Does Lichess mark accuracy on a curve. (How am I playing at a world chess champian level in bullet?) • page 1/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I noticed that the world chess champagne games tend to be around 97-98% accurate according to lichess game review. I had a bullet game (and have had others) that have the exact same states.

https://lichess.org/PldRW0xBXGgc

0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 7 average centipede loss, 98% accuracy. This is just slightly better then the last world chess championship game. (97% accuracy, and 1-2 inaccuracies) I understanding that its way different because my opponent had 85% accuracy, but it still feels crazy that I would have world chess champion (long time control) states in a bullet game.

Does lichess save computation power by analyzing lower rated faster games with less precision?

I noticed that the world chess champagne games tend to be around 97-98% accurate according to lichess game review. I had a bullet game (and have had others) that have the exact same states. https://lichess.org/PldRW0xBXGgc 0 inaccuracies, 0 mistakes, 0 blunders, 7 average centipede loss, 98% accuracy. This is just slightly better then the last world chess championship game. (97% accuracy, and 1-2 inaccuracies) I understanding that its way different because my opponent had 85% accuracy, but it still feels crazy that I would have world chess champion (long time control) states in a bullet game. Does lichess save computation power by analyzing lower rated faster games with less precision?

mkubecek

#2

As explained many time before, the accuracy numbers in fact say very little about the quality of play.

PowerEnt

#3

It doesn't say much about the quality of the player, it says a lot about the quality of the play. But that's not what I was wondering; I was just asking about weather it works as hard on all analysis's alike...

glbert

#4

https://lichess.org/page/accuracy

Does lichess save computation power by analyzing lower rated faster games with less precision?

no.

https://lichess.org/page/accuracy > Does lichess save computation power by analyzing lower rated faster games with less precision? no.

Andrewyeti1974

#5

Even with an average centipede loss as low as 7 per move, you're going to get through an awful lot of arthropods! :)

Wasted_Youth

#6

@Andrewyeti1974 said in #5:

Even with an average centipede loss as low as 7 per move, you're going to get through an awful lot of arthropods! :)

And even more legs! One species of centipede can have up to 191 pairs of legs, so if you ́re losing this sort while playing 40 moves with a 7 centipede loss you ́ll have managed to have mislaid 40x7x191x2 = 106,960 arthropod legs. If you ́ve been careless in the game and had a 50 centipede loss, the number would rise to over three quarters of a million. Quite a feet.

@Andrewyeti1974 said in #5: > Even with an average centipede loss as low as 7 per move, you're going to get through an awful lot of arthropods! :) And even more legs! One species of centipede can have up to 191 pairs of legs, so if you ́re losing this sort while playing 40 moves with a 7 centipede loss you ́ll have managed to have mislaid 40x7x191x2 = 106,960 arthropod legs. If you ́ve been careless in the game and had a 50 centipede loss, the number would rise to over three quarters of a million. Quite a feet.

nadjarostowa

#7

@mkubecek said in #2:

As explained many time before, the accuracy numbers in fact say very little about the quality of play.

Just to drive that point home:

Let's assume you have King and Queen vs King, and have a mate in one. But you instead move around stupidly with your queen instead of giving mate. And the opponent doesn't escape, but often allows a direct mate. Then, after many moves, you finally checkmate by accident anyway.

Guess the accuracy for both players: 100%, albeit completely stupid play.

@mkubecek said in #2: > As explained many time before, the accuracy numbers in fact say very little about the quality of play. Just to drive that point home: Let's assume you have King and Queen vs King, and have a mate in one. But you instead move around stupidly with your queen instead of giving mate. And the opponent doesn't escape, but often allows a direct mate. Then, after many moves, you finally checkmate by accident anyway. Guess the accuracy for both players: 100%, albeit completely stupid play.

Cedur216

#8

@PowerEnt you had 98 acc because your opponent made it very easy for you to win. So your comparisons make absolutely no sense.

#removeAccuracy

@PowerEnt you had 98 acc because your opponent made it very easy for you to win. So your comparisons make absolutely no sense. #removeAccuracy

PowerEnt

edited

#9

@nadjarostowa @Cedur216 The question was already answered. I clearly understand how accuracy works because I wrote "Accuracy doesn't say much about the quality of the player, it says a lot about the quality of the play. But that's not what I was wondering." And yet you people continue to strawman me by saying I think accuracy means more than it does. By this point its very conman knowledge across the chess community that accuracy doesn't say much about the quality of player. We all know this.

That fact that you continue to badger me by condescending explanations of something I already clarified I understand, shows that you are the ones who are mistaken. I have better things to do then come on here and reexplain myself; I just lost at least 280 chilopods, and they are loose in my house as we speak. Just in case you aren't keeping up: we're talking about hundreds of thousands of little steppers, and they are constantly on the move; That's a lot of little footprints to clean up!

@nadjarostowa @Cedur216 The question was already answered. I clearly understand how accuracy works because I wrote "Accuracy doesn't say much about the quality of the player, it says a lot about the quality of the play. But that's not what I was wondering." And yet you people continue to strawman me by saying I think accuracy means more than it does. By this point its very conman knowledge across the chess community that accuracy doesn't say much about the quality of player. We all know this. That fact that you continue to badger me by condescending explanations of something I already clarified I understand, shows that you are the ones who are mistaken. I have better things to do then come on here and reexplain myself; I just lost at least 280 chilopods, and they are loose in my house as we speak. Just in case you aren't keeping up: we're talking about hundreds of thousands of little steppers, and they are constantly on the move; That's a lot of little footprints to clean up!

nadjarostowa

#10

@PowerEnt said in #9:

I clearly understand how accuracy works because I wrote "Accuracy doesn't say much about the quality of the player, it says a lot about the quality of the play.

Not sure if you are trolling or if it is a language thing. But as my example shows, accuracy very obviously does not show the quality of the play (moves).

So what do you mean with "quality of the play", then? Or maybe it was just a random "look, I got a high accuracy game" post that we better had ignored?

@PowerEnt said in #9: > I clearly understand how accuracy works because I wrote "Accuracy doesn't say much about the quality of the player, it says a lot about the quality of the play. Not sure if you are trolling or if it is a language thing. But as my example shows, accuracy very obviously does not show the quality of the play (moves). So what do you mean with "quality of the play", then? Or maybe it was just a random "look, I got a high accuracy game" post that we better had ignored?