Wow, what a combination to find in such a short game.

hey! a fellow saemish player...one thing i would like to mention about the opening...when black plays Re8 early, its usually best to not play Bh6, since of course he has Bh8 and your bishop isnt usually ready to do anything useful from h6...its better controlling the d square...

Also its often good to play g4 a little earlier, because in many lines black can do annoying things to your dark squares with a Nh5 manouver.

I also like to wait a long time before commiting the kside knight :) i agree with you its a very interesting way to play and probably good

When you played Bd3 g4 still seemed like the obvious move...which allows your queen immediate access to h2 (a big reason i liek the idea of waiting to devleop the kside knight)

 white really does want to play g4 almost always in the saemish, even more than h4..it also clamps down on the f5 square which is important source of black counterplay...indeed if black plays very well the saemish becomes more of a containment strategy than a pawn storm attack

the combination was strong, but I could imagine how black might accidentally find it, without actually calculating, jsut going on instinct. It involves a lot of very common thematic ideas in this position...but i wouldnt expect him to be 1735 and have such good instinct and understanding of the opening.

Very pretty - I could perhaps unearth it in a CC, but not in a blitz (rating of a short-time member has got no significance).

Your friend must have a superfast brain or a well-developed chess intuition!

There is a possibility that I would have found that. It's pretty unlikely though. I don't think  my intuition is that good and my calculation is definately not that good. A very nice mate.

Why the skepticism? The guy's got a 1736 rating, so if he's using an engine he should think about getting a refund.

I mean, after all, it's a 3-minute blitz game. Not everyone likes playing boring drawish chess; amateurs especially are willing to take speculative risks and see if they pay off.

And to be honest, while I may not have calculated the entire variation (and I'd bet Black didn't exactly see everything to the end either) I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that attacking White's king with 5 pieces (Queen, 2 Rooks, Knight, and Bishop) when it's defended by maybe 2 pieces (Queen and Knight) will probably end well.

I'm all for calling out engine use, but I think this may be an example of jumping to conclusions.

Edit: Just checked the opponent's stats: he or she has lost 75 more games than he or she has won. It's a shame that an unaccomplished player can't uncork the most brilliant combination of their career without getting accused of software assistance. It almost makes me hope I never play a brilliant move on chess.com so I don't have to deal with the accusations.

I don't think he was using a computer... I believe he lost the very next game against another opponent.

I don't see why it should be impossible to find this combination pretty fast without computer assistance. Nxe4 unleashing the full powers of the bishop is a kind of move you always have to watchout in these positions and the idea to sacrifice in a2 to enter in c2 with check is not that untypical either. True, here black makes quite heavy sacrifice but he only needs to calculate as far as Rxe2 when he has a quaranteed draw as a safety net and can start to look out for more.

Amazing combinations are not indicative of computer assistance imo. It's quite possible to spot combinations quickly if they do not require calculating too many long lines. The really suspectible thing would be if someone is able to play many bliz games without making any easy (this is of course a relative term) tactical mistakes at all. I think this is also one of the main things servers like ICC or Playchess monitor.

What other evidence have you looked at to conclude that Temuri777 is cheating? Maybe I'm completely wrong and you've actually been closely examining his games, but if you haven't, then I think it's a little irresponsible to make these sorts of accusations based on 1 really good move.

Look, I get it. You're a titled player, and that means you respect the game, and you've done it the right way: you've worked your tail off to get where you are, and nothing peeves you more than people who take the lazy way out and disrespect the game (I mean hell, what's the point of playing with a computer? What do you accomplish? THAT'S NOT EVEN CHESS!!!! Pisses me off too). I'm with you on that point. 

Furthermore, as a titled player, that means when it comes to chess, you know what you're talking about. I know that I for one listen when you offer your insight and analysis on games that have been posted, or when you offer advice on strategy generally.

But because your opinions are extremely influential, I think that brings on an increased responsibility to be careful with your accusations. If you have other evidence (for example, if this player already has a reputation for software assistance that the rest of us are unaware of), then maybe you could say that.

Are there cheaters on chess.com? Of course. Should we be trying to get rid of them? No doubt. But I feel that, without something more, cynicism and paranoia shouldn't win the day over the benefit of the doubt. 

Actually, now I'm starting to see some possibilities that he may have been cheating. I mean it's a 3 minute game, so that precision is rare. He may or may not have been cheating, that's all I'm gonna say. And he may have only used the engine for a part where he was having a hard time on, that's also possible.

He did lose his next game (according to an earlier poster on this thread) though.

@ Elubas and Tony:

I'm not arguing that this person definitely didn't cheat because I have no idea. What I am arguing is sort of 2 points: 1. It's also possible this person just found a great move, or (my personal guess) that they went for a speculative sacrifice that looked promising since it was 5 pieces attacking the King defended by 2 White pieces; and 2. I just think it's unfair to assume that if someone like me stumbles upon a great move, the presumption is I must be cheating. I mean, come on. A blind squirrel finding a nut and all that. 

Again, maybe he cheated, maybe he didn't. All I'm saying is, if you don't have any evidence other than 1 great move, why not give us lower-rated players the benefit of the doubt? Sure, sub 2000's like me aren't going to find moves like this very often, but we're not completely mentally incapable, either. We're actually fairly decent at chess.

"Again, maybe he cheated, maybe he didn't. All I'm saying is, if you don't have any evidence other than 1 great move, why not give us lower-rated players the benefit of the doubt? Sure, sub 2000's like me aren't going to find moves like this very often, but we're not completely mentally incapable, either. We're actually fairly decent at chess."

I'm sure you are. If it was not a 3 minute game there would not be nearly as much suspicion. I'm just saying he might have been cheating, while you say I'm accusing him of cheating, which I'm not.

Eh.  From an intuition standpoint I don't think the sac's that challenging.  White's attack looks like it's gonna break through first, and if that happens black loses.  If black's correctly analyzed the position as one where he's losing, then he doesn't need to calculate all the way through the sacrifice, he just needs to know if he doesn't play it he's probably gonna lose, so why not?

I was rather suprised by 24... Qxa2+ though.   I was expecting Bb2, although after having done a bit more analysis I'm pretty sure that loses actually :p.