Rating of Performance on Game Analyses

@LDog11 Thanks for the contribution, as it is nice to see someone actually attempt to figure out how to institute my idea rather than just criticize it.

@Toadofsky I am not a coder, nor am I a mathematician. I noticed that it was a feature already present in tournaments and thought it could be beneficial in analyses of games as well, with not too many modifications to the already-functional formula. You don't have to mock me.

@MessyAnswer #6 I figured that how it worked in tournaments relied on multiple games being played. But like LDog11 made an effort to find out, I felt that there were surely ways to more-or-less accurately achieve the same end with only one game, based on inaccuracies, mistakes, and blunders. It wouldn't have to be totally precise to be helpful.

@Asym I assure you my criticism is impersonal and many of the suggestions in this forum are claimed to be simple.

There have been numerous research projects on the subject of intrinsic performance rating, most notably by Prof. Ken Regan:
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/RMH11b.pdf

Note that everyone has a different understanding of "quality" of chess moves; and that ACPL increases (without decrease of "quality") in complex positions:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=25375

Also note that time pressure is a factor in blitz and faster games, so often the most pragmatic move may not be the engine's favorite move. It is important to strike a balance between selecting an optimal move and conserving time for the remainder of the game; playing a non-engine favorite move quickly may or may not be a better move than playing an engine move slowly.

Also note that playing the engine's favorite move is less important when you already have a "winning" advantage (or are dead lost). I see that ideas in this thread are already starting to accommodate that, although the "winning" threshold depends on your middlegame and endgame skill and varies from player to player; what's a skillful liquidation for an endgame prodigy may be a blunder for an endgame novice.

This has been suggested before and I don't understand at all how it is believed to be trivial:
http://en.lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/please-implement-this-intrinsic-performance-ratings?page=1

#1
Try to make a error in a King vs King endgame ;-)
(or an equal endgame with opposite colored bishops only)
It is very difficult to play errors in simple positions, but easy to blunder in a very sharp position.
So at least you also need a game complexity value, but there is no cheap way to calculate game complexity.
A rating performance only by acpl is useless, even acpl is sometimes tricky!
en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/average-centipawn-loss

What is my game performance on game 1 and game 2
(played in a tournament in a row))
en.lichess.org/YQYjmgOa/white
en.lichess.org/UZpoNBOJ/white
;-)