After this game I was accused of cheating!

Nice game Kupov. It seems to me, no case of cheating but simply a game well played in a straightforward and logical manner, where black commits error ...perhaps shortly after his "book" runs out, and is punished for it. Before considering a matter of cheating, it best be noted that black erred a second time in not playing 24...Nxc8 to retain his remaining material and prevent the Qb5 play against the Nb6. (And in corr play, two major errors is Supposed to = Loss) Then he is 'only' down an Exchange, with the 2-Bishops with somewhat open center to play against the Rook in partial compensation.

***

(Actually I would normally opt for 23...Nxc8 to keep both WT Rooks on, so as to maximize the potential of BL's Bishop pair by providing a second Target-Rook. But in this case BL's own Rook then appears so passive, since an ...f5 push to use the Rook where it stands is not really feasible since it just opens up WT's strong center pressure via the K-file, that perhaps better to trade one off!?)

***

Per the above thoughts, it needs considered whether perhaps the move 22.e5 might not be even stronger or equal (to 22.Ba6), opening the K-file and bringing all forces to bear upon the BL K-side with initiative. Perhaps even preceded by 22.Rcd1 or Rxc8  to preserve material & increase center file pressure in the first case, or at least maintain the Re1 upon that square in the second case. And in the first case (Rcd1), BL must still expend a tempo to meet the unplayed threat of Ba6, and in the second case (Rxc8) as well unless he wishes to give up the c-file by other than a 23...Rxc8 recapture. 

Without indepth analysis, I got the Impression those lines are certainly worth a strong Look At ... tho I suspect in the final result, it may come out to be a case of style. Whether one would rather play the material plus endgame, or pursue an attacking middle game.  I wonder what Engine #2 would think of it?! It seems to be a pretty quiet fellow . What were your thoughts on it?

}8-)

Whew, thanks for the analysis!

i dont understand how you can have a slightly higher live rating than me and yet i have a 500+ rating over you in turn based! If anything the rating should be higher in turn based no? Seems to be the case in most peoples accounts ive seen and if not pretty close

lol I have a very simple explanation for that. I only spend 10-15 seconds per move in turn based chess and I am totally unable to keep track of my ideas in all my different games, I also lose interest.

I am simply a bad CC player, but I assume that if I really put my mind into a few games I could be 1800-1950 or so CC.

This is what I found when I tested it:

16. b3: 2nd choice; easy human move to kick the knight and prepare development of the dark squared bishop. 

17. Bb2: 2rd choice; continuing with your plan after b3. 

18. Rc1: 1st choice; developing with tempo before retaking pawn. Smart play.

19. Bxd4: 4th choice; retaking the pawn

20. Ng3: 1st choice; typical in closed Ruy's, the reason you played Nbd2-f1. 

21. Qe2: 4th choice; targeting blacks b-pawn and threatening to win it, developing your Queen and connecting your rooks. 

22. Ba6: 1st choice; wins the exchange.

23. Bxc8: 1st choice; wins the exchange.

24. Rxc8: 2nd choice; exchanging.

25. Qb5: 2nc choice; threatening knight and black's pawn's.

From what I've seen, you just played smart logical chess, though not definitely not computer chess.

I never intended for this to be a discussion about whether or not I cheated during the game (I didn't). It was just a nifty game I wanted to showcase after I happened to be accused of cheating.

What exactly do you mean by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice etc? Is it simply the 4th, 3rd, 2nd or 1st move the computer would play in the game?

What program are you using? It sounds good for analysis.

I have Glaurung 2.2 which I loaded into Sigma Chess (probably best free option out there for mac users). I just set it to analyze 8-variations and recorded where your move came in when it reached a certain ply. So by 1st, 2nd...etc, it means that the engine ranked (by positional evaluation) that move as the 2nd strongest...etc.

And in no way was I intending to say you cheated. I was just trying to show that even if your move's are ranked high, it really isn't suspicious unless the justification of that ranking is suspicious. All your moves were logical, human moves, yet strong moves. Nevertheless, congrats on your win. 

Is Glaurung 2.2 available for PC users as well?

Nevermind let me just google this. :P

http://www.glaurungchess.com/

:O insane game

Only move that looked like an engine to me was Ng3

add Kupov to the list of cheaters! gotta hate this cheaters they are all over the place!

Bxf6 is a killer move though, threatening mate he he does not act quite. Black will either be down further positionally with ruined pawn structure on the king side, or he loses one of his knights. I think this is an absolute win for white.

Rook E1 is not an error, it's very playable.

D4 is another option.

Looks like your opponent used an inferior "computer" to yours. And obviously your eyesight is better than his!

 I presume we're actually talking about move 7 in this game, but you are correct, in fact Re1 is the most often played move in that position. Richieandoprah may mean that Re1 is now played out and d4 is the best way to try for the win but to say it's an error is wrong imho. 

I know, but I don't like D4 as much.

The skewer in the game was when my bishop attacked both his queen and rook on the same diagonal. Moving the queen leads to the rook being captured, but the queen must move to avoid it's own capture.

As for the end of the game, I think my opponent was so disgusted at what he perceived as cheating (but was really just a simply move I played, made possible by a large blunder on his part), that he decided not to continue.

Sorry for double posting,but i have to add that i can't be completely sure that you didn't cheat as i got a bit influenced both by serenapop's analysis and by the young of your age,....only 17!

I am not saying it is impossible,of course,but just in that cases we can't be 100% sure ...

Carlsen was a Grandmaster at age 13, he obviously must have cheated right?