Was my opponent using a computer?

All I do here are the forums. Chess.com sucks. 

So you're going for a lose lose situation? 

I really don't understand

I don't really understand what you really don't understand. Help us so we can help you!

If mammary serves right, automods don't like the mention of tits or tats. 

98+% on moves is very high for an average player.  65+% to maybe 80% is what a 1300-1500 elo player might typically get.  Your opponent likely sought advice from the "oracle" on at least certain key moves which had the player in question flummoxed.

CdotC, I must say, is very good at shutting such "oracle" seeking players down without prejudice.  The issue is that it takes time, and several games before the smoking gunn has emitted enough stinch for a determination to be made.  One game is not enough.

hey wanna play

Definitely he was. You were too.

its very shocking to see that there were 0 blunder 0 mistakes i guess both may be us!ng

i suggest u too close this 

98% accuracy is not hard to do against weak opponents.

Result from a survey about this:
The survey about chess ****** in online chess games is now completed. 630 people answered the survey over the last four days. They are from the forums at chess.com, chess forum at reddit, and the forum at lichesss.org. Here is the link to the result:
docs.google.com/document/d/1TWOdepRQ4lou8v5V_1WVxUMagtPCR3dw3I2i8k36C1A/edit?usp=sharing

Result:
Question 1: During the last 12 months, have you ***** in online chess by using computer assistance? 15,7 % answered yes.
Question 2: Have you ever ***** in online chess games once or more by using computer assistance? 23,1 % answered yes.

Some of them might have done it once or twice and then regretted it and they wouldn't do it again. And how do we judge whether a "yes" or a "no" is more likely to answer and also, were they telling the truth?

Anonymous self-reporting is generally more accurate than open self-reporting.  Seeing as I don't own a chess engine I can safely answer "no" but I figure that lack of chess engine ownership puts me in a very small minority.  My chess books are packed away (along with my other thousands of books - spousal allergies) and I never went to the expense of getting on-line copies, so I can also answer "no" to book assistance. (well, I do have rulebooks readily available but they are not what the question is about and they cannot provide useful assistance in analyzing during a game).  I have used a chess program during an over-the-board game but it was only a pairing program for the tournament I was working on (entering results) and not a chess engine.

Well over a decade ago I was playing in a different on-line venue and one of the observers made the claim that one of the players was using a chess engine, upsetting my opponent.  Interestingly enough that claim was made after I had made a quick move that was a rook-losing blunder and my opponent missed it. With both players make such a significant oversight, that readily branded the commenter as not just a troll, but branded him as a weak and clueless troll.  Once I pointed that out my opponent settled down and we continued the game while ignoring mister clueless.

While working chess tournaments I've found that the general rule of thumb is that more than 99% of the claims of assistance are made in error.  Also, when a claim is valid (and was sought - not just a clueless kibitzer interfering in a game) then ejection from the tournament is quite common with the players sometimes ending up banned from future competition.

As white I would have played 15. Rad1 overloading the defence of the d-pawn.
Of course I realised after seeing 15. g3, ah he is stopping Qf4, g5, g4.
As black (I used to play the Caro when I took a few beatings with 1. ... c5) I would be keen to lose the queens, exchange in the centre and run with B v N.
At 20. ... Rd5 for me. 

If he was using an engine, surely he would have played 40. c6 over 40. Rxa6 as black could not stop the pawn with the bishop.