Accused of cheating?

I see, thanks for pointing that out. I constantly forget to calculate the lines where the opponent is declining a sac.  

ah yes, you're right. i briefly looked at a couple of Queen sacs but actually they only draw. your opponent losing his cool lost him the game.

Rxh6 doesn`t have to lead to a checkmate:

But it was a nice combination anyway. And to answer your question - no I have never been accused although I might have been reported (there is no way I would know). When it comes to Live Chess I am terrible at bullet and since it is hard to find a 2000+ human challenge in standard I usually end up playing the Computer4-IMPOSSIBLE and it says "good game" no matter what. BTW, only a very stupid man would cheat while playing the Chess.com computers. 

Cheaters are probably all 1200 and above in rating, since that's where everyone starts. If someone really wants to spontaneously become a cheater, they probably do it for the stats and if they're under 1200 they would logically start a new account (unless they're bad at cheating :D). Seeing as the provisional rating goes up quickly with successive wins, the vast majority of cheaters will have a rating around or above 1800 after their first day. So, unless the cheater is just beginning to rise up the ladder, you shouldn't see many low rated cheaters.

 Because I'm usually around 1400-1500 in blitz, if someone accuses me of cheating, I don't really follow his/her rationale. My play can swing wildly from very bad to extremely well between moves (and vice versa), but if I really wanted to cheat, my rating would be much higher than what it is. I've played someone who admitted to being a team of two people, but at my blitz level, I don't think many of the cheating accusations are valid. So when someone says I cheat, I shrug it off as an implausible conclusion :)

(nerd face:)

Good answer...You really can`t tell if someone cheats. You don`t have a chance to see it. So why worry? I know, I`ve been cheated, but I can`t tell by who and when. Some Folks with a low rating might get despaired and get manic about winning and get a computer to help them and all of a sudden they beat you with means they couldn`t possibly apply. Some just get a good idea and beat you. I just hope, it`s the latter.

I have been accused of cheating once.  Must have been 5 or 6 years ago when I was an even worse player than I am now.  It was on a different site and we were playing a 15 min game.  The door bell rang, so I left to answer the door.  I still had most of my time on the clock so I wasn't worried that my time ran down by 4 or 5 minutes.  I came back made a move that I guess surprised my opponent.  He made the accusation that the delay in time was due to me starting up an engine and inputting the game moves to find out what the computer said was the best move.  He also said that he was now going to do the same thing to make things fair when competing against a cheater.  I responded by thanking him for the game, closing it, and blocking him.  To top it all off, it was an unrated game.

One way to not only absolve yourself of guilt, but to help someone who accused you, to see how they made mistakes and how you did too, would be to take the PGN of your game and show how an engine would have played each move differently as compared to either of your choices respectively. There are undoubtedly going to be similarities between some moves and engine moves, but if you didn't cheat it should be obvious.

Obvious moves are well, obvious. We all know it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure them out.  Most average or above players are going to spot an easy to calculate move. If you had to suddenly set up a position 35 moves into a live game, especially if it is a blitz game, just to get the computer to analyze one move or one mating combination, it would be difficult.

I realize one could keep track in longer timed games and hope their play and yours allowed them to get into a position in which an engine could calculate such a combination or a move or two, but I suppose their only argument could be that you used it to make one or two key moves. I suppose none of us will ever be able to prove we never have. On the other hand, I would care to speculate that even Chess.com in all of it's scrupulousness and angst to catch cheaters will never be able to stop people from using an engine to make a key move or two. It would be possible to catch someone doing this over and over again, but it would be very difficult.

I also realize this would be a lot to go through to clear your name in the community and restore your reputation with the person who accused you, but it could also go a long way to help someone see their faults, not only as a chess play, but as a person. Maybe then, people will stop doing this. I am sure once someone gets it in their mind if certain things happen, that someone had to have cheated them. I am as certain that if they aren't stopped, they will continue to accuse people until they realize they are bad at strategy, defense and positional play, no matter how good they think they are at openings, tactics and end games.

Personally I don't think it necessary to have to prove one's innocence to the community, much less a disjoint collection of idiots who are unable to cope with losing a chess game. I know I'm not cheating, and in my case I've been on this site over 3 years and not been banned, so that's enough as far as I'm concerned. Also, it is clear that everyone in this thread, commenting from unbiased points of view, are in agreement that this is obviously not cheating.

I don't think it is necessary to try to prove your innocence. I was merely suggesting it could have some benefits.

Could you clarify what you were saying that the consensus here agreed wasn't cheating?

@ waller...

If you were saying that the consensus here was basically in agreement that the OP didn't cheat, I completely agree. It looked like a decently competitive chess game that one player lost to another because, they had strategic, positional and defensive deficiencies that the OP capitalized on. 

As I stated in my post previously. The only way the OP could have even possibly cheated, other than having someone tell him the moves to make, was to have had an engine running in two player mode keep track of the moves and then switched one of the users to the engine itself to make the few moves. Still a pain in the arse at the time control for the game.  Otherwise setting this up after so many moves at that time control would have been next to impossible. In my book case closed.

what gets me, is when I'm LOSING. and people accuse me of cheating xD it cracks me up

That is pretty much what I was saying. Also, I appreciate that you weren't sugggesting it was necessary to prove your innocence.

That compuer analysis is a bit weird (I'm not a great fan of the computer analysis here at chess.com, although I know it is a little better for premium members). Why does it say after 14...e5 that Black has a 2.5 advantage, and then after 15.Rxh6 it changes it's tune and says White is ahead? That's stupid.

I have seen my Chessmaster do the same thing. One way of looking at is trying to weigh two different winning lines against each other. To a human, we don't care about the computer's "logic". In fact, a line of play that wins, that is more comfortable to us, easier to understand and play, might be mathematically less sound to a computers algorithm, than a tedious line that makes no sense to us at all because, we can't see 60 ply ahead for all of the possibilities and remember what we want to play unless we take 2 weeks and a lot of notes and we would still eliminate obvious lines before we started.

Something that is hard to see, without the aid of an engine while playing a game is, how one subtle move changes everything when calculated by a computer algorithm. Moving one key piece can totally swing the balance of a game. It can literally mean the difference between win or lose. This is how that a recommended line can say those crazy things about who is ahead, when and how it changes sometimes. Often it is only the difference between winning and drawing or drawing and losing. When those things happen it isn't as appauling, though we still have an emotional roller coaster if we know we are ahead or behind, while we play. I have actually played contrary to my engines recommendations in training mode and still won. Some of chess theory is a matter of preference, or otherwise you would see everyone trying to do the exact same thing. If so, no one would play this game.