It’s that Sailor Mike L that really stands out don’t you think?
Is 91.1 accuracy normal?
Sort:
Apr 22, 2023
0
#23
I am just 800 and I have got 91.1 Accuracy before. It is proably not normal but you are not gonna get banned for it unless you get it like 10 times in a row
Apr 22, 2023
0
#24
blunduscarlsen wrote:
Hi everyone. I was going thru my analisis and had 91.1 accuracy. Is this bannable? (I have 400 ELO)
Not really, accuracy doesn't determine chess strength as a whole. If your opponent was playing considerably bad moves throughout the game, you could easily find the best moves even though you're a beginner and got over 90% accuracy. But if you kept getting those high accuracies consistently, maybe you're cheating (you'd better know yourself).
Apr 22, 2023
0
#25
Reee_the_Vizeist wrote:
I am not very good at blitz games myself (I have an ELO of only 240-280). I average around 7 blunders per game. Yet I win most games. It is completely possible to get 90% accuracy or higher, but you would need to be much higher than 500 ELO. I'm not saying it is impossible for someone with only 500 ELO, but it is very unlikely and not very probable. I would estimate that the chances are quite low (most likely 1-100 or even lower, 1-10000). These are not very good estimates, but this type of thing is not like a lottery where the chances can be up to 1-200,000,000 or lower; you only have to know what you are doing, which means chance does not play a large role.
I sort of agree I’m a 600 rating and I get over 91% like 5 times
Apr 22, 2023
0
#26
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
You guys want to make the exception the rule. The analysis data clearly shows the more accurate you play. The higher your Elo level will be in chess. In a very direct and provable way.
I don't think anyone disagrees with your second point here. At the same time, though. Exceptions do occur, and chess.com can't just straight up ban someone for one game, even if it's accurate. I've had a handful of 90+ accuracy games in the last month alone, but that doesn't prove that I'm cheating, because you can just look at the rest of the games I play, where my accuracy averages at 80%, and I'd bet my CP loss is right in line with someone of my rating. Chess.com has to look at a number of games by an individual before they ban someone for cheating on the site, specifically because exceptions occur. That doesn't mean that the exception is the rule. It means that they're not willing to wager business practices on a potential exception, which is a position I can respect.
Apr 22, 2023
0
#27
caleb-courtney wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
You guys want to make the exception the rule. The analysis data clearly shows the more accurate you play. The higher your Elo level will be in chess. In a very direct and provable way.
I don't think anyone disagrees with your second point here. At the same time, though. Exceptions do occur, and chess.com can't just straight up ban someone for one game, even if it's accurate. I've had a handful of 90+ accuracy games in the last month alone, but that doesn't prove that I'm cheating, because you can just look at the rest of the games I play, where my accuracy averages at 80%, and I'd bet my CP loss is right in line with someone of my rating. Chess.com has to look at a number of games by an individual before they ban someone for cheating on the site, specifically because exceptions occur. That doesn't mean that the exception is the rule. It means that they're not willing to wager business practices on a potential exception, which is a position I can respect.
yeah
Apr 22, 2023
0
#28
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
But if you think a sub 500 Elo level player played a flawless 48 move game. You are living in a fantasy.
Please remember to be relevant and kind.
And I doubt anyone shy of an engine could play a flawless 48-move game. But the original question was 91.1%, which is certainly doable, even at a 500 level. It requires a significant blunder on one side, lots of exchanges, and a position where practically any move is still winning the subsequent positions. Kind of like the game that the OP pasted.
Apr 22, 2023
0
#29
opshiva108 wrote:
Hi everyone. I was going to analyse my game I shocked because it was 92.3 accuracy of the game and the Endgame was full of great moves
Cool. My highest Accuracy was 92.7, Just 0.4 Accuracy above yours
caleb-courtney napísal:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Here is over 1000 games from hundreds of players with the Centipawn scores from one of the latest titled Tuesday events. So you can see how common a low Centipawn score is in blitz games, by the BEST players in the world.
Abdrlauf Elham: 21 => Average=0.21
Mendes Aaron Reeve: 53 => Average=0.53
Aguilar Juan: 26 => Average=0.26
Erdogdu Mert: 26 => Average=0.26
Al Tarbosh Ward: 83 => Average=0.83
The problem with this argument is that in your list of players, you do see those outliers (less than 0.1 cp loss), and you can't just ban a player (titled or not, 500 or not) for one outlier game. I've had three games in the last month with over a 90% accuracy. Granted, they were at most 30 moves, but pointing out that one game is an outlier isn't a bannable offense.
They didn't ban Niemann for just one game that was questionable, but for many games. There were also more factors than just how accurately he played. Chess.com does clock analysis to see how much time is being spent on different moves and even browser analysis to see if you're switching to a different application or window and how accurate your moves were after that delay.
When I took a look at the game posted by the OP, I thought most of the moves were reasonable and findable. In fact, many were just downright forcing moves like the queen and rook trades. There's probably a lot of room for interpretation on that game above. All this to just say, there's a lot more that goes into determining if a game was a violation of fair play than how low the error rate was, and chess.com has people review every case before banning anyone.
Hi Caleb!
Thank you for your response.
Amongst 47 replies, I found your the best. Thank you for explaining it to others!
Reee_the_Vizeist napísal:
I am not very good at blitz games myself (I have an ELO of only 240-280). I average around 7 blunders per game. Yet I win most games. It is completely possible to get 90% accuracy or higher, but you would need to be much higher than 500 ELO. I'm not saying it is impossible for someone with only 500 ELO, but it is very unlikely and not very probable. I would estimate that the chances are quite low (most likely 1-100 or even lower, 1-10000). These are not very good estimates, but this type of thing is not like a lottery where the chances can be up to 1-200,000,000 or lower; you only have to know what you are doing, which means chance does not play a large role.
Thank you!
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Ilampozhil25 wrote:
@DesperateKingWalk
the opponent might have made the best moves easy to find, while if op plays against carlsen or firouzja then the centipawn loss wouldve been much higher
That is not how it works.
You look at all the data, and not just the error rate. And there is no need to talk in generalities. As you have the game data.
And error rate is used more as a screening of the game to show games that need to be examined, and does not conclude the game was or was not a computer assisted game.
And the game above was very easy to read, and to make a high probability conclusion.
As you had a 48 move game, with zero errors by one player. So in 48 moves you had a low error rated, and no moves the computer disagreed with and that changed the balance of the game.
And 10 moves in the opening that was a game played by GM Anand. This is very strange for a 500 Elo player to be so well versed in opening theory.
And then you would have a best move played, and then a string of 2nd best engine moves played. Then a best move, and again a string of only 2nd best engine moves played.
This is very common in cheaters, as they think the Chess.com detection method is matching chess engine moves. So they will attempt to trick the detection by playing strings of only next best moves by the chess engine.
This is why you have that weird checkmate at the end of the game. As this player did not want to checkmate perfectly. But makes the very strange queen move before the checkmate. As this was the chess engines 2nd best move. and delayed checkmate by one move. And that no human would play. But cheaters are stupid.
But if you still think that low error rate games below .10 are common in blitz games , and this player was just lucky.
Here is over 1000 games from hundreds of players with the Centipawn scores from one of the latest titled Tuesday events. So you can see how common a low Centipawn score is in blitz games, by the BEST players in the world.
[im not gonna make other people read through this again but it was a really long set of games, around 1000]
jeez dude that takes up the whole screen
Apr 26, 2023
0
#33
I played someone with 0 accuracy. Legit game said 0 as he blundered mate at turn 6
hi
DesperateKingWalk napísal:
blunduscarlsen wrote:
caleb-courtney napísal:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Here is over 1000 games from hundreds of players with the Centipawn scores from one of the latest titled Tuesday events. So you can see how common a low Centipawn score is in blitz games, by the BEST players in the world.
Abdrlauf Elham: 21 => Average=0.21
Mendes Aaron Reeve: 53 => Average=0.53
Aguilar Juan: 26 => Average=0.26
Erdogdu Mert: 26 => Average=0.26
Al Tarbosh Ward: 83 => Average=0.83
The problem with this argument is that in your list of players, you do see those outliers (less than 0.1 cp loss), and you can't just ban a player (titled or not, 500 or not) for one outlier game. I've had three games in the last month with over a 90% accuracy. Granted, they were at most 30 moves, but pointing out that one game is an outlier isn't a bannable offense.
They didn't ban Niemann for just one game that was questionable, but for many games. There were also more factors than just how accurately he played. Chess.com does clock analysis to see how much time is being spent on different moves and even browser analysis to see if you're switching to a different application or window and how accurate your moves were after that delay.
When I took a look at the game posted by the OP, I thought most of the moves were reasonable and findable. In fact, many were just downright forcing moves like the queen and rook trades. There's probably a lot of room for interpretation on that game above. All this to just say, there's a lot more that goes into determining if a game was a violation of fair play than how low the error rate was, and chess.com has people review every case before banning anyone.
Hi Caleb!
Thank you for your response.
Amongst 47 replies, I found your the best. Thank you for explaining it to others!
Go and tell stories to someone else. Sub 500 ELO player! All the outliers were GM, IM, players. No SUB 500 ELO players except you.
No need to be rude bruh
FarteenYT napísal:
hi
Hi!
TrevorBoBever napísal:
I played someone with 0 accuracy. Legit game said 0 as he blundered mate at turn 6
Lmao what? I thought that my classmate was bad but this? I don't know how anyone can have acc 0. You're lucky that you played against someone that "not great"
DesperateKingWalk napísal:
blunduscarlsen wrote:
caleb-courtney napísal:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Here is over 1000 games from hundreds of players with the Centipawn scores from one of the latest titled Tuesday events. So you can see how common a low Centipawn score is in blitz games, by the BEST players in the world.
Abdrlauf Elham: 21 => Average=0.21
Mendes Aaron Reeve: 53 => Average=0.53
Aguilar Juan: 26 => Average=0.26
Erdogdu Mert: 26 => Average=0.26
Al Tarbosh Ward: 83 => Average=0.83
The problem with this argument is that in your list of players, you do see those outliers (less than 0.1 cp loss), and you can't just ban a player (titled or not, 500 or not) for one outlier game. I've had three games in the last month with over a 90% accuracy. Granted, they were at most 30 moves, but pointing out that one game is an outlier isn't a bannable offense.
They didn't ban Niemann for just one game that was questionable, but for many games. There were also more factors than just how accurately he played. Chess.com does clock analysis to see how much time is being spent on different moves and even browser analysis to see if you're switching to a different application or window and how accurate your moves were after that delay.
When I took a look at the game posted by the OP, I thought most of the moves were reasonable and findable. In fact, many were just downright forcing moves like the queen and rook trades. There's probably a lot of room for interpretation on that game above. All this to just say, there's a lot more that goes into determining if a game was a violation of fair play than how low the error rate was, and chess.com has people review every case before banning anyone.
Hi Caleb!
Thank you for your response.
Amongst 47 replies, I found your the best. Thank you for explaining it to others!
Go and tell stories to someone else. Sub 500 ELO player! All the outliers were GM, IM, players. No SUB 500 ELO players except you.
So I suppose you, 1400 ELO Having 95% accuracy with following accuracies :
Bishop : 97.20%
King : 100.00%
Knight : 91.70%
Pawn : 100.00%
Queen : 90.00%
Rook : 96.20%
Inaccuracies : 0
Mistakes : 0
Blunders : 0
Great moves : 2
Best moves : 19
Avg. Time of move : 5 seconds
is normal? If you assume I cheated (which I didn't), I can assume you cheated.
GPT's response to your game :
Based on the statistics provided, it's possible that the game was played by a computer chess engine. The high accuracy percentages and lack of inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders are indicative of computer play, as computers are able to calculate and analyze positions with much greater precision than humans.
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
blunduscarlsen wrote:
caleb-courtney napísal:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Here is over 1000 games from hundreds of players with the Centipawn scores from one of the latest titled Tuesday events. So you can see how common a low Centipawn score is in blitz games, by the BEST players in the world.
Abdrlauf Elham: 21 => Average=0.21
Mendes Aaron Reeve: 53 => Average=0.53
Aguilar Juan: 26 => Average=0.26
Erdogdu Mert: 26 => Average=0.26
Al Tarbosh Ward: 83 => Average=0.83
The problem with this argument is that in your list of players, you do see those outliers (less than 0.1 cp loss), and you can't just ban a player (titled or not, 500 or not) for one outlier game. I've had three games in the last month with over a 90% accuracy. Granted, they were at most 30 moves, but pointing out that one game is an outlier isn't a bannable offense.
They didn't ban Niemann for just one game that was questionable, but for many games. There were also more factors than just how accurately he played. Chess.com does clock analysis to see how much time is being spent on different moves and even browser analysis to see if you're switching to a different application or window and how accurate your moves were after that delay.
When I took a look at the game posted by the OP, I thought most of the moves were reasonable and findable. In fact, many were just downright forcing moves like the queen and rook trades. There's probably a lot of room for interpretation on that game above. All this to just say, there's a lot more that goes into determining if a game was a violation of fair play than how low the error rate was, and chess.com has people review every case before banning anyone.
Hi Caleb!
Thank you for your response.
Amongst 47 replies, I found your the best. Thank you for explaining it to others!
Go and tell stories to someone else. Sub 500 ELO player! All the outliers were GM, IM, players. No SUB 500 ELO players except you.
I've compiled a simple list of your 3 highest rated games and other things. Here's the full report
[About User]
Username : DesperateKingWalk
RapidELO : 1440
BulletELO : 1200 (Default)
BlitzELO : 1200 (Default)
WinsPerGamesRapid : 0.75
HigestAccuracy : 96.9
LowestAccuracy : 66.9
[Game One]
White : MegLikesBugs
Black : DesperateKingWalk
Blunders : 0
Misses : 0
Misstakes : 0
Inaccuracies : 1
Book : 3
Good : 4
Excellent : 4
Best Moves : 12
Great Moves : 1
Brilliant : 0
Accuracy : 90.0
[Game Two]
White : MegLikesBugs
Black : DesperateKingWalk
Blunders : 0
Misses : 0
Misstakes : 0
Inaccuracies : 0
Book : 3
Good : 0
Excellent : 10
Best Moves : 18
Great Moves : 1
Brilliant : 0
Accuracy : 96.9
[Game Three]
White : MegLikesBugs
Black : DesperateKingWalk
Blunders : 0 Misses : 0
Misstakes : 0
Inaccuracies : 2
Book : 3
Good : 4
Excellent : 9
Best Moves : 4
Great Moves : 1
Brilliant : 0
Accuracy : 87.5
I also find it kinda sketchy that you all of a sudden joined this account. Lastly you've been there in 2021.
Apr 27, 2023
0
#40
> had 91.1 accuracy. Is this bannable?
That number alone is definitely not enough for a ban. Many other factors would need to concur.
If you didn't cheat, don't worry 
> The Centipawn analysis indicates the game you played was not played by a human alone.
This is not true. I looked at the game and I see no evidence of that.
> there is zero chance this game was played by a 500 Elo human player
Again, not true.
As others pointed out in the forum, both the accuracy and the ACPL are perfectly possible in a game where the opponent blunders a piece in the opening. OP might have played reasonably well for their level, but the game was not challenging at all. Any strong player (not just me) can agree that both players in this game are weak (<1000) and no single move suggests otherwise; all the threats and mistakes are shallow and obvious and there's no single suspicious moment.
Is it possible the OP cheated "in a clever way" (not picking engine's top choice, etc)? Yes.
Is it possible the OP played this game cleanly? Yes.
Do the moves, accuracy and ACPL constitute proof for either scenario? No, but they suggest the latter IMHO (H = human in this case).
> This is why you have that weird checkmate at the end of the game.
This has been pointed out as a suspicious moment. I see at least 2 logical explanations for those moves in the end:
1) Amongst really weak players, clumsy checkmates are the norm
2) The player is trying to avoid stalemates and 3-fold repetition. The check from d8, which I assume is the "very strange queen move before the checkmate" seems perfectly reasonable to me when trying not to repeat nor stalemate.
If there were any other factors suggesting cheating, then this argument is great to explain "clever cheating". But in itself it's not a proof of cheating; you cannot prove perfection by proving imperfection
> Here is the latest GM Carlsen game played on Chess.com
This kind of comparison is absolutely pointless. There are so many reasons not to compare ~400 players with GMs or superGMs. To start with, no serious GM playing seriously would play 2.Nc3 against the Alekhine. But comparing accuracy or ACPL makes no sense when you play against a whole different level of opposition. For example:
> Your error rate for the game was .07 centipawns. And shows most likely cheating. As that is a better error rate then even GM Magnus Carlsen can play.
That argument is wrong. Carlsen would likely have that .07 ACPL (or less!) when playing against the OP's opponent in this particular game. The OP would likely have a much bigger ACPL than Carlsen when faced against Carlsen's opposition. That's no proof of anything.
If the OP had that ACPL and that accuracy when faced against a GM (or simply against a ~1800), then that would be suspicious (provided the opponent plays at their normal approx. strength).
Apart from that, as pointed out by others, outliers happen. You're more likely to play at your best when given a free piece in the opening. But of course we wouldn't be surprised if the OP made some blunders later in the game, which didn't happen. So it's maybe a "better-than-expected" performance in one single game. Not enough proof of suspicion. I would congratulate the OP for the victory (and accuracy) and wish them to get those great stats when faced against more challenging competition.
Note that I have no proof that the OP did NOT cheat either. Just saying I have no reason to think otherwise.
I'm not aware of other data for this specific case (all my opinion is based on just the moves, as everybody else's in the forum).
> I think we're on the same page though that if we think a player cheated, we'll just hit the report button and trust the chess.com team to figure it out!
Yes! Absolutely, that's what everybody should do
Let me also remind you not to harass or accuse players in the chat or forums. See the Sportsmanship section in our Community Policy:
https://www.chess.com/legal/community
chess.com takes cheating very seriously. Read more about it here:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-com-fair-play-and-cheat-detection#what
do the lessons or watch chess tv and do puzzles