Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Why Engine Accuracy is a Waste of Time (at least for sub-2000 players)

"once I lost a few games at the start I was convinced that I was a bad player and that every move I was going to play was going to be a mistake" .....

Yeah, exactly what I think and feel about myself .... very often!

In terms of the analysis, I think we (at my poor tilt-master level) we immediately see the blunders and mistakes that we just made, during the game ..... so we know why we lost already before even checking the analysis, so in like 90%-95% of cases we know what went wrong during the game ...
But of course, seeing the analysis something reveals that we actually played EVEN WORSE than we thought, so yeah, extra hit the self-confidence.

Chess is awful!

"once I lost a few games at the start I was convinced that I was a bad player and that every move I was going to play was going to be a mistake" ..... Yeah, exactly what I think and feel about myself .... very often! In terms of the analysis, I think we (at my poor tilt-master level) we immediately see the blunders and mistakes that we just made, during the game ..... so we know why we lost already before even checking the analysis, so in like 90%-95% of cases we know what went wrong during the game ... But of course, seeing the analysis something reveals that we actually played EVEN WORSE than we thought, so yeah, extra hit the self-confidence. Chess is awful!

Good post!

However, as @Toscani mentioned, there are many factors that can be used to get an accuracy metric. Lichess' one is just very simple.

But you are very right that these metrics don't supplant and sometimes are detrimental to critical thinking. This is a very dear subject to me, so I tend to go on huge replies. I won't do that here. I will just say that for beginners it's a bit of a trap:

  • engines immediately tell you where they calculate you went wrong - which is a good technical start, but an emotional blow
  • analysing your own games is important for evolution - but you don't know how to do that without help
  • a coach might help - they cost money and you just have to pick a good one without knowing how

That's why I have been trying to find the technical metrics that can help critical thinking and not destroy confidence. It's hard.

However, while talking to people, and from my own noobie experience, I did distill a principle for self improvement that does not require coaches or complicated software. And it's very simple: when you analyse your games, try to figure out why you made the moves you made. It doesn't matter how it compares to theory, engine output or any chess principles. Once you figure out why you do the things you do, you can change them. Conversely, there is no way to improve if you have no conscious understanding of your own actions.

Hope it helps.

Good post! However, as @Toscani mentioned, there are many factors that can be used to get an accuracy metric. Lichess' one is just very simple. But you are very right that these metrics don't supplant and sometimes are detrimental to critical thinking. This is a very dear subject to me, so I tend to go on huge replies. I won't do that here. I will just say that for beginners it's a bit of a trap: - engines immediately tell you where they calculate you went wrong - which is a good technical start, but an emotional blow - analysing your own games is important for evolution - but you don't know how to do that without help - a coach might help - they cost money and you just have to pick a good one without knowing how That's why I have been trying to find the technical metrics that can help critical thinking and not destroy confidence. It's hard. However, while talking to people, and from my own noobie experience, I did distill a principle for self improvement that does not require coaches or complicated software. And it's very simple: when you analyse your games, try to figure out why you made the moves you made. It doesn't matter how it compares to theory, engine output or any chess principles. Once you figure out why you do the things you do, you can change them. Conversely, there is no way to improve if you have no conscious understanding of your own actions. Hope it helps.

@TotalNoob69 said in #12:

Good post!

However, as @Toscani mentioned, there are many factors that can be used to get an accuracy metric. Lichess' one is just very simple.

But you are very right that these metrics don't supplant and sometimes are detrimental to critical thinking. This is a very dear subject to me, so I tend to go on huge replies. I won't do that here. I will just say that for beginners it's a bit of a trap:

  • engines immediately tell you where they calculate you went wrong - which is a good technical start, but an emotional blow
  • analysing your own games is important for evolution - but you don't know how to do that without help
  • a coach might help - they cost money and you just have to pick a good one without knowing how

That's why I have been trying to find the technical metrics that can help critical thinking and not destroy confidence. It's hard.

However, while talking to people, and from my own noobie experience, I did distill a principle for self improvement that does not require coaches or complicated software. And it's very simple: when you analyse your games, try to figure out why you made the moves you made. It doesn't matter how it compares to theory, engine output or any chess principles. Once you figure out why you do the things you do, you can change them. Conversely, there is no way to improve if you have no conscious understanding of your own actions.

Hope it helps.

Totally agree, which is why I stress the importance of analyzing with yourself if not with a coach because it helps become you become aware of your mistakes. Meanwhile, since the only thing the engines do in chess it calculate, it automatically assumes the mistake made is a calculation error.

@TotalNoob69 said in #12: > Good post! > > However, as @Toscani mentioned, there are many factors that can be used to get an accuracy metric. Lichess' one is just very simple. > > But you are very right that these metrics don't supplant and sometimes are detrimental to critical thinking. This is a very dear subject to me, so I tend to go on huge replies. I won't do that here. I will just say that for beginners it's a bit of a trap: > - engines immediately tell you where they calculate you went wrong - which is a good technical start, but an emotional blow > - analysing your own games is important for evolution - but you don't know how to do that without help > - a coach might help - they cost money and you just have to pick a good one without knowing how > > That's why I have been trying to find the technical metrics that can help critical thinking and not destroy confidence. It's hard. > > However, while talking to people, and from my own noobie experience, I did distill a principle for self improvement that does not require coaches or complicated software. And it's very simple: when you analyse your games, try to figure out why you made the moves you made. It doesn't matter how it compares to theory, engine output or any chess principles. Once you figure out why you do the things you do, you can change them. Conversely, there is no way to improve if you have no conscious understanding of your own actions. > > Hope it helps. Totally agree, which is why I stress the importance of analyzing with yourself if not with a coach because it helps become you become aware of your mistakes. Meanwhile, since the only thing the engines do in chess it calculate, it automatically assumes the mistake made is a calculation error.

I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number.

I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number.

@mullerrj said in #14:

I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number.

Which is why the blog is directed to sub 2000 players but yes, I agree

@mullerrj said in #14: > I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number. Which is why the blog is directed to sub 2000 players but yes, I agree

@TheCommandalorian said in #15:

I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number.

Which is why the blog is directed to sub 2000 players but yes, I agree

Well, I don't agree with that. I'm sub 2000 and I play Stockfish 6 at times, which plays to approx. 2000. If/when I beat SF16 I believe my accuracy is pretty accurate/valid. I guess what I'm really not agreeing with (as a sub 2000 player) is your "waste of time" statement. As I said, it's only as good as your competition.

@TheCommandalorian said in #15: > > I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number. > > Which is why the blog is directed to sub 2000 players but yes, I agree Well, I don't agree with that. I'm sub 2000 and I play Stockfish 6 at times, which plays to approx. 2000. If/when I beat SF16 I believe my accuracy is pretty accurate/valid. I guess what I'm really not agreeing with (as a sub 2000 player) is your "waste of time" statement. As I said, it's only as good as your competition.

@mullerrj said in #16:

I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number.

Which is why the blog is directed to sub 2000 players but yes, I agree

Well, I don't agree with that. I'm sub 2000 and I play Stockfish 6 at times, which plays to approx. 2000. If/when I beat SF16 I believe my accuracy is pretty accurate/valid. I guess what I'm really not agreeing with (as a sub 2000 player) is your "waste of time" statement. As I said, it's only as good as your competition.

Yes to be fair, "waste of time" might be extreme, what I am trying to point out is that there are many other methods of analyzing games that are much better for improvement and better for confidence compared to engine analysis. Yes, the accuracy is relative compared to the performance of both players, what I am trying to do is tell people (especially like below 1400 or so) that just because they scholar's mated someone and got 97% accuracy doesn't mean they played a better game than the game they played a long fought out win with 85% accuracy. Thanks for your insight.

@mullerrj said in #16: > > > I believe accuracy is only as good as who you're playing against. i.e. the higher rated the opponent, the more valid the accuracy number. Obviously, if I played Magnus Carlsen in a classical game and he played 92% accuracy and I played 94% accuracy and I won the game...I'll bet if I ran a Compuer Analysis my percent accuracy would be a valid number. > > > > Which is why the blog is directed to sub 2000 players but yes, I agree > > Well, I don't agree with that. I'm sub 2000 and I play Stockfish 6 at times, which plays to approx. 2000. If/when I beat SF16 I believe my accuracy is pretty accurate/valid. I guess what I'm really not agreeing with (as a sub 2000 player) is your "waste of time" statement. As I said, it's only as good as your competition. Yes to be fair, "waste of time" might be extreme, what I am trying to point out is that there are many other methods of analyzing games that are much better for improvement and better for confidence compared to engine analysis. Yes, the accuracy is relative compared to the performance of both players, what I am trying to do is tell people (especially like below 1400 or so) that just because they scholar's mated someone and got 97% accuracy doesn't mean they played a better game than the game they played a long fought out win with 85% accuracy. Thanks for your insight.

This blog is exactly right, especially:

Now I can hear everyone saying, "I don't wanna pay for a coach" or "I can't afford a coach" The fortunate thing for you is that you can be your own coach. When you go through each game, go through your thought process and see what went well and what didn't, and figure out where your weaknesses are so you can figure out what you need to improve. For example, for me currently my biggest problem is rushing winning positions and throwing them away. This is something the engine cannot tell you. I have found it out myself from analyzing my games myself.

I'm not saying the engine has no place in your analysis, I would just recommend its use after you have analyzed the game yourself to make sure you didn't miss anything or didn't see a critical line or tactic. The engine should be used as a tool and a part of your analysis not your whole analysis.

If you (the audience member) aren't a data scientist keeping up with the latest optuna machine learning releases and somehow incorporating those heuristics into your training data, then blindly trusting what engines tell you about "blunders" etc. is probably a bad idea (as you'll be left behind other people who actually think during their game reviews).
https://github.com/optuna/optuna/releases/tag/v4.7.0

This blog is exactly right, especially: > Now I can hear everyone saying, "I don't wanna pay for a coach" or "I can't afford a coach" The fortunate thing for you is that you can be your own coach. When you go through each game, go through your thought process and see what went well and what didn't, and figure out where your weaknesses are so you can figure out what you need to improve. For example, for me currently my biggest problem is rushing winning positions and throwing them away. This is something the engine cannot tell you. I have found it out myself from analyzing my games myself. > > I'm not saying the engine has no place in your analysis, I would just recommend its use after you have analyzed the game yourself to make sure you didn't miss anything or didn't see a critical line or tactic. The engine should be used as a tool and a part of your analysis not your whole analysis. If you (the audience member) aren't a data scientist keeping up with the latest optuna machine learning releases and somehow incorporating those heuristics into your training data, then blindly trusting what engines tell you about "blunders" etc. is probably a bad idea (as you'll be left behind other people who actually think during their game reviews). https://github.com/optuna/optuna/releases/tag/v4.7.0

@Toadofsky said in #18:

This blog is exactly right, especially:

Now I can hear everyone saying, "I don't wanna pay for a coach" or "I can't afford a coach" The fortunate thing for you is that you can be your own coach. When you go through each game, go through your thought process and see what went well and what didn't, and figure out where your weaknesses are so you can figure out what you need to improve. For example, for me currently my biggest problem is rushing winning positions and throwing them away. This is something the engine cannot tell you. I have found it out myself from analyzing my games myself.

I'm not saying the engine has no place in your analysis, I would just recommend its use after you have analyzed the game yourself to make sure you didn't miss anything or didn't see a critical line or tactic. The engine should be used as a tool and a part of your analysis not your whole analysis.

If you (the audience member) aren't a data scientist keeping up with the latest optuna machine learning releases and somehow incorporating those heuristics into your training data, then blindly trusting what engines tell you about "blunders" etc. is probably a bad idea (as you'll be left behind other people who actually think during their game reviews).
https://github.com/optuna/optuna/releases/tag/v4.7.0

Completely agree

@Toadofsky said in #18: > This blog is exactly right, especially: > > Now I can hear everyone saying, "I don't wanna pay for a coach" or "I can't afford a coach" The fortunate thing for you is that you can be your own coach. When you go through each game, go through your thought process and see what went well and what didn't, and figure out where your weaknesses are so you can figure out what you need to improve. For example, for me currently my biggest problem is rushing winning positions and throwing them away. This is something the engine cannot tell you. I have found it out myself from analyzing my games myself. > > > > I'm not saying the engine has no place in your analysis, I would just recommend its use after you have analyzed the game yourself to make sure you didn't miss anything or didn't see a critical line or tactic. The engine should be used as a tool and a part of your analysis not your whole analysis. > > If you (the audience member) aren't a data scientist keeping up with the latest optuna machine learning releases and somehow incorporating those heuristics into your training data, then blindly trusting what engines tell you about "blunders" etc. is probably a bad idea (as you'll be left behind other people who actually think during their game reviews). > https://github.com/optuna/optuna/releases/tag/v4.7.0 Completely agree

There’s a common belief that focusing on engine accuracy is a waste of time for players rated below 2000, but I see it differently. To me, accuracy is like using the right terminology. Just as we move from basic shorthand in childhood to precise language in higher education, chess requires a growing "vocabulary" to be mastered. A game is essentially a conversation between two players and the pieces; when we aim for accuracy, we are trying to speak the game’s language as clearly as possible. If we stop striving for precision just because we aren’t "pros" yet, we risk stagnating. Whether you are 800 or 1800, aiming for that high accuracy percentage shows a fundamental respect for the game’s depth.

Think of a chess match as a debate. If one player makes sloppy, imprecise moves, the other naturally appears more elegant and convincing by comparison. Accuracy shows who is actually taking control of the conversation and who is merely guessing. Being below 2000 doesn't mean our games are less valuable or that our "arguments" on the board shouldn't be sharp. Growth comes through this pursuit of excellence, and while I used AI to help refine the "vocabulary" of this post, the sentiment remains the same: don’t let anyone tell you that accuracy is only for the elite.

There’s a common belief that focusing on engine accuracy is a waste of time for players rated below 2000, but I see it differently. To me, accuracy is like using the right terminology. Just as we move from basic shorthand in childhood to precise language in higher education, chess requires a growing "vocabulary" to be mastered. A game is essentially a conversation between two players and the pieces; when we aim for accuracy, we are trying to speak the game’s language as clearly as possible. If we stop striving for precision just because we aren’t "pros" yet, we risk stagnating. Whether you are 800 or 1800, aiming for that high accuracy percentage shows a fundamental respect for the game’s depth. Think of a chess match as a debate. If one player makes sloppy, imprecise moves, the other naturally appears more elegant and convincing by comparison. Accuracy shows who is actually taking control of the conversation and who is merely guessing. Being below 2000 doesn't mean our games are less valuable or that our "arguments" on the board shouldn't be sharp. Growth comes through this pursuit of excellence, and while I used AI to help refine the "vocabulary" of this post, the sentiment remains the same: don’t let anyone tell you that accuracy is only for the elite.