amazing combination

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

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.

Maybe he was intending 24...Bb2, and then saw the nifty queen sac. Both look crushing at a glance and are not outside the realm of intuition.

I'm not saying it's easy. Of course this is an amazing combination and probably most of the time I would miss it in a blitz game but then there could be the one random game where I would actually see it. In short one game doesn't prove anything. And even suggesting that a player might have been cheating casts a nasty shadow(especially as the username is visible here) - it's a very serious accusation. Even if I had  my doubts, I wouldn't make this kind of suggestions without very serious evidence.

One more thing - I wouldn't stare too much to tbischels opponents rating. I am personaly solid 2000+ ELO player in otb-chess, have tactics trainer rating around 2600 here and solid 2000+ rapid ratings in ICC yet my blitz ratings in ICC vary quite a lot and might occasionaly hit as low as 1600. Yes, I suck at blitz but I might still occasionaly play some good moves, good games even - It's just that I too often miss the simple things when short on time (or loose on time). And you know what, I've also occasionaly seen some FMs with blitz ratings in ICC clearly below 2000. So, I don't think that blitz rating is a good indicator of persons chess skill.

Here is a link to the Chess.com computer analysis of the position (rated 2500)... it identifies a couple mistakes by black in the game.  I think that lends more support to the notion that my opponent wasn't cheating.

"And even suggesting that a player might have been cheating casts a nasty shadow(especially as the username is visible here) - it's a very serious accusation. Even if I had  my doubts, I wouldn't make this kind of suggestions without very serious evidence"

I strongly disagree. I think that is very, very different from an outright accusation.

Personally, I think you're trying to walk a very fine line here, and tonydal already crossed it with not 1, not 2, but 3 snide remarks (comments 2, 5, 7).

Just imagine:  "You seem to be going to the bathroom an awful lot."  "What, I never accused anyone of cheating!"  "I'm just saying..."

'Just imagine:  "You seem to be going to the bathroom an awful lot."  "What, I never accused anyone of cheating!"  "I'm just saying..."'

You must be referring to the topalov-kramnik issue? Now, I don't know anything detailed about the cricumstances there but indeed if I noticed someone going to the bathroom a lot (like 3-4 times a game would be pretty rediculous unless he had a medical problem) I may just mention it out of genuine curisosity, even if I doubt that the person is cheating but the fact that he went so much is bothering me. Your example in fact doesn't seem to be an accusation to me.

For the record, I find it (and had always found it) most likely that he didn't cheat but found it on intuition. Still, it's just a tad suspicious, just a tad.

I didn't think Chess.com had a public API for allowing computer programs to play... the average cheater probably cheats by making a move in both their program and the blitz window back and forth... When you are talking about a short blitz game (like this one), there really isn't enough time to do that effectively.  Thats part of the reason I even play fast chess at all!  I think in general for fast chess, we should give our opponents the benefit of the doubt.  Cheating will be revealed in the entire body of work of a player... none of the signs of cheating I see here.  This was just a great combination.