"Not me" didn't play in the spirit of the KG and lost. 4...h5 made absolutely no sense to me. He seems to have wanted to start a pawn storm on my kingside. His play was lousy, and my play was only better than his. I think he put too much faith in ratings. Ratings don't win games; better moves and plans with fewer mistakes win games.
First Time
Sort:
well his f6 was just terrible.
...f6 is always terrible in the KG.
What would have been even awesomer is if you had crushed him with Nxe5 after he played nd4.
Yeah, that's the one move I most regretted missing. Thats why I said I played loosely.
He played very poorly. The accusation is a joke!
People will accuse others of cheating, but when I look at their profile they've played 10,000+ games and half of them are losses...I'm like, "Do you accuse everybody who beats you of cheating"??
I suggested he computer analyze the game - for an objective appraisal of our moves. From his statements, I really believe that he wasn't disconcerted by losing as much as he seemed to feel that by having a rating advantage of 100+ pts., losing to me wasn't even possible (even though, it showed clearly below that I had, in fact, beaten him two to one in the past). Go figure.
Instead of a beer?
There was a night after band practise when I was heavy into my cups and my smoke and I guess I went online and played a few games. When I came to the next day I had a vague memory of playing, but I couldn't remember how I did. When I logged on, some kid had left a message on my page saying watch out for this guy; he turns his computer on after he starts losing. After laughing for a while, I went to the archive and checked the games. We had played twice, and the first game I won when I sacced a piece on f3 (totally unsound, BTW, and he resigned in a winning position), the second was a Scotch Gambit that I won in like 10 moves 'cause this guy didn't know basic theory. I had to leave a message on his page that went something like yo, you're too funny; I'm still laughing--thanks for the message. I still get chuckles from it every now and then; I figure he must have some really, really weak computers where he lives.
When you are accused of cheating, take it as a compliment.
Rob, maybe you should play with a buzz on more often.
When people used to get to 2,000 they would automatically get a message about "not cheating" from the staff. I don't know if this is still the case.
batgirl wrote:
Rob, maybe you should play with a buzz on more often.
Sarah, it's the only way I play online. Without an opponent physically sitting across from me, I just get bored out of my mind--so I get blitzed out of my mind instead, then play blitz. It kills my rating (along with some whimpering brain cells), but, that's rock&roll.
The liver? The brain cells are the ones getting their butts kicked; the liver can sink or swim, just like the rest of me. Thanks for the concern, anyway. Or at least my liver does (the brain says, "Help me! Help me!" but I am in control). 
PS--My USCF quick rating is 2057, if that makes you feel better--that's what I play like when I'm focused and sober. I'm surprised that it's only a negative 500 point difference--I feel it should be more.
I have found I do better with Booze as it kills my trepedations and yet lets me think more clearly as it slows my brain down.
Cheating accusations are sometimes strange. Once my opponent accused me of cheating and resigned in protest.
The irony is
When I later analysed the game, my computer gave me a significant lead at the time she resigned, but no matter what my next move, it predicted that I was lost (strange in itself, but computers aren't always right), and
Two months later, my opponent's account was closed for cheating.
I guess that during our game, her computer told her I was ahead, she assumed that since she was cheating, I must be cheating, and she resigned in a huff.
I've read many threads where people talk about having been accused of cheating during a game. I can't remember ever having been accused of cheating - which may say something about the quality of my play.
But yesterday a guy did accuse me... which I found silly considering the loose way I was conducting the game and I thought the incident may prove entertaining.
Below is the game, followed by our dialogue (which only began after my last move) and my comments on our dialogue.
The Game:
The Dialogue:
not me: strange!!!
me: very
(I thought he meant how the game had progressed and the position on the board)
not me: what is doing COMPUTER!
me: what do you mean?
(He hadn't moved in 10-20 secends or so, and I thought he meant his game was frozen. I was going to offer a draw in that case.)
not me: 1529?
me: and?
(now he had my attention.... under the board is his/my game history together. It showed we had played 3 previous games in which I played Black in each game and I had beaten his 2 of those games... but only now he's surprised at losing? Go figure.)
not me: CHEATING
me: run an analysis
(the site lets you run an instant computer analyse. I don't know what it's worth but It will at least show blunders and missed chances.)
not me: IMPOSSIBLE PERFORMANCE FOR A ELO1500
me: or are you just unbeatable?
not me: NO NEED
(I think he's responding to my suggestion to run an anlaysis.)
not me: 4-1 !!!!!!!!!!!!
(I didn't understand what that meant. He might have meant 3-1, our history.)
not me: TIME
not me: 3:00
(I had 2:59 on my clock and he had maybe :30, which means I was moving a lot faster than he was. He let his time run out when mate looked imminent)
not me: HOW?>