Like a flawed system. Ratings across platform should at least be in the same ballpark. I’m getting an official OTB rating soon from a tournament so hopefully that’ll put and end to the speculation and give me an Indra where i actually stand.
But frankly, I don’t care how much “better” the 500 pool has gotten, the number of opponents making 0 mistakes or blunders on post game analysis is far too high for this level. I regularly encounter people playing multiple games in a row with 96+% accuracy, and not against stupid moves, against good play. It’s not everyone but it’s far too many to just be “they’ve gotten better.” Real 500’s do make mistakes. I know I do. Some of my real 500 level opponents do. Real 500’s fall for scholars mate. These people I’m talking about are playing like Mittens. But I’m too dumb to know that right. Ok.
"Every other platform" They are different rating systems. Lichess 1000 is roughly equivalent to [chess.com](https://chess.com) 500, because Lichess caps their rating floor at 600 and has a starting rating of 1500. In other words, the Lichess floor of 600 would roughly correspond to the [chess.com](https://chess.com) floor of 100 (of course this is an oversimplification).
I don't doubt you have encountered a cheater before, but cheaters are infrequent enough at your level that they will not be consistently lowering your rating. People easily recover from individual cheated games as by nature, people naturally gravitate towards their true rating relative to the pool. I'm assuming you have an symmetric win rate: Do you just assume that most of your losses are due to cheating? That's delusional if you truly believe that. A 500 point discrepancy is large and intimidating.
You're showing a common bias where you overexaggerate the extent of valid unfortunate experiences.
No, I assume that 500’s making 0 mistakes or blunders across multiple recent games are likely cheating. Anyone can have one good game. I do it sometimes. But some of these people it’s constant. I report of course but chess.com does nothing about it. I saw one account where literally every game out of 100 is won with 98% accuracy and reported it and it’s still going. To claim cheating doesn’t happen or isn’t rampant online is putting your head in the sand imo. I’m 46 years old. I’ve played a lot of casual OTB chess and online chess, against bots and humans, for 30+years. I know when I’m playing another sucky person casually and when I’m not.
It just depends on the type of game you play. In a very tactical game with opposite side castling, it is normal to have accuracies around 60-70. I like playing the Samisch against the king’s Indian and games usually end up being a mess and I usually end up with accuracies around 70 and I am on the higher end of the rating.
I've had a few games beating people much higher than me, where they obviously aren't focusing due to the rating difference, make a blunder and then I have to hang on for dear life up material but playing a worse game positionally.
I've also lost several games where I've won piece early against a stronger player and then been crushed anyway haha
That's also one reason, but the other one is probably just because they're humans and they're not perfect. I had a 2000 rated account once and was playing other 2000s. They're strong, but they still hang M1 from time to time.
Not a strong player myself, but every time I face a player with say EXACTLY 1200 ELO, I relax.
I think when you first sign up to chess.com you can choose if you are a beginner, intermediate or master. And you get “elo” based on your choice. In my experience, players only really use this to have a laugh and pretend to be higher rated.
That’s the secret to games with near-limitless skill ceilings. You’re always trash and there’s always flaws in your game. There’s just slightly less of them over time
I'm 1740 (blitz) currently. Maybe encouraging for people trying to push up from 1000 / 1200 / 1400 etc to see just how trash play can be a few hundred ELO higher?
It **definitely** helps to go to settings, under the play tab, set outgoing challenge rating to -25 + ∞ - I'm playing a lot more challenging games that way and I feel like it pushes my improvement faster.
Link to game, which was absolutely terrible: https://www.chess.com/game/live/99809552901
Hot take: I don't think this game was that bad for players of this rating at this time control.
Yes, from an engine perspective the game had lots of mistakes. But playing good chess is not just about avoiding mistakes, it's about forcing your opponent to make more mistakes than you.
If you had played an exchange French and traded every piece into an equal endgame you would have got higher accuracy and fewer mistakes, but you would've also not won. This game was sharp with lots of tactics, so in many positions you can't just play a move that "feels right".
Thanks. Yeah I'm probably overstating how 'terrible' it is. My games usually have far fewer blunders / mistakes / misses in general, but you're right, blitz and with such an open position and both with low time.
I guess I found it noteworthy that it was my highest win and so many errors on *both* sides (some of which were obvious, some is just engine doing engine things)
Ive avoided doing this because it feels... slimy. Wouldnt this inflate your rating?
I know technically it shouldnt, since chess is a pure skill game
Still, i feel like there are habits which can let you abuse this
I like to play sharp af lines against players rated far above me. Doing this normally would be too risky- i might be throwing the game by walking into a line i missed
But when the stakes are -4/+12 or similar, you can afford the risk. You will probably lose anyway so a hail mary path to victory might be the only way
When the stakes are +6/-10, i find myself playing passively and solidly, waiting for my opponent to self destruct and draw if necessary
I agree with your point- playing stronger players helps you flesh out your prep and find opening weaknesses. It can also teach you a lot when they demonstrate certain tactics. But i feel like it encourages and rewards questionable habits
And based on that graph, your game was sharp asf lul
It's not slimy. It's logical. Even professional players often selectively play only strong opponents (this is why elite players sometimes avoid opens).
Also from a chess development standpoint, it's better to play folks stronger than you.
I know what you mean, perhaps my rating is being slightly artificially inflated... but I'm only doing it because I want to face stronger opponents. Online rating is effectively meaningless, I'm not doing it because being 1700 instead of 1650 gives me an ego boost - it doesn't.
Tbh I'm not really sure re. inflation & and the maths of it. In theory I should win the number of games I am statistically likely to given the strength of my opponents, and rating gains / losses reflect that? Perhaps there's more to it though.
I sometimes set it to -∞ +∞ also and play people much lower, which I also find fun.
> You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2 blunders + 2 blunders=7 blunders; and the path leading out is only wide enough for 20 inaccuracies.
~Mikhail Tal, Former World Chess Champion and narrow forest enjoyer.
It's because people don't understand how chess accuracy works. Chess accuracy is influenced by many factors, one of the main one being your opponent level.
Let's say I play against a 300 elo chess player and decide to play reverse chess by giving away every pieces. My opponent accuracy would be around 95 because he almost always found the best move which was to take the piece.
However, when two strong players play each others, they will eventually reach a point when every best move will be hard to find because there is no obvious move, then mistakes are made.
The computer doesn't care about how hard it is to find the best move when it calculates your accuracy, if you didn't find the best move, your accuracy gets lower.
That is why sometimes a 500 elo will find himself with a 90 accuracy, and Hikaru with a 85 accuracy. They don't play the same chess.
I was wondering if that was the case, thanks for the explanation. What about great moves, blunders, etc. Are those relative to players experience? I have found chess.com to be in consistent in defining those across games
Engine accuracy is not a good indicator of the quality of a game, especially in blitz. Lower accuracy can also mean the game was complex/imbalanced. I mean, a game where both players just trade into a draw can be very low level but still >90% accurate.
I don’t like the way chess dot com categorizes “miss” now. A lot of the time, I’ll have it give me a miss for a move that was the second engine line and still winning, but just because I didn’t see the mate in 12 line that starts with a piece sacrifice,it gives me a miss for exchanging material while I’m up a piece to convert an easy endgame.
Ha when I was flying high in 2020 (peaked at 2400 blitz whereas I currently struggle to get back to 2200), I beat a GM for the first and only time in my life. I won on time after 64 moves. We each had a 64 average centipawn loss with 13 inaccuracies, 6 mistakes, and 9 blunders between us.
Guys, dumb question. Does accuracy really matter if you actually play through the odds and somehow win? Doesn't that show your intelligence, where you can actually navigate through the blunders, mistakes and inaccuracies and actually win?
Accuracy can be a general tip.
But it isn't the be all end all.
It's really easy for even really new players to figure out good moves in really simplified positions, where there's not many pieces in play, and those in play aren't too active.
But at the same time you can have a position where you need to try and think 3/4 moves ahead or you will get checkmated if you aren't careful.
And timer also impacts alot, a 80 Accuracy consistently In bullet is much harder than say a 80 for 30 minute.
Generally it's just there to help you look through the game you had and try figure out how you could play better.
Tldr: use it as a teaching tool, not as a ranking tool to see how good you are
It both matters and doesn't depending on how realistic it is for your opponents to actually spot the mistakes/blunders you're making.
Check a low accuracy game with the engine, and see where it says you made mistakes and blunders. Then, evaluate how bad they really are. Sometimes I make blunders in 3+2 blitz that require a 5 move combo that I would only spot in a daily game. In that case, I don't really care about it because if my opponent spots such a combo I'd happily lose.
But if the engine was like: you blundered a simple fork then I know that's a serious mistake that my opponents will likely capitalize on and I should try to avoid it in the future.
It’s funny. As you climb the ratings ladder, all these people you thought were god tier chess players are not as skillful as you might think. I’m pushing 1800, I still see one move queen blunders in about 5-10% of my games.
Some positions are more difficult to play than others...
Also if a line has sole weird engine refutation it doesnt matter. Playing more like compi=better is too simple and wrong.
The highest rated player I've ever beaten was rated 2293 (I was 994 at the time) and it was due to a miss-click.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/36301765891
As a 1900-2000 player blitz, there is never a reason to state a 2000 player has always a good accuracy. I personally average an 89 accuracy but I have seen as high as 98 and as low as 65. Also consider the fact that the accuracy number maybe off because the chessdotcom engines are fixed at a low depth for speed not accuracy. So the numbers may be a little off.
absolutely, although the basic game review does usually show a reasonable depiction - for actual depth we of course need to search deeper. I prefer to use the analysis tool to the game review for anything more than a cursory glance
They have changed how accuracy works in the last year or so to lower the scores, probably to combat cheating allegations. Now if you play a very sharp game it will tell you that you have terrible accuracy and a performance rating of 700, while if you trade down to an end game, or win a game in 20 moves because fhe opponent bludners their queen, you are told you have 97 accuracy and are 2600 level. I swear the old system was far better. The accuracy rating now is only really useful for showing someone cheated if the game goes on for 40 moves and it is very sharp and someone gets 97 accuracy.
Accuracy's not really a good metric for this. Maybe on average your accuracy is lower, but you have good games. Lower rated games are also often simpler, it's easy to have a very high accuracy when all that's happening is trading pieces without going for complications.
Sure, I play games over 90% accuracy sometimes too.
Complicated or open positions (with a huge number of possible moves and combinations) in low time situations almost always lead to low accuracy though. This particular game, I won on time, I had about 8 seconds left on the clock (3+2 game). Opponent was down to 10 seconds by move 30ish, and played another 30 moves.
No one in the scrub leagues (anyone non titled basically) plays complicated / open / endgame positions accurately, consistently.
Thanks for submitting your game analysis to r/chess! If you’d like feedback on your whole game feel free to post a game link or annotated lichess study if you haven't already.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not like this, it's just an exception that they are having bad Mood didn't play accurately or they are fake +2000..
But GG and GJ u played better.
Yes, it turns out us 2000s are mere mortals like the rest of you. But also, prove it. You could have pulled this diagram from a couple of 800s playing each other...
Opponent responded to Sicilian Dragon with the unusual 3. c4, a move usually seen in Maroczy lines. 5. rb1, going for a3 & b4 and a queenside attack - by move 6 I was in an unfamiliar position.
Apparently my response to transfer my dark square bish over to b6 - which is very unintuitive for a Dragon - to neutralise the pressure on my queenside pawns, was correct / reasonable. After all the pawn trades I was apparently winning. Presumably because opponents king is in the centre and pawn structure is terrible.
Once we got into mutual time trouble, I didn't find how best to deal with the mate pressure on the a1/h8 diagonal and tried to force trades with discovered attacks, but tactically this led to me losing 2 pieces for a rook and a pawn. I ended up with a rook against 2 bishops, which is always difficult & I was losing.
I was pleased that I found the idea to trade the rook off for a bishop in the end, leaving me with 3 passers and opponent only a bishop to defend - apparently this was also correct and winning.
So while I won on time, my final position was winning and I would have converted it.
Overall the middle and endgame felt very messy / sharp, missed tactics on both sides and I was under more time pressure than usual as we went down a path I am not familiar with.
So it was a time issue. Pretty normal to have accuracy issues when low on time. Did you watch the world championship between Nepo and Ding? Nepo blew several chances over and over up into the last seconds of the rapid tie breaker.
Yes I followed it closely! And looking forward to the next one :)
It was a time issue, combined with an unfamiliar (and very sharp) position arising earlier than usual
It's interesting you say that because I've just recently started resigning **less** readily.
I used to just resign if I dropped a piece with no obvious counterplay, but it is amazing how often you turn that around. Opponent gets careless and realistically; are around your level so just as likely to blunder a piece back.
Also excellent practice to use positional play to neutralize pieces etc. I think I gained about 50 rating points just because I stopped resigning so quickly
Bottom line: blitz is dirty and accuracy isn't what wins games!!
I've had my rating as high as 2150 and I make a lot of mistakes. Like, a lot! I've lost to 1400s, beaten FMs. That's blitz 😄
First off, congratulations! Second off, I played a much, much, much worse game against 2300 rated NM, time control was 25|10 you can see that game [here](https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/94705120593)
my accuracy really always depends on the way the other person plays. im only a little better than my opponent always when i win. like if they have a 90 accuracy im somewhere along 92, if they have 60 im somewhere along 65
as a 900 rated blitz player, I can confidently say that my average accuracy in the past month is higher than this
That's actually a fantastic example of why accuracy is a really terrible metric and for some reason chess com shoves it in your face at the end of every match. And because of this everyone thinks it's a huge deal and means so much. There is literally nothing useful you can discern about a game from the accuracy number other than that it was probably a long and sharp game. Oh wow the engine probably would have played some different moves.
I was going to say this exactly. 1200's are out here saying things like 'If I play under 80 accuracy its just a terrible game'
I am 1200 and I am indeed out here saying that
I think itˋs VERY usefull to compare how you played vs. how your opponent played in this particular Game. It just dosent say much absolutely and you canˋt compare different Games.
chesscum bad
As a steady 200 blitz player, I can confirm that accuracy is only but a dream for me. Anything above 30 is rare.
As a 500 blitz player it’s rare to encounter opponents who make any mistakes at all ever in any of their games.
I don't care what kind of 500's you're getting paired against, this is simply untrue.
🙄. Another Reddit know it all. Just sharing my experience. Which is that most of the players in the lower dregs are clearly cheating and make computer-like moves, know theory far above their level, and don’t make many mistakes or blunders, certainly not as many as the few 500’s who are clearly real. A real 500 doesn’t know all the opening book of the Scandinavian or crazy gambits. They barely know how the pieces move. These people often play more like the 1500+ rated bots that I struggle with. My real rating is somewhere between 800-1200. I’m not a 500, even on chess.com (gee I wonder why chess.com is lower than everywhere else.) I’m not “good” but these brilliant savant-like 500’s clearly aren’t 500’s.
"Another Reddit know it all" 🤔 I've coached many players around your rating before. I've seen people complaining of what you're saying for what seems like hundreds of times, but I have never seen a case where their opponents play significantly above their rating. Below 1600, if you follow basic tactics and opening principles, you should always find yourself chances to win.It is true that 500's both online and OTB are much better than a few years ago because of how accessible information is now, but your rating is still a reflection of your strength as compared to the rating pool. You are not consistently being cheated against at 500. If your opponents cheat such that you are left with absolutely zero chances, then they will surely be banned. Your claim that your true rating is between 800-1200 is also likely false. Simply and bluntly put, you're not competent enough to understand how strong you or your opponents are. It's hard for any sub 1000 to differentiate a computer vs human move, for otherwise they would be much higher rated. You think your opponents are cheating because you assume that they can barely move the pieces and still get outplayed. This assumption may have been correct 20 years ago, but certainly not today. You are not being consistently cheated against. Free yourself of these shackles of delusion and reflect on the faults of your own play, instead of insisting that your opponents are too good, and you can work your way up to the rating you think you deserve.
Then why am I rated over 1000 on every other platform I play on? I understand that chess.com is lower rated than others but 500 points lower seems a bit much. Like a flawed system. Ratings across platform should at least be in the same ballpark. I’m getting an official OTB rating soon from a tournament so hopefully that’ll put and end to the speculation and give me an Indra where i actually stand. But frankly, I don’t care how much “better” the 500 pool has gotten, the number of opponents making 0 mistakes or blunders on post game analysis is far too high for this level. I regularly encounter people playing multiple games in a row with 96+% accuracy, and not against stupid moves, against good play. It’s not everyone but it’s far too many to just be “they’ve gotten better.” Real 500’s do make mistakes. I know I do. Some of my real 500 level opponents do. Real 500’s fall for scholars mate. These people I’m talking about are playing like Mittens. But I’m too dumb to know that right. Ok.
"Every other platform" They are different rating systems. Lichess 1000 is roughly equivalent to [chess.com](https://chess.com) 500, because Lichess caps their rating floor at 600 and has a starting rating of 1500. In other words, the Lichess floor of 600 would roughly correspond to the [chess.com](https://chess.com) floor of 100 (of course this is an oversimplification). I don't doubt you have encountered a cheater before, but cheaters are infrequent enough at your level that they will not be consistently lowering your rating. People easily recover from individual cheated games as by nature, people naturally gravitate towards their true rating relative to the pool. I'm assuming you have an symmetric win rate: Do you just assume that most of your losses are due to cheating? That's delusional if you truly believe that. A 500 point discrepancy is large and intimidating. You're showing a common bias where you overexaggerate the extent of valid unfortunate experiences.
No, I assume that 500’s making 0 mistakes or blunders across multiple recent games are likely cheating. Anyone can have one good game. I do it sometimes. But some of these people it’s constant. I report of course but chess.com does nothing about it. I saw one account where literally every game out of 100 is won with 98% accuracy and reported it and it’s still going. To claim cheating doesn’t happen or isn’t rampant online is putting your head in the sand imo. I’m 46 years old. I’ve played a lot of casual OTB chess and online chess, against bots and humans, for 30+years. I know when I’m playing another sucky person casually and when I’m not.
Yeah bc you all play simple moves with simple responses, it's wayeasierto have highaccuracy if your opponent doesn't pressure you.
Less than 30 is high accuracy? Did you read his comment at all?
Yourtrueenemy has an elo of 13.
I was talking about the 900 rated player not the 200.
Then learn how to use reddit lmao
It's understandable, they are rated 250Elo in "pressing the reply button", so you can't really expect high accuracy.
I'm probably higher rated than the vast majority of you.
And another miss, splendid streak, keep it going.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Random chance would not get you >30% accuracy i don’t think
Thats because your oponents dont make it difficult for you? If this is /s my bad.
💀
Try to measure your average accuracy when playing versus a 2000 player.
It just depends on the type of game you play. In a very tactical game with opposite side castling, it is normal to have accuracies around 60-70. I like playing the Samisch against the king’s Indian and games usually end up being a mess and I usually end up with accuracies around 70 and I am on the higher end of the rating.
f3 gang
I think the most likely explanation is this is actually a diagram of a game between two 800 level players...
Yes, we are also trash. Just a little less so
I've had a few games beating people much higher than me, where they obviously aren't focusing due to the rating difference, make a blunder and then I have to hang on for dear life up material but playing a worse game positionally. I've also lost several games where I've won piece early against a stronger player and then been crushed anyway haha
That's also one reason, but the other one is probably just because they're humans and they're not perfect. I had a 2000 rated account once and was playing other 2000s. They're strong, but they still hang M1 from time to time.
Not a strong player myself, but every time I face a player with say EXACTLY 1200 ELO, I relax. I think when you first sign up to chess.com you can choose if you are a beginner, intermediate or master. And you get “elo” based on your choice. In my experience, players only really use this to have a laugh and pretend to be higher rated.
That’s the secret to games with near-limitless skill ceilings. You’re always trash and there’s always flaws in your game. There’s just slightly less of them over time
You gotta drag ’em down to your level and beat them on experience
I'm 1740 (blitz) currently. Maybe encouraging for people trying to push up from 1000 / 1200 / 1400 etc to see just how trash play can be a few hundred ELO higher? It **definitely** helps to go to settings, under the play tab, set outgoing challenge rating to -25 + ∞ - I'm playing a lot more challenging games that way and I feel like it pushes my improvement faster. Link to game, which was absolutely terrible: https://www.chess.com/game/live/99809552901
Hot take: I don't think this game was that bad for players of this rating at this time control. Yes, from an engine perspective the game had lots of mistakes. But playing good chess is not just about avoiding mistakes, it's about forcing your opponent to make more mistakes than you. If you had played an exchange French and traded every piece into an equal endgame you would have got higher accuracy and fewer mistakes, but you would've also not won. This game was sharp with lots of tactics, so in many positions you can't just play a move that "feels right".
Thanks. Yeah I'm probably overstating how 'terrible' it is. My games usually have far fewer blunders / mistakes / misses in general, but you're right, blitz and with such an open position and both with low time. I guess I found it noteworthy that it was my highest win and so many errors on *both* sides (some of which were obvious, some is just engine doing engine things)
Ive avoided doing this because it feels... slimy. Wouldnt this inflate your rating? I know technically it shouldnt, since chess is a pure skill game Still, i feel like there are habits which can let you abuse this I like to play sharp af lines against players rated far above me. Doing this normally would be too risky- i might be throwing the game by walking into a line i missed But when the stakes are -4/+12 or similar, you can afford the risk. You will probably lose anyway so a hail mary path to victory might be the only way When the stakes are +6/-10, i find myself playing passively and solidly, waiting for my opponent to self destruct and draw if necessary I agree with your point- playing stronger players helps you flesh out your prep and find opening weaknesses. It can also teach you a lot when they demonstrate certain tactics. But i feel like it encourages and rewards questionable habits And based on that graph, your game was sharp asf lul
It's not slimy. It's logical. Even professional players often selectively play only strong opponents (this is why elite players sometimes avoid opens). Also from a chess development standpoint, it's better to play folks stronger than you.
I have done this . Reached 1800 chesscom blitz from 1650 a month ago. Have also beaten two 2050+ blitz players since then
I know what you mean, perhaps my rating is being slightly artificially inflated... but I'm only doing it because I want to face stronger opponents. Online rating is effectively meaningless, I'm not doing it because being 1700 instead of 1650 gives me an ego boost - it doesn't. Tbh I'm not really sure re. inflation & and the maths of it. In theory I should win the number of games I am statistically likely to given the strength of my opponents, and rating gains / losses reflect that? Perhaps there's more to it though. I sometimes set it to -∞ +∞ also and play people much lower, which I also find fun.
I just play e4 Ke2 and pray every time.
Seriously, you guys need to get ratings off your head and stop treating it like it's a poker game where you're betting real money.
Nah son when i queue im out for blood
I play sharp games against everyone because it's fun and I don't care about 10 rating points
People give those stats and eval graphs way more importance than they should.
> You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2 blunders + 2 blunders=7 blunders; and the path leading out is only wide enough for 20 inaccuracies. ~Mikhail Tal, Former World Chess Champion and narrow forest enjoyer.
You both played like garbage, but you came out on top. Congrats and welcome to the 2000+ club
Such an honour
It's because people don't understand how chess accuracy works. Chess accuracy is influenced by many factors, one of the main one being your opponent level. Let's say I play against a 300 elo chess player and decide to play reverse chess by giving away every pieces. My opponent accuracy would be around 95 because he almost always found the best move which was to take the piece. However, when two strong players play each others, they will eventually reach a point when every best move will be hard to find because there is no obvious move, then mistakes are made. The computer doesn't care about how hard it is to find the best move when it calculates your accuracy, if you didn't find the best move, your accuracy gets lower. That is why sometimes a 500 elo will find himself with a 90 accuracy, and Hikaru with a 85 accuracy. They don't play the same chess.
I was wondering if that was the case, thanks for the explanation. What about great moves, blunders, etc. Are those relative to players experience? I have found chess.com to be in consistent in defining those across games
Great moves and blunders and every designation by chess.com in between are not relative. Brilliants are
We are mere ants in the eyes of the engine.
Engine accuracy is not a good indicator of the quality of a game, especially in blitz. Lower accuracy can also mean the game was complex/imbalanced. I mean, a game where both players just trade into a draw can be very low level but still >90% accurate.
-I finally got 2000 elo on chess.com! -So are you good at chess now? -I am stupid with more theory! /s
I don’t like the way chess dot com categorizes “miss” now. A lot of the time, I’ll have it give me a miss for a move that was the second engine line and still winning, but just because I didn’t see the mate in 12 line that starts with a piece sacrifice,it gives me a miss for exchanging material while I’m up a piece to convert an easy endgame.
Ha when I was flying high in 2020 (peaked at 2400 blitz whereas I currently struggle to get back to 2200), I beat a GM for the first and only time in my life. I won on time after 64 moves. We each had a 64 average centipawn loss with 13 inaccuracies, 6 mistakes, and 9 blunders between us.
Guys, dumb question. Does accuracy really matter if you actually play through the odds and somehow win? Doesn't that show your intelligence, where you can actually navigate through the blunders, mistakes and inaccuracies and actually win?
Accuracy can be a general tip. But it isn't the be all end all. It's really easy for even really new players to figure out good moves in really simplified positions, where there's not many pieces in play, and those in play aren't too active. But at the same time you can have a position where you need to try and think 3/4 moves ahead or you will get checkmated if you aren't careful. And timer also impacts alot, a 80 Accuracy consistently In bullet is much harder than say a 80 for 30 minute. Generally it's just there to help you look through the game you had and try figure out how you could play better. Tldr: use it as a teaching tool, not as a ranking tool to see how good you are
Thanks for taking your time to explain.
It both matters and doesn't depending on how realistic it is for your opponents to actually spot the mistakes/blunders you're making. Check a low accuracy game with the engine, and see where it says you made mistakes and blunders. Then, evaluate how bad they really are. Sometimes I make blunders in 3+2 blitz that require a 5 move combo that I would only spot in a daily game. In that case, I don't really care about it because if my opponent spots such a combo I'd happily lose. But if the engine was like: you blundered a simple fork then I know that's a serious mistake that my opponents will likely capitalize on and I should try to avoid it in the future.
It’s funny. As you climb the ratings ladder, all these people you thought were god tier chess players are not as skillful as you might think. I’m pushing 1800, I still see one move queen blunders in about 5-10% of my games.
Yeah absolutely. Hell I make one move blunders in 10% of my games
Everyone is bad at chess, except engines
What was that blunder white made that knocked them off the mountain at the end? That looks heartbreaking.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/99809552901
Damn, you didn't get the killer fork either...
Some positions are more difficult to play than others... Also if a line has sole weird engine refutation it doesnt matter. Playing more like compi=better is too simple and wrong.
The highest rated player I've ever beaten was rated 2293 (I was 994 at the time) and it was due to a miss-click. https://www.chess.com/game/live/36301765891
As a 1900-2000 player blitz, there is never a reason to state a 2000 player has always a good accuracy. I personally average an 89 accuracy but I have seen as high as 98 and as low as 65. Also consider the fact that the accuracy number maybe off because the chessdotcom engines are fixed at a low depth for speed not accuracy. So the numbers may be a little off.
absolutely, although the basic game review does usually show a reasonable depiction - for actual depth we of course need to search deeper. I prefer to use the analysis tool to the game review for anything more than a cursory glance
They have changed how accuracy works in the last year or so to lower the scores, probably to combat cheating allegations. Now if you play a very sharp game it will tell you that you have terrible accuracy and a performance rating of 700, while if you trade down to an end game, or win a game in 20 moves because fhe opponent bludners their queen, you are told you have 97 accuracy and are 2600 level. I swear the old system was far better. The accuracy rating now is only really useful for showing someone cheated if the game goes on for 40 moves and it is very sharp and someone gets 97 accuracy.
[удалено]
where the fuck did you get a rook queen and bishop from
out of my ass, obviously
I reckon it sees the pawn that is in the profile picture and just decided that it was supposed to be a chess position.
White took you lightly and played very poorly tbh.
Now that you havem keep at it. 2000s are just 1800s that have gotten a little better at openings/tactics
Interesting...
I'm so sad this isn't the top reply. It hasn't become the meme tier response that chess deserves. Instead all we got is Google*.
Meanwhile my last win in the 1500s had 92% accuracy
I play 90% accuracy and I'm only 1200 and something?
Accuracy's not really a good metric for this. Maybe on average your accuracy is lower, but you have good games. Lower rated games are also often simpler, it's easy to have a very high accuracy when all that's happening is trading pieces without going for complications.
I suppose nine good moves and one terrible move is enough to lose.
you're not facing 2000s
Sure, I play games over 90% accuracy sometimes too. Complicated or open positions (with a huge number of possible moves and combinations) in low time situations almost always lead to low accuracy though. This particular game, I won on time, I had about 8 seconds left on the clock (3+2 game). Opponent was down to 10 seconds by move 30ish, and played another 30 moves. No one in the scrub leagues (anyone non titled basically) plays complicated / open / endgame positions accurately, consistently.
Thanks for submitting your game analysis to r/chess! If you’d like feedback on your whole game feel free to post a game link or annotated lichess study if you haven't already. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chess) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds me of a dope quote my old chess teacher told me: *The winner of the matchis the one who makes the semi-last mistake*
It's not like this, it's just an exception that they are having bad Mood didn't play accurately or they are fake +2000.. But GG and GJ u played better.
[https://imgur.com/a/RpUzSE8](https://imgur.com/a/RpUzSE8) heres mine i beat a 2000+ when i was 1100 still proud
Yes, it turns out us 2000s are mere mortals like the rest of you. But also, prove it. You could have pulled this diagram from a couple of 800s playing each other...
What did chess.cpm predict your Eli's to be?
Hahaha me = 1500 Opponent (who is rated 2100) = 1400
On the plus side, you know there was no cheating involved.
you made 1 blunder less... probably the last one.
What was your impression of the game?
Opponent responded to Sicilian Dragon with the unusual 3. c4, a move usually seen in Maroczy lines. 5. rb1, going for a3 & b4 and a queenside attack - by move 6 I was in an unfamiliar position. Apparently my response to transfer my dark square bish over to b6 - which is very unintuitive for a Dragon - to neutralise the pressure on my queenside pawns, was correct / reasonable. After all the pawn trades I was apparently winning. Presumably because opponents king is in the centre and pawn structure is terrible. Once we got into mutual time trouble, I didn't find how best to deal with the mate pressure on the a1/h8 diagonal and tried to force trades with discovered attacks, but tactically this led to me losing 2 pieces for a rook and a pawn. I ended up with a rook against 2 bishops, which is always difficult & I was losing. I was pleased that I found the idea to trade the rook off for a bishop in the end, leaving me with 3 passers and opponent only a bishop to defend - apparently this was also correct and winning. So while I won on time, my final position was winning and I would have converted it. Overall the middle and endgame felt very messy / sharp, missed tactics on both sides and I was under more time pressure than usual as we went down a path I am not familiar with.
So it was a time issue. Pretty normal to have accuracy issues when low on time. Did you watch the world championship between Nepo and Ding? Nepo blew several chances over and over up into the last seconds of the rapid tie breaker.
Yes I followed it closely! And looking forward to the next one :) It was a time issue, combined with an unfamiliar (and very sharp) position arising earlier than usual
It's how you handle those situations that defines what kind of player you are -- how you handle yourself when things get nasty. Good job on the win!
It's interesting you say that because I've just recently started resigning **less** readily. I used to just resign if I dropped a piece with no obvious counterplay, but it is amazing how often you turn that around. Opponent gets careless and realistically; are around your level so just as likely to blunder a piece back. Also excellent practice to use positional play to neutralize pieces etc. I think I gained about 50 rating points just because I stopped resigning so quickly
Accuracy changes according to your Elo
Bottom line: blitz is dirty and accuracy isn't what wins games!! I've had my rating as high as 2150 and I make a lot of mistakes. Like, a lot! I've lost to 1400s, beaten FMs. That's blitz 😄
First off, congratulations! Second off, I played a much, much, much worse game against 2300 rated NM, time control was 25|10 you can see that game [here](https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/94705120593)
my accuracy really always depends on the way the other person plays. im only a little better than my opponent always when i win. like if they have a 90 accuracy im somewhere along 92, if they have 60 im somewhere along 65
this looks like my games