Strange accuracy calculation

Hi,

Here is a very strange accuracy calculation for the

Out of 29 first moves I made about 10 that worsen my position which resulted in +14.3 for white (my opponent) by move 29.
So it was a kind of a "mistake over inaccuracy", some mistakes like 21. ... Bd8? and 29. ... Qe8 I would even consider blunders.
Nevertheless, the engine gives 90% accuracy for me for this game of 36 moves overall, which is quite strange for me.

Well, I finally won, but just by crazy luck. The main point that the most of the game most of the moves were wrong and I get 90% accuracy. How this could be? Let's image the game ended (I could have resigned, for example) on move 29. Is getting -14.3 score in 29 moves results in 90% accuracy?

I am aware of the https://lichess.org/page/accuracy and can check the math, if needed, but maybe somebody has simple and straightforward explanation for this which I am missing?

@Motroskin said in #1:

Hi,

Here is a very strange accuracy calculation for the lichess.org/YJPFqKwO

Out of 29 first moves I made about 10 that worsen my position which resulted in +14.3 for white (my opponent) by move 29.
So it was a kind of a "mistake over inaccuracy", some mistakes like 21. ... Bd8? and 29. ... Qe8 I would even consider blunders.
Nevertheless, the engine gives 90% accuracy for me for this game of 36 moves overall, which is quite strange for me.

Well, I finally won, but just by crazy luck. The main point that the most of the game most of the moves were wrong and I get 90% accuracy. How this could be? Let's image the game ended (I could have resigned, for example) on move 29. Is getting -14.3 score in 29 moves results in 90% accuracy?

I am aware of the lichess.org/page/accuracy and can check the math, if needed, but maybe somebody has simple and straightforward explanation for this which I am missing?

You accuracy early in the game may have done enough to convince your opponent of your competence, enabling your later "inaccuracies" to be overlooked, leading you to a victorious outcome.

@heallan said in #2:

You accuracy early in the game may have done enough to convince your opponent of your competence, enabling your later "inaccuracies" to be overlooked, leading you to a victorious outcome.

We have exactly opposite situation here, please see the game and my explanations. I played black and my first 20 moves (after book opening) were awful. And after move 29 there were no my "inaccuracies" or mistakes, it was just "fight for luck" which payed back.

Accuracy is pretty bad at evaluating anything

@Motroskin said in #3:

We have exactly opposite situation here, please see the game and my explanations. I played black and my first 20 moves (after book opening) were awful. And after move 29 there were no my "inaccuracies" or mistakes, it was just "fight for luck" which payed back.

When you mentioned ninety percent accuracy this tends to indicate accurate play?

@Autofill said in #4:

Accuracy is pretty bad at evaluating anything

What is intended for, then?

@heallan said in #5:

When you mentioned ninety percent accuracy this tends to indicate accurate play?

Yes, it says that I was very accurate (90% of 100%) while my play was awful. That is the question.

@Motroskin said in #6:

What is intended for, then?
Accuracy is intented for appeasement

@Motroskin said in #6:

What is intended for, then?

Probably intended to appease the people demanding a statistic called 'accuracy'.
edit - too slow. :(

@Motroskin said in #7:

Yes, it says that I was very accurate (90% of 100%) while my play was awful. That is the question.

Your too hard on yourself?