...see also...
"It is flawed to compare accuracy to a numerical grade you would get on a test. In more complex positions it is harder to find the best moves, so your accuracy might drop accordingly. Conversely, in lopsided positions most moves don't change the winning chances meaningfully, so the accuracy score may be high even if your conversion of the position wasn't clinical. While Stockfish can assess the soundness of our moves, it can't tell us how difficult it is to find them."
https://lichess.org/page/accuracy
Can u give me the game link
@taarush_d which game?
One way to look at engine analysis is simply to measure divergence from the engine’s top recommendation rather than treating accuracy as a judgment of playing strength. If the engine’s suggested move does not match the move played, that can be counted as a non-engine move. White’s and Black’s non-engine moves can be counted separately, producing a ratio of non-engine moves to total moves played. This does not label moves as mistakes, inaccuracies, or blunders; it only measures how often a human choice differs from the engine’s first choice.
Accuracy percentages should be interpreted with care. A chess game is played by two players, and the more one player deviates from engine recommendations, the more accurate the other player may appear by comparison. Complex positions tend to lower accuracy because there are fewer clearly winning moves, while simple or already winning positions often inflate accuracy because many moves are evaluated as acceptable. For this reason, accuracy numbers primarily reflect comparison to an engine’s evaluation model rather than human performance or understanding.
Rather than relying on a single graphical user interface (GUI) and its specific evaluation algorithms, it can be useful to run analysis through a second GUI or engine. This helps reduce over-dependence on one evaluation model and highlights how different engines rank candidate moves. Moves can also be evaluated relative to PV1, PV2, PV3, and so on, with user-defined weighting if desired.
As an example, I sometimes reanalyze games using the Lucas Chess GUI and count how many moves do not match the engine’s top choice. I analysed a game [GameId "8lqjNL5h"] and White had 21 moves that differed from the engine’s recommendation out of 35 played, while Black had 9 such moves out of 35. I made no distinction between inaccuracies, mistakes, or blunders.
Lucas Chess GUI was showing this on my computer:
This does not indicate to me a perfect game. Accuracy algorithms attempt to provide perspective relative to an engine’s expectations, not a definitive measure of human play quality. Whether one finds these metrics useful or not depends on how they are interpreted and applied.
Chess analysis tools and GUIs represent significant work by their developers. They offer structured perspectives on games, but like any analytical tool, they reflect the assumptions and limitations of the models they are built on. How much value they provide ultimately depends on how they are used.
Yes, engine accuracy is a metric that has its uses. The post is a warning for players not to misinterpret it
@Toscani said [^](/forum/redirect/post/DgqK0XEG)
> One way to look at engine analysis is simply to measure divergence from the engine’s top recommendation rather than treating accuracy as a judgment of playing strength. If the engine’s suggested move does not match the move played, that can be counted as a non-engine move. White’s and Black’s non-engine moves can be counted separately, producing a ratio of non-engine moves to total moves played. This does not label moves as mistakes, inaccuracies, or blunders; it only measures how often a human choice differs from the engine’s first choice.
>
> Accuracy percentages should be interpreted with care. A chess game is played by two players, and the more one player deviates from engine recommendations, the more accurate the other player may appear by comparison. Complex positions tend to lower accuracy because there are fewer clearly winning moves, while simple or already winning positions often inflate accuracy because many moves are evaluated as acceptable. For this reason, accuracy numbers primarily reflect comparison to an engine’s evaluation model rather than human performance or understanding.
>
> Rather than relying on a single graphical user interface (GUI) and its specific evaluation algorithms, it can be useful to run analysis through a second GUI or engine. This helps reduce over-dependence on one evaluation model and highlights how different engines rank candidate moves. Moves can also be evaluated relative to PV1, PV2, PV3, and so on, with user-defined weighting if desired.
>
> As an example, I sometimes reanalyze games using the Lucas Chess GUI and count how many moves do not match the engine’s top choice. I analysed a game [GameId "8lqjNL5h"] and White had 21 moves that differed from the engine’s recommendation out of 35 played, while Black had 9 such moves out of 35. I made no distinction between inaccuracies, mistakes, or blunders.
>
> Lucas Chess GUI was showing this on my computer:
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> This does not indicate to me a perfect game. Accuracy algorithms attempt to provide perspective relative to an engine’s expectations, not a definitive measure of human play quality. Whether one finds these metrics useful or not depends on how they are interpreted and applied.
>
> Chess analysis tools and GUIs represent significant work by their developers. They offer structured perspectives on games, but like any analytical tool, they reflect the assumptions and limitations of the models they are built on. How much value they provide ultimately depends on how they are used.
Yes, engine accuracy is a metric that has its uses. The post is a warning for players not to misinterpret it
@Toscani said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Epw7fJT4)
> 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.
Did you even read this before posting it?