98.0 accuracy 900 rating player

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/13387982719

Clean up your service please

If you're playing like this it's actually very difficult to do less than 98%

Please refrain from ad hominem and address my complaint directly

Another one. 

https://www.chess.com/game/live/13390884997

Guy throwing games in the 900 rank so he can grief beginners.

Who would pay for this service? It has no integrity

There's no ad hominem. The accuracy of your opponent has a direct correlation with the way you play..

The service has no integrity, nothing is ever done about the beginner chess elos, there are hundreds of people on their with an engine open in the other window and reports are just ignored

Being down 13 points of material lets you have 98 accuracy? What in the world...

good thread op

Great job on not addressing anything I have said.

I'm more suspicious of cheaters than most. This doesn't look much like cheating. For example it kept suggesting he move the knight out but he didn't.  I don't see unbroken strings of best-moves, and you made errors up to and including blundering a queen. What I don't understand is how his play was rated at 98.4 accuracy when he had so many moves that weren't best moves. I guess it counts the thumbs up as still accurate. But to me this looks just like a good game by a 950. It happens.

I believe you are overreacting.

You are entitled

To your own opinion

We have addressed what you said continually. Try thinking about people's comments before responding. The way you played, an engine wasn't really needed. The person didn't play like an engine. Here is the honest truth: You played terribly and the best moves were easy to find.

He was able to make so many good moves because you made so many bad moves

It's called sandbagging. Popular in golf. The website addresses it in fair play section.

I would agree that your competitor did not play like a 900.  H5 with tension between the dark squared bishops is hardly a beginner move.  With that said, I also agree that a computer was not needed here.  "Sandbagging?" Perhaps.  

After 16.Qxb7, only a cheater using the most advanced hardware and software could have come up with 16...Qxb7!!! pocketing a free queen.

Other than white playing a bad game, not sure what you're complaining about.