Is it right that players at 2200-2300 FIDE get as much accuracy as GMs in their games?

Grandmasters get 95-98% accuracy in their games and I see a lot of players between 2200 and 2300 FIDE getting that much accuracy. Is it just something wrong with chess.com?

ya, I just got 99% accuracy on a game, & as far as competition on here an not that good

I've had 99%+ accuracy games back when my rating was 1700.

The trick is to play simple positions, rather than sharp, tactical positions.

Thank you so much! I just watched your Titled Tuesday stream and it is amazing

That "accuracy" stat isn't handed down by God. It's calculated by the chess.com engine, which typically looks no deeper than 18 ply (that's 9 moves). So any continuation that takes more than 9 moves to mature will be considered "bad" by the analysis engine, since it can't see to the end of the line and discover the actual point of the move.

Don't treat the "accuracy" stat as if it were gospel truth. It's just the engine's opinion, and not always "informed" opinion.

Hi Nisha! Are you from India? I'm from Kolkata. I ask because of your name. Niska is Indian name only. Now we have many grandmasters fide masters. My cousin is too a rated master. He ask me to take up chess so here I am. 

Besides the points everyone has talked about, it's also worth mentioning that the engine evaluates a position by assuming both sides play perfectly. Using pawnless endgames as examples, rook+bishop vs rook is a draw but difficult to defend endgame, while queen vs rook will be winning but difficult to win endgame, so the engine will favor latter one, but the previous one would probably be better for most human beings.

Also, sometimes you'll have to decide if you're going to play a move that will definitely earn you a small advantage, or play another that will be equal or even slightly bad if your opponent defends correctly, but if they don't defend right they'll have a huge issue.

I had them when I was under 1,000- if your opponent just hangs everything in basic positions, finding the best move is not exactly difficult. I killed a 2100 with the blackmar diemer as an 800 because they didn't know the risky but trappy line I chose, and clearly didn't expect me to know what I was doing and assumed I was just hanging everything, so they played natural seeming moves- capturing the gambit pieces, going for a tempting skewer etc. I've had several 100% accuracy games with that line, actually.

But yeah accuracy levels only give you information about that one game, there really isn't a linear correlation to strength. I once had an opponent accuse me of sandbagging because I saw a tactic to win a knight in the opening in advance and baited them into letting me do it- and after the game when it showed an accuracy level in the 90s, he decided that proves it and I'm a candidate master on a second account. If one person plays badly or gets into unfamiliar territory, and the other player is on form that day, seeing the opportunities, then you can see accuracy scores well into the 90s at pretty much any rating level.