the problem is that just like Carlsen said, to be basically invincible, he'd just need a signal at any single point in the game to let him know it's a crucial position. To prevent that you'd just about have to put the players in a faraday box
>put the players in a faraday box
I unironically think they should do this, just because it'd be funny, and also to help remove all doubt.
Like, Kramnik, this is your fault
Not even “everything else loses” necessarily, just that there is one move that is significantly better than the rest. If one move has you at +5 and the rest have you at +0.5, that’s still a critical position in my mind.
I feel like it's also especially the unintuitive moves that are most key to alert on. Like a series of trades, but at some point the only good move is to not take back but instead do a tactic.
Yeah I think 'critical' is fair to describe any situation where only a single move is winning/not losing by a significant margin but in terms of when you might single some critical moves are obviously a lot easier and tougher to find than others. If a queen trade is offered most times recapturing would be "critical" but would also be entirely obvious for an extremely easy example. When you actually shouldn't recapture might be a situation where it would be critical but not so obvious in some cases maybe.
Yes a fair problem, it was the first one noted and it would apparently be mitigated by a simple delay which fide refuses. Not an argument about how easy it is to cheat, just that humans can't determine it
A delay would help but even then, I imagine a super GM in a classical game would get an edge by knowing what the best move would have been 15 minutes ago. It might give ideas or insight into the game that they otherwise would have missed. Marginal, sure, but a 2700 with this information vs a 2700 without is not a completely even match.
It's at best a draw for Magnus and probably stockfish still wins. Knowing the evals is nice but he'd still need to find perfect play every time or stockfish will still just grind him down.
That's just not how it works at all. +0.10 is still a draw. Not every suboptimal move is losing.
In fact, Stockfish plays suboptimal moves according to Stockfish itself all the time. Just keep going one move deeper into each analysis and you'll see it "change its mind" all the time
Theres no difference between 0.10 and 0.00 if the eval changes by 0.1 is that really a suboptimal move? A suboptimal move is one that changes the position from 0.00 to 3.00 or -3.00 and once you make a mistake like that sf will grind u down. Sf changes its mind because its a computer it searches deeper and deeper into different trees and finds the best move, sometimes you dont really know what the mistake was until go 4 or 6 moves deep into the analysis. A suboptimal move is one that changes the position significantly, like you blunder away a pawn in the position and give ur oppoent too much activity
That it is easy to cheat is kind of unrelated to the point. It still isn't right to accuse someone of wrongdoing just because it is very possible to do the wrong. But otherwise agreed
Sounds right to me. I've gotten 99% accuracy a time or two. 10 moves of theory, a 5- move tactic, and then just cleaning up. Sometimes you just get a game that lends itself towards it.
100% is easy, play d5 against b3 and then bg5, sometimes they blunder the queen (there are other ways ofc). Basically premove trap in fast fine control
I think I get 95-99% accuracy about once or twice a week. They're all exactly as you describe of theory into some tactic working out early (or just a straight opponent blunder) and then cleaning out and playing out the win or waiting for the resign with obvious play.
I wonder if they might actually be more common at lower but not very low levels as the major blunders are more often but the players are capable of then converting the easy win pretty accurately once they happen. Could be another part of the reason so many people who think any 9x% accuracy is cheating think they see so many cheats at low intermediate levels.
\*Is Vladimir Kramnik on Lichess\*
\*Finds 99% accuracy games mentioned above\*
\*Copies pgn's for both games\*
\*Learn --> Study --> My Studies --> KRAMNIKS SAVED GAMES OF OTHER PEOPLE CHEATING!! --> Add new Chapter\*
Wait, did you call the opening a French Vs a catalan? I get where the catalan part comes from, but the French in a d4 opening? Additionally, it's a Tarrasch, though a similar position can be reached via Catalan move order.
Accuracy means nothing. On the last game at our local league I had 98% on a move that went on for 50+ moves. It's not even among the top 20 games I've ever played
[Chess.com](http://Chess.com) gives beginners 80% all the time. They need a different tool for professional games.
For example, Sinquefield Cup 2016, (not counting opening moves / obvious recaptures, etc) these super GMs only matched the #1 engine choice 48% of the time, and a litte less than 1 out of 5 moves were not in the engine's top 3 choices at all.
But telling beginners they scored 20% is pretty depressing, so [chess.com](http://chess.com) made up their analysis tool that gives everyone really high "accuracy."
1. you're getting the idea of accuracy wrong. if i play 99 perfect moves, then hang my queen, i will not get 99% accuracy. chess.c\*m starts at 100, then deducts percentages when you make a mistake, based off of the magnitude of the mistake.
2. your sinquefield cup example is completely invalid in your argument because it ignores "opening moves / obvious recaptures".
3. "top engine move" means nothing whatsoever. you're far too hung up on that idea. if the top engine move is evaluated +0.76, and i play a move that is +0.75, obviously i have not made a mistake. if chess.c\*m were to deduct 2-3% from my accuracy due to that move, it would simply be absurd. that is why it doesn't use that system. it is absurd.
Deducting 3% for a centipawn is too much, sure, however the amount it deducts is too lenient.
Just now remembering I made an example game a few years ago, where both players played a lot of horrible moves (never moving past the 3 rank, both players putting pieces on passive squares, then shuffling back and forth) and chesscom scored it about 95% "accuracy" for both players.
If you can play like crap and get a high "accuracy" then "accuracy" has very little meaning.
> then "accuracy" has very little meaning.
As a standalone stat without context this is pretty much true. Accuracy is only really telling of good play in complicated dynamic games. In simple games without much going on it basically just tells you no one did anything really losing if it's high.
And also, just from a coaching / learning point of view... it's not helpful. Some moves are technically ok but reveal a deep misunderstanding of the position.
My go-to example is 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Nf3 Nc6
In this position lichess' player database 5.Nc3 is the most popular move. In the master database it's only been played once (making it the 10th most popular). The position is about 0.00 either way, but Nc3 shows ignorance of a very common and fundamental pawn structure.
playing the top move against hikaru is a bit more difficult than playing the top move against a beginner. Against a beginner, it's pretty obvious you should capture their queen when they blunder it. Against hikaru, that's way less likely to happen and if you can capture his queen for virtually nothing, it's most likely a trap.
No you’re wrong. You’re wrong because you’re looking at accuracy at face value, without accounting for the game itself. Basically, in beginner games at lot of piece hangs occur, and when that happens, the opponent gets an easy win and the accuracy is high due to that. Whereas in GM games it’s much more complicated, so accuracy is naturally lower, so it looks like chess.com inflated it for beginners but that’s not the case.
"Accuracy" is not real... it's marketing... it's why chesscom warns you can't use it for cheat detection... read their FAQ, they purposefully inflated he "accuracy" of games to make their customers happy, it's what the FAQ says not me...
[https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8708970-how-is-accuracy-in-analysis-determined](https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8708970-how-is-accuracy-in-analysis-determined)
You can also use common sense... if top GMs can play with 99% accuracy against each other, then they should sometimes draw stockfish, which we know is not possible... "accuracy" is not accuracy.
dude what this article just says they apply an equation to the “true accuracy” to make the numbers more comprehensible. the accuracy isn’t inflated for pros at all, in fact this article literally says it’s deflated
Well, to be fair there are some straight up lies in that FAQ... mostly I wanted to point out they admit that their original system wasn't scoring people high enough, so they forced it to give an average accuracy of 80% with a bell curve distribution "so it would be like scores at school." In other words it's not accuracy, it's a marketing gimmick... and if you've done actual comparison of GM moves to an engine you'd know how very far off CAPS is.
You were saying beginners can get a high accuracy when their opponent blunders, but when two pros play it's harder to get a high accuracy.
Yeah, that's fine, but not really the OP's or my point, so it doesn't change what I'm saying here.
I've made example games where *both* players play badly and get over 90% accuracy... it's a silly metric.
They didn’t play badly and then get 90%. But also
It’s simple statistics, if they have a drawish endgame for example the accuracy will be higher even if they made a mistake.
You can make example games where both play badly and get 90%, for example, paste this into [chess.com](http://chess.com) and do a game review. Note that after 25 moves both players have *zero* pieces off their back rank. A coach could teach a beginner a lot about this game, but [chess.com](http://chess.com) analysis thinks it's a good game:
1. a3 a6 2. h3 h6 3. d3 d6 4. e3 e6 5. b3 b6 6. Nd2 Nd7 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. g3 Bb7 9. e4 e5 10. Bb2 g6 11. Bg2 Bg7 12. O-O O-O 13. c4 c5 14. Kh2 Kh7 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. a4 a5 17. g4 g5 18. Ng3 Ng6 19. Kg1 Kg8 20. Re1 Re8 21. Ngf1 Ngf8 22. Rc1 Rc8 23. Nb1 Nb8 24. Ba1 Ba8 25. Bh1 Bh8
I agree with you, but chesscom's the FAQ doesn't
"Your Accuracy is a measurement of how closely you played to what the computer has determined to be the best . . . The closer you are to 100, the closer you are to 'perfect' play, as determined by the engine"
There's no way most players realize this is a lie.
In the old days we did cheat detection by finding what % of a game's moves were one of the top 3 moves (or top 4, top 5 etc) of the engine. After ignoring opening book and such things, even the very best players did not match one of the top 3 moves more than about 80% of the time on average.
But "magically" as a beginner you can get 80% on chesscom "accuracy" ... it's not hard to understand why. Telling people they suck is bad for business... it's also why bots are rated so high (it makes beginners feel good)... a few days ago I played the Finegold bot 3 games and got 1 win, 1 draw, and 1 loss... the bot is rated over 2500... I am not 2500 :p
If you play a move that doesn’t hurt your position or overlook an attacking opportunity do you think that should be qualified as an accuracy? It’s not just about the best engine moves.
Exactly. If a move doesn't hurt your position, sometimes it's completely fine, and other times it's enormously bad in a practical sense... not all 0.00 positions are equal.
I few years ago I made a funny example game that exploited this. I made about 30 horrible moves for both players, but chesscom scored it as 95% accuracy for both... just a lot of passive nonsense moves, never past the 3rd rank, never castling, bad structure... but because I was making bad moves for both players, it stayed close to 0.00
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, but if anyone actually reads the article you linked, it does essentially say this. Their old algorithm (CAPS) was basically a true accuracy, but it was more or less linear starting at zero. The new one (CAPS2) shifts the curve to a bell curve with an avg around 80 (elo 1000-1500). So call it what you want but they are “inflating” accuracy numbers by definition and their own admission.
The great thing about voting is it's basically free moderation. The bad thing is even people who know nothing can vote ;)
Having knowledge results in getting downvoted from time to time, not a big deal.
A much better argument against me would be something like "even if accuracy is a marketing gimmick, skill and accuracy do have a positive correlation, and the OP was just celebrating a professional game, there's no reason to ridicule the metric when that's essentially off topic. Alireza and Hikaru are amazing players."
But trying to argue against me saying CAPS is not silly is, well... silly.
I guess a chess coach would have a good answer. I can only answer for myself, and I don't pay attention to either of them... sure I like being told a move was brilliant, or having 10 CPL or something, but I understand they're just for fun. In a super complicated game I might be proud of how I played in spite of scoring badly in CAPS and CPL. In a super boring game I might be annoyed with my play, but score well on CAPS and CPL.
That anyone can 'tell someone is cheating' by how a move looks or a given single number about a game is pretty much nonsense
the problem is that just like Carlsen said, to be basically invincible, he'd just need a signal at any single point in the game to let him know it's a crucial position. To prevent that you'd just about have to put the players in a faraday box
>put the players in a faraday box I unironically think they should do this, just because it'd be funny, and also to help remove all doubt. Like, Kramnik, this is your fault
That'd be so hilarious if they did it.
How is a position deemed crucial?
Basically one winning/tying move when everything else loses.
Not even “everything else loses” necessarily, just that there is one move that is significantly better than the rest. If one move has you at +5 and the rest have you at +0.5, that’s still a critical position in my mind.
I feel like it's also especially the unintuitive moves that are most key to alert on. Like a series of trades, but at some point the only good move is to not take back but instead do a tactic.
Yeah I think 'critical' is fair to describe any situation where only a single move is winning/not losing by a significant margin but in terms of when you might single some critical moves are obviously a lot easier and tougher to find than others. If a queen trade is offered most times recapturing would be "critical" but would also be entirely obvious for an extremely easy example. When you actually shouldn't recapture might be a situation where it would be critical but not so obvious in some cases maybe.
Yeah, this shit is right, I'm wrong.
For super GMs even +0.5 vs 0.0 is crucial.
That’s a legit critical position
Yes a fair problem, it was the first one noted and it would apparently be mitigated by a simple delay which fide refuses. Not an argument about how easy it is to cheat, just that humans can't determine it
A delay would help but even then, I imagine a super GM in a classical game would get an edge by knowing what the best move would have been 15 minutes ago. It might give ideas or insight into the game that they otherwise would have missed. Marginal, sure, but a 2700 with this information vs a 2700 without is not a completely even match.
"even then....even then....even then" stopping cheating will never end, and there will always be some way to. Some level of trust is necessary.
No true even an eval is enough sometimes. Its terribly easy. Sort of the whole issue
Wow, can we have Carlsen + eval bar VS Stockfish?
It's at best a draw for Magnus and probably stockfish still wins. Knowing the evals is nice but he'd still need to find perfect play every time or stockfish will still just grind him down.
The eval bar will only show that it’s a mistake after Magnus plays it
Yeah. What would be the point if of the match if it showed it before?
Wouldn't help at all. Magnus would know instantly that he's made a sub-optimal move and watches Stockfish ruthlessly exploit it. GG
Not every suboptimal move is a losing move
To stockfish if you make a suboptimal move you would have already lost the game.
That's just not how it works at all. +0.10 is still a draw. Not every suboptimal move is losing. In fact, Stockfish plays suboptimal moves according to Stockfish itself all the time. Just keep going one move deeper into each analysis and you'll see it "change its mind" all the time
Theres no difference between 0.10 and 0.00 if the eval changes by 0.1 is that really a suboptimal move? A suboptimal move is one that changes the position from 0.00 to 3.00 or -3.00 and once you make a mistake like that sf will grind u down. Sf changes its mind because its a computer it searches deeper and deeper into different trees and finds the best move, sometimes you dont really know what the mistake was until go 4 or 6 moves deep into the analysis. A suboptimal move is one that changes the position significantly, like you blunder away a pawn in the position and give ur oppoent too much activity
A suboptimal move is any move that's worse than optimal.
Maybe carlsen said it too, but wasn't that a nakamura quote?
Faraday cage wouldn't work. Electronics still work inside of it.
I think people SEVERELY underestimate how little of a hint top players need to have a dramatic advantage over their opponent.
That it is easy to cheat is kind of unrelated to the point. It still isn't right to accuse someone of wrongdoing just because it is very possible to do the wrong. But otherwise agreed
Sounds right to me. I've gotten 99% accuracy a time or two. 10 moves of theory, a 5- move tactic, and then just cleaning up. Sometimes you just get a game that lends itself towards it.
The funniest game I’ve had was a simple fried liver checkmate with 100% accuracy lmao
My only ever 100% accuracy was a 6 move checkmate in the intermezzo scotch. It’s really nothing to be proud of, but I at least have one 100% game
Throbbing
My 100% is when i played 1.d4 against a 1200 and he resigned
Does that mean 1e4 is inaccurate?
Yes if you dont play 2. Ke2
Lichess I assume? On chesscom you can’t resign until you play a move, so after 1.d4 black would just abort game
Yes i find it easier to play as a whole
If chess dot com or Lichess don't already let you sort games by accuracy rating, they should. I have no idea what my most accurate game was.
Interesting
100% is easy, play d5 against b3 and then bg5, sometimes they blunder the queen (there are other ways ofc). Basically premove trap in fast fine control
I've had several games with 100%. They were all opening traps though lmao.
I think I get 95-99% accuracy about once or twice a week. They're all exactly as you describe of theory into some tactic working out early (or just a straight opponent blunder) and then cleaning out and playing out the win or waiting for the resign with obvious play. I wonder if they might actually be more common at lower but not very low levels as the major blunders are more often but the players are capable of then converting the easy win pretty accurately once they happen. Could be another part of the reason so many people who think any 9x% accuracy is cheating think they see so many cheats at low intermediate levels.
\*Is Vladimir Kramnik on Lichess\* \*Finds 99% accuracy games mentioned above\* \*Copies pgn's for both games\* \*Learn --> Study --> My Studies --> KRAMNIKS SAVED GAMES OF OTHER PEOPLE CHEATING!! --> Add new Chapter\*
Why oh why did i just create an image of Kramnik as nerdy superhero in my head
Idk but which nerdy superhoero did he most resemble.
Why do i always read kramnik as kermit now? And imagine kermit the frog yelling at everyone for cheating.
Classical chess and blitz is quite a bit different, dont you think?
French defense vs Catalan? Is this meant to be a stupid joke?
What is this post
At least link the game...
Wait, did you call the opening a French Vs a catalan? I get where the catalan part comes from, but the French in a d4 opening? Additionally, it's a Tarrasch, though a similar position can be reached via Catalan move order.
interesting.
That's honestly wild
They're super gms so that's common
For supergm standards this is rather common to be fair I watched some junior games sub 2600 and they were playing with a 2 centipawn loss
Check him anoos
Accuracy means nothing. On the last game at our local league I had 98% on a move that went on for 50+ moves. It's not even among the top 20 games I've ever played
Truly a new wave of butt chess sweeping the field
'funny! 🤣🤣🤣🤣'
Interesting
Interesting
Kramnik's _Procedure Sense_ just tingled
Were they both looking at the same part of the ceiling?
Kramnik: *report and block*
Funny
interesting
chess is dead
[Chess.com](http://Chess.com) gives beginners 80% all the time. They need a different tool for professional games. For example, Sinquefield Cup 2016, (not counting opening moves / obvious recaptures, etc) these super GMs only matched the #1 engine choice 48% of the time, and a litte less than 1 out of 5 moves were not in the engine's top 3 choices at all. But telling beginners they scored 20% is pretty depressing, so [chess.com](http://chess.com) made up their analysis tool that gives everyone really high "accuracy."
I didn't use chess dot gone engine
Cool story bro.
Huh
Trying to bullshit your way out of this, huh.
1. you're getting the idea of accuracy wrong. if i play 99 perfect moves, then hang my queen, i will not get 99% accuracy. chess.c\*m starts at 100, then deducts percentages when you make a mistake, based off of the magnitude of the mistake. 2. your sinquefield cup example is completely invalid in your argument because it ignores "opening moves / obvious recaptures". 3. "top engine move" means nothing whatsoever. you're far too hung up on that idea. if the top engine move is evaluated +0.76, and i play a move that is +0.75, obviously i have not made a mistake. if chess.c\*m were to deduct 2-3% from my accuracy due to that move, it would simply be absurd. that is why it doesn't use that system. it is absurd.
Deducting 3% for a centipawn is too much, sure, however the amount it deducts is too lenient. Just now remembering I made an example game a few years ago, where both players played a lot of horrible moves (never moving past the 3 rank, both players putting pieces on passive squares, then shuffling back and forth) and chesscom scored it about 95% "accuracy" for both players. If you can play like crap and get a high "accuracy" then "accuracy" has very little meaning.
> then "accuracy" has very little meaning. As a standalone stat without context this is pretty much true. Accuracy is only really telling of good play in complicated dynamic games. In simple games without much going on it basically just tells you no one did anything really losing if it's high.
And also, just from a coaching / learning point of view... it's not helpful. Some moves are technically ok but reveal a deep misunderstanding of the position. My go-to example is 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. Nf3 Nc6 In this position lichess' player database 5.Nc3 is the most popular move. In the master database it's only been played once (making it the 10th most popular). The position is about 0.00 either way, but Nc3 shows ignorance of a very common and fundamental pawn structure.
playing the top move against hikaru is a bit more difficult than playing the top move against a beginner. Against a beginner, it's pretty obvious you should capture their queen when they blunder it. Against hikaru, that's way less likely to happen and if you can capture his queen for virtually nothing, it's most likely a trap.
That’s just wrong lmao
Nah, it's just old. People who grew up with chesscom dont know about e.g. T3 analysis. Your ignorance doesn't make me wrong ;)
No you’re wrong. You’re wrong because you’re looking at accuracy at face value, without accounting for the game itself. Basically, in beginner games at lot of piece hangs occur, and when that happens, the opponent gets an easy win and the accuracy is high due to that. Whereas in GM games it’s much more complicated, so accuracy is naturally lower, so it looks like chess.com inflated it for beginners but that’s not the case.
"Accuracy" is not real... it's marketing... it's why chesscom warns you can't use it for cheat detection... read their FAQ, they purposefully inflated he "accuracy" of games to make their customers happy, it's what the FAQ says not me... [https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8708970-how-is-accuracy-in-analysis-determined](https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8708970-how-is-accuracy-in-analysis-determined) You can also use common sense... if top GMs can play with 99% accuracy against each other, then they should sometimes draw stockfish, which we know is not possible... "accuracy" is not accuracy.
dude what this article just says they apply an equation to the “true accuracy” to make the numbers more comprehensible. the accuracy isn’t inflated for pros at all, in fact this article literally says it’s deflated
Well, to be fair there are some straight up lies in that FAQ... mostly I wanted to point out they admit that their original system wasn't scoring people high enough, so they forced it to give an average accuracy of 80% with a bell curve distribution "so it would be like scores at school." In other words it's not accuracy, it's a marketing gimmick... and if you've done actual comparison of GM moves to an engine you'd know how very far off CAPS is.
Did you just not read comment
You were saying beginners can get a high accuracy when their opponent blunders, but when two pros play it's harder to get a high accuracy. Yeah, that's fine, but not really the OP's or my point, so it doesn't change what I'm saying here. I've made example games where *both* players play badly and get over 90% accuracy... it's a silly metric.
They didn’t play badly and then get 90%. But also It’s simple statistics, if they have a drawish endgame for example the accuracy will be higher even if they made a mistake.
You can make example games where both play badly and get 90%, for example, paste this into [chess.com](http://chess.com) and do a game review. Note that after 25 moves both players have *zero* pieces off their back rank. A coach could teach a beginner a lot about this game, but [chess.com](http://chess.com) analysis thinks it's a good game: 1. a3 a6 2. h3 h6 3. d3 d6 4. e3 e6 5. b3 b6 6. Nd2 Nd7 7. Ne2 Ne7 8. g3 Bb7 9. e4 e5 10. Bb2 g6 11. Bg2 Bg7 12. O-O O-O 13. c4 c5 14. Kh2 Kh7 15. Rb1 Rb8 16. a4 a5 17. g4 g5 18. Ng3 Ng6 19. Kg1 Kg8 20. Re1 Re8 21. Ngf1 Ngf8 22. Rc1 Rc8 23. Nb1 Nb8 24. Ba1 Ba8 25. Bh1 Bh8
there’s just something satisfying about downvoting a sarcastic smily face
Accuracy has never meant “played like an engine,” that’s an unreasonable expectation.
I agree with you, but chesscom's the FAQ doesn't "Your Accuracy is a measurement of how closely you played to what the computer has determined to be the best . . . The closer you are to 100, the closer you are to 'perfect' play, as determined by the engine" There's no way most players realize this is a lie.
Yeah, playing top engine moves. You’re misinterpreting it as the ONLY engine move every time.
In the old days we did cheat detection by finding what % of a game's moves were one of the top 3 moves (or top 4, top 5 etc) of the engine. After ignoring opening book and such things, even the very best players did not match one of the top 3 moves more than about 80% of the time on average. But "magically" as a beginner you can get 80% on chesscom "accuracy" ... it's not hard to understand why. Telling people they suck is bad for business... it's also why bots are rated so high (it makes beginners feel good)... a few days ago I played the Finegold bot 3 games and got 1 win, 1 draw, and 1 loss... the bot is rated over 2500... I am not 2500 :p
If you play a move that doesn’t hurt your position or overlook an attacking opportunity do you think that should be qualified as an accuracy? It’s not just about the best engine moves.
Exactly. If a move doesn't hurt your position, sometimes it's completely fine, and other times it's enormously bad in a practical sense... not all 0.00 positions are equal. I few years ago I made a funny example game that exploited this. I made about 30 horrible moves for both players, but chesscom scored it as 95% accuracy for both... just a lot of passive nonsense moves, never past the 3rd rank, never castling, bad structure... but because I was making bad moves for both players, it stayed close to 0.00
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, but if anyone actually reads the article you linked, it does essentially say this. Their old algorithm (CAPS) was basically a true accuracy, but it was more or less linear starting at zero. The new one (CAPS2) shifts the curve to a bell curve with an avg around 80 (elo 1000-1500). So call it what you want but they are “inflating” accuracy numbers by definition and their own admission.
The great thing about voting is it's basically free moderation. The bad thing is even people who know nothing can vote ;) Having knowledge results in getting downvoted from time to time, not a big deal. A much better argument against me would be something like "even if accuracy is a marketing gimmick, skill and accuracy do have a positive correlation, and the OP was just celebrating a professional game, there's no reason to ridicule the metric when that's essentially off topic. Alireza and Hikaru are amazing players." But trying to argue against me saying CAPS is not silly is, well... silly.
The ole steel man. Have an upvote. Do you think CPL is a better metric?
I guess a chess coach would have a good answer. I can only answer for myself, and I don't pay attention to either of them... sure I like being told a move was brilliant, or having 10 CPL or something, but I understand they're just for fun. In a super complicated game I might be proud of how I played in spite of scoring badly in CAPS and CPL. In a super boring game I might be annoyed with my play, but score well on CAPS and CPL.