Fall for a trap, report for "cheating"?

I just played a wonderful Fried Liver Attack gambit, where my opponent clearly had not studied it enough.

5... Nxd5 is generally considered the weaker and riskier move. The correct move is Na5 (which is quite hard for a beginner to see, who hasn't studied this opening).

6. Nxf7 is a very risky gambit, giving up the night for a pawn and an exposed king. Engines do not consider it catastrophic for white, but not be absolutely best move either.

7... Ke6 is, incidentally, the best move, even though it doesn't look like it. Most engines consider this position approximately equal, regardless of the completely exposed king. However, this is extremely difficult for white to convert, or even maintain, due to the sacrificed knight.

8... Nd4 is a very bad mistake, and where this player clearly hasn't studied this opening enough. (The correct move is Nb4, or alternatively the tiny bit weaker Ne7. After either one, especially the former, it's very difficult for white to continue. It becomes really complicated.)

I myself have never encountered this mistake before, so had to think for a while, on how to punish. Bxd5+ seemed like an obvious move, so I did it relatively quickly. 9...Ke7 most definitely looked like a huge, huge mistake (because Qf7 looks devastating). The rather weak player I am, I had to actually read this for quite a while before I saw the checkmate, but I finally saw it (even though in retrospect it should have been much easier to spot).

Anyways, after the game ended, this conversation ensued in the chat:

Him: ?
jajaja
reported

Me: Reported for what?

Him: for what?
bye, shut up

Me: What are you talking about?

Him: 1167 points
yes yes yes

Me: So?
You have never studied the fried liver attack?

He left. It appeared to me that he felt salty for having fell for a trap he had never seen nor studied before, and assumed that I was cheating with an engine.

Pity that so many near beginners have so much of their ego invested in their games.  As you wrote, this is a well known sequence that is often the first "theory" that a beginner studies.  To accuse someone of using an engine here is just silly.

@OP there's nothing wrong here on your side obviously. If anything, very strong positional play is scrutinized more often when it comes to a cheating claim. This is obviously an opening gambit that stood the test of time and you punished poor defense. I wouldn't be surprised if your opponent gets a suspension for libeling.

I just played a 3-minute unrated game against someone rated 1750 (I have a rating of 1143 for that time control, which might be a bit low due to some recent sandbaggers, but probably not a lot off).

I made a huge blunder at move 21 (which I saw half a second too late), but he didn't see it (which I honestly find strange for a 1750 rated blitz player). Otherwise I was really in the zone.

On the last moves he sent the messages "liar" and "reported".

I don't really know what happened. I am quite happy with my performance (other than that one huge blunder, which he didn't see, even though it looks quite obvious), but I don't think I played that strong. If anything, he played really weak for a 1750 blitz-rated player. Usually I lose even to 1300-rated players (at those time controls).

Well, I suppose you be the judge.

21.Bxe5 wasn't a blunder as after 21...Nxe5 22.f4 attacks the Knight which is pinned to an undefended Rook (and back rank mate even). It's more probable he didn't like this continuation.

Either way I don't understand these accusations. You really must be quite the sore loser to have your ego struck so much you'll accuse the other party of cheating even though there's no one else to be angry with but themselves.

And frankly I'd consider that a compliment, they'd basically be saying I'm as good as a computer.

Doesn't 21... Rxe5 work?

22. Rxe5 Nxe5 23. Re1 and if N moves 24. Re8 and mate

Probably Black saw cjxchess17's line and from that jumped to the conclusion of cheating ("What 1100-player would see that line?").  But of course that's groundless, and Black should be repremanded for the unfair accusation.

It appears that I made a quite strong move by accident. I honestly thought I was just losing the bishop, and that my opponent for some reason just didn't see it.

I didn't say white is losing after Nb4. I said that the game becomes very complicated for white (because of the disadvantage of the sacrificed knight.)

1700+ do terrible mistakes in blitz, that is why your opponent is 1700+.

Oh wait, 2000+ do terrible mistakes too! (personal experience, true story)  

I just played a 3|2 game against a 1801-rated player, and I crushed him. I honestly have no idea what's going on here.

He disabled the chat automatically at the start of the game. If he hadn't, I wouldn't be surprised if I had been once again suspected of cheating or sandbagging. But I'm not. I don't know why I'm winning these games today.

Although prior to that I played a 5-minute game against a 1558-rated player, which I lost due to easy mistakes. So it's not like I have suddenly become a super-genius.

Sometimes opponents are idiots.

after a bughouse game which i had smothered mate my opponent said u are fck stupid.

did you check how many games he has played so far? new members can also start at 1800, if they say they're advanced. maybe you just played against a Dunning-Kruger-Kid.