what precision do you consider as good for one your game? I always thought that 85% must be quite enough to be between 2100 and 2200, but now in bullet I must have no less than 90% to win in below 1900.
This is a pointless question, it depends on the opponent.
It is easy to reach a high precision against a weak opponent.
It is hard to reach a high precision against a strong opponent.
It also depends hugely on the type of game.
Not only time control, but character of the position (tactical chaos, long calm positional game, ...).
Also, playing "correct" top engine moves might often not be the best choice!
I do not know what to think. I asked a normal question and have got two useless answers. I did not ask if the precision is a measure of mastership. I asked about what your average precision is. Can you be satisfied by a game with precision below 80%?
@steel-apron said in #4:
> I do not know what to think. I asked a normal question and have got two useless answers.
Well, you asked "what precision do you consider as good for one your game?", and we pointed out that there is no good answer because the question makes no sense in the first place. If you think it is useless, we cannot help you. Sorry.
> I asked about what your average precision is.
No, you did not. Maybe re-read your original post?
> Can you be satisfied by a game with precision below 80%?
As stated previously, it very much depends! Sometimes 80% is great, sometimes it is not! Which hints to the fact that accuracy alone is quite a useless metric.
@nadjarostowa said in #5:
> Maybe re-read your original post?
another brilliant suggestion. you have said nothing helpfull, nothing interesting, you called me an idiot twice. you do not know who i am. do you know what a politeness is and what is a correct respond to such light trolling?
@steel-apron said in #6:
> > Maybe re-read your original post?
>
> another brilliant suggestion. you have said nothing helpfull, nothing interesting, you called me an idiot twice. you do not know who i am. do you know what a politeness is and what is a correct respond to such light trolling?
There’s no need to be mean, he didn’t call you an idiot, and he isn’t trolling you.
We are just saying that accuracy doesn’t matter
Maybe you could stop making things up?
@steel-apron said in #6:
> another brilliant suggestion. you have said nothing helpfull, nothing interesting,
If you are not interested in answers to your question, I suggest to simply not ask it.
> you called me an idiot twice.
Having read through the thread again, I don't see that. Not even once.
> you do not know who i am.
That's correct, and quite frankly, I don't care. I treat people with the same respect regardless.
> do you know what a politeness is and what is a correct respond to such light trolling?
Sure, and I have seen nothing but honest and helpful answers in this thread so far.
I am sorry that I didn't notice your light trolling. I suggest to stop that, as it usually is not received very well.
the thread may be closed as not interesting to a broad auditory, and also due to a great difference between expected and obtained replies. what could be simplier than to say hi, i am 1700 and play in about 75%, or good day, 2200 plays no less than 95% .... ? Instead i've got an authoritative notion on what types of position do exist from a person who does not care! after that i may wonder if the broad auditory exists itself. thank you very much.
This topic is now closed.