He had -15 on the board. Interesting psychological game

Excuse me, but what is your question ?

I think this is moreso just a good example of how easily one can lose sight of the goal when they feel like they've already achieved it.... I imagine, he just positionally reacted to my own weaknesses, playing most of the game weaving and dodging my full roster with only his kingside and Q, then castling like he's "supposed to", little by little, wittling away my material, which essentially brings his his likelyhood of winning to a guarantee-- No way to flub this? 
Not when you don't have 4 moves to properly develop your queenside bois into any kind of effective formation to support the Q when she storms the house. Not when you castle yourself into a cardboard box with 3 gorillaz out for some getback....
The weird thing about the -/+ move by move eval is that it defies the very same after-game evals of player accuracy. The board went to -15 up until his LAST move; but he has less mistakes and 'inaccuracies', albeit the final blunder-- but I'm somehow 85 percent 'accurate' to his 50??? Which means the computer is blindly looking at my position assuming it's -15... BUT-- that's ONLY against a 100% accurate player, right?

So, it stands to reason that, there are still potential goldmines of emergent tactics to be found in playing positional chess with poker-playing psychology as a prescriptive basis by which to properly apply correct tactics to "force" opponents to play worse but think they're better.(I do have some well thought out theory behind why a lot of my games seem to be me giving disgusting advantage to opponents until barely a few moves before mate, and it's definitely not JUST player inaccuracies in my own OPINION.-- but I'm not THAT good to be sure about how sound the theory is)

~~~~
Idk I'm just noob, don't start yelling snooty stuff. Oh right, no one replies to these but moderators when you start saying the ch word. Here come the "you just got lucky" guys, fresh from the "any blunders whatsoever? Oh then it's YOUR fault you lost." patrol.

Excuse me, kick the snarky attitude. You're excused. The questions were clearly asked. Begone/

It was complete luck. After your 27. Rxg7 any player with a functional brain would play Kxg7 and you lose. Additionally, any player who doesn't use any brain cells at all, just plays the most obvious move, would also play Kxg7 and win.

I did no "snark" though. I really dont know what the actual question is. Still dont know. Whats your actual question ? Why did you post this game ? Do you need help with something ?

Nevermind. I figured it out. Its in the thread title.

The board went to -15 up until his LAST move; but he has less mistakes and 'inaccuracies', albeit the final blunder-- but I'm somehow 85 percent 'accurate' to his 50???

I opened the game and it showed you had 69.9% accuracy vs your opponent's 76.3% accuracy.

Wisdum23: your game makes zero sense and everything you wrote makes zero sense too. This is my insight of 2100 player.

Since noyone is actually answering your question. I don't think it's rude to not resign. As long as you think there's a chance at winning, go for it. The opponent came into the game knowing, say, it's a ten minute game. They know it can take ten minutes. Not being rude to finish the game

Was there really a question about resigning? Where?

Looks like blackpanther “missclicked”. There is another topic in the forom like “it is rude not to resingn” or what.

That's interesting then, I used lichess for my board evals, can't afford to pay for the ones on chess.com unfortunately. Is it perhaps the way the evals are done for accuracy and -/+ position being based on different data, i.e. accuracy is measured post-game with priority given to checkmates regardless of opponent's move-by-move accuracy?
I know I played rook Rxg7 on poker-instinct; it didn't feel successful, but neither did anything else on the board. I was down bad and figured go for broke; I'm asking the better players-- did his play somehow get less accurate as a result of frustration or some other psychological tactics that could have been possible given the board position? (i.e. opponent mock-plays your position and finds all your strong moves before you; thus they make preemptive moves to prevent threats you weren't even planning to present)
And btw-- not responding to goofies who have zero to offer insofar as their "2100 insights", except for the typical condescending horse-**** that does nothing to clearly articulate the logic behind their good-bad-black-white analyses.

On move 27 can’t he/she take the rook

Wow. Up a rook, a knight, and three pawns and lose. Not a good outcome for black.

Yeah, they absolutely could have; I couldn't find much else towards a decisive mate line, but I knew there were opportunities depending on if/what inaccuracies they might play. I knew the opponent would be seeing the Bb2+ with potential for mate on the board due to my f4 pawn blocking queen, which is inconveniently on the white diagonals. I don't think the opponent made a terrible move considering the circumstance, they're just human; and prone to psychological weakness even moreso than analytical weakness.

Glass half full huh? 
I consider it a great outcome for white, not the other way around-- If you're down bad and just willing to resign, then you may as well go balls to the wall and make the meme plays just to see what happens. I did exactly that- and won despite -15 on the board. So it was more a good day for me than a bad day for them. It's far less common for players to pull no-chance victories like this, than it is for even pro players to blunder their seeming "winning" positions.

You say that the opponent would see "Bb2 with potential for mate on the board", but there is absolutely none of that. After Bb2+ black can make any of the legal moves and still win easily.

The opponent walked into mate-in-1 instead of an easy win. It was the worst move in chess history. The Kf8 (??) move itself is proof that he didn't calculate even half a move ahead.

The opponent blundered mate in 1. It happens. He had to take the rook and it is lost for white. Basically, white doesn't have anything if black takes the rook, as his checks will disappear after a few moves and that would be it.

Ok, thanks for the second opinions on that-- I see a lot of completely bonkers counter-intuitive results in analysis, and often it seems that the very "edge moves" I make to open up a line to mate, are regarded as mistakes or outright blunders; I'm still at the "if it works, it works, until it doesn't" phase of analysis-- and it DEFINITELY doesn't help anyone that the engines just give you a "yay" or "nay" and nothing else to describe the potential tactics it wants you to execute on lmao. 
Similar but kinda different question-- I've recently had some games with less inaccuracies(miss/-takes/blunders) and centipawn loss than my opponents- and won by checkmates, but the analysis favors the opponent slightly better in overall % accuracy.... Any idea what could be going on as far as play/tactics that could give a counter-intuitive result like that? Only thing I can imagine, which you guys seem to corroborate, is it comes down to the severity of the inaccuracies; and whether they directly lead to checkmate isn't even taken into account on the analysis. So basically, such a higher accuracy losing opponent would play more consistently accurate, up until a relatively minor blunder that can THEN be capitalized on by the other player? 
Thanks again for any further explanations.