Philosophical Chess Question

I have a philosophical question. I am playing the game below and it is a current game so I don't want any comments about the game but it illustrates the question and the dilemma.

I am looking at the Knight sacrifice and have spent several hours analyzing.

I think the sacrifice is good but it is too complicated to verify even if I spent another several hours to justify.

I am not afraid to make the move except here is the real question.

If I make this move and it turns out to be good am I likely to be turned in for cheating?

There are other good moves, I kinda like this one but don't want people to think I cheat,

Worse yet I don't want Chess.com the think that.

Once again, please only speak to the philosophical aspects of this.

Philosophically speaking, chess dot com are just people, so I would not consider it worse, but the same if they suspect you of cheating. You would be more wise to play the game and pose this question after. If you are not cheating you are not cheating. 

There is really not much point in playing here if you allow fear of how you'll be perceived to dictate your moves.  You'll learn more and enjoy the game more if you play your intuitive sacrifice.

Also, no realistic anti-cheating algorithm will trigger on a single move; in general they should not trigger even on a single game.

I do understand your question. I sometimes played a realy, realy good game and thought: but what if it's so good that I'm accused of cheating? But this has never happened and the computer analysis after the game always showed more moments for improvement. Simply play your besr. Always.

Here in Alabama we say, "Play hard or go home".

Thanks, I appreciate all your comments and insights.

So I made the Knight sac and below are the results.

From the post game computer, the Knight sac is a blunder. White has 11. Qxg7+ which both I and my opponent over looked. The resulting position would have been about +1. After White misses 11. Qxg7 computer says -1 and White made a decisive blunder shortly thereafter.

It was a fun position to analyze.

Good game Walt !!

Hence why OTB always manages to remain top of the line, unless of course, your water bottle is equipped with some deep learning program.

I thought JustADude was in Iowa!
Also, it is interesting to me because just this morning in Machine Learning course I am looking at a prediction system that predicts a property and then the prediction result is tallied against the reality (a more trusted measurement, or part of the known data set such as a training set or a cross-validation set from trusted data).  So there are false positives (misses, false negatives) and true positives and true negatives and false positives (impostors or type I errors). 
But my first solution is to simply make an economic decision by estimating a) the likelihood of the false positive (being caught - here i assume you aren't and in the text you certainly aren't!) and b) the cost of the false positive and c) the probabilities & costs of the sac resulting in a win, draw, or loss.  And then the economic theory is to just maximize the expected value of making the sac vs. not making the sac. 

But of course it is difficult to estimate the costs and probabilities well.  It would be worth it for a big corporation to research those values but for a chess game obviously it is less than a human would do. It seems like a human problem, maybe perfectionism or obsession.

I do remember I have played exactly 1 real tournament here, daily chess, about 3 days, possibly with this club? but not with that many players. And I made a huge effort in my games to analyze much more carefully than usual, using the analysis tool on the site, but keeping a lot of notes on each move and various lines. So, like postal chess really should be.  And after I won the last round the player I'd beaten in the last round seemed pretty suspicious of my credentials. So I just explained that I had spent a lot of time analyzing, and it was OK.  The cost was low that time.  I agree that the people on the site are humans! 
Besides this small contribution to possible understanding, I think the other comments are also true.