First Time accused of cheating!

After 8.0-0. I would have been tempted to play Qf6. There's a number of moves by white that lead directly to mate with black playing Ne2

First time? Glad your cherry got popped there. When I play a really good game, there will always be some poor sport poo poo head somewhere who'll accuse of cheating. I just try to consider it a compliment

13... Rxd1#

Never mind, you did not.

My game with DumpTrump (see post directly above and my earlier post number 23) after which he accused me of using an engine. Note that he resigns after 50. Qc7+. While I was actually quite proud of the way I played this tactically rich game, I'm sure that an engine would find plenty of errors in my play. Some players, it seems, can't admit that they have played s%@t and have to blame their opponents. If anyone has an engine or knows how to run it through the chess.com engine to find my errors, I'd be interested and grateful to see what they were.

Karpark, see that little magnifying glass icon under the game you posted?

@ Kingfisher. Thanks for trying to help but I can't see how that works. When I click on it, I find the Analysis Board, Game Editor and so on, but not chess.com's computer analysis, which I do see at the end of games that are played using chess.com online and live game play. Bear in mind that this is not a game that was played on chess.com.

Am I being dense? Somehow I feel that you might be my spirit helper trying to assist me, as my name given by our village shaman in Nicaragua when I was young was krasku, which is Miskitu for 'kingfisher', but somehow you can't reach me. Any further pointers anyone towards how to get the chess.com computer to analyze this game?

I might plan more than four or five moves ahead, David, if they were forced moves, or obvious moves; even more so with CC or classical chess if I am able to get my head round the position I'm in. Depends completely on the position and just how complex it is. Sometimes in straightforward endgames one can see a lot further than ten moves, even OTB. I take your point though that some players seem absolutely gobsmacked if you demonstrate that you are able execute a tactical idea that is more than two moves deep. I'm beginning to think this is particularly the case on those sites without rating systems, where you are almost exclusively pitted against both (a) self-confessed weak players and (b) weak players who think they are strong because they beat a lot of players in category (a) which the site throws out to them as random opponents but have never played anyone who is a genuinely strong player (compared to them). It is those players in category (b) who I think would most likely accuse you of cheating. Those in category (a) probably don't even know about Stockfish, Komodo and the like, or even care. At least here decent players can generally find opponents of their own strength and even stronger easily enough, most of whom have enough understanding of the game to see, I think, that this kind of cheating is in fact quite rare.