Ok this is getting a bit annoying.  I have been accused, or insinuated which I see as the same thing, of cheating because I beat someone signifigantly  higher than me.  This is the fourth time in approximately the last two weeks.  I am better than my rating, apparently, but dont always have the time to study moves.  I have other considerations in my l ife that take up my time.  If I  knew when they were coming I would possibly move my playing time but I do not know when LIFE will happen.  I suppose I could take it as a compliment but I think I needed to post this so I could vent a bit.  I will try to ignore but I think there are more than a few people who dont like to be unfairly targeted as a cheater.

Not worth worrying about old chap. Such accusations say more about your opponent than they do about you.

Good luck in your games.

Making accusations about cheating is against the rules of this site. If your opponents are accusing you of this, feel free to use the "Report Abuse" link at the bottom of every page to report such activity. Also, you can add member who do stuff like that to your "blocked" list, this will ensure that they can have no further communication with you on the site. You can manage your blocked list here: http://www.chess.com/home/privacy.html

I say just play your game. Sure it can be upsetting being called a cheater after a hard fought win. Some people are sore losers and can't believe they missed a move or played poorly and it cost them the game. Would you mind posting the game in question?

Here's the link.

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=8508373

A clear conscience is its own reward. Let others think what they may.

hmm another example of someone far too eager to resign I think. 

Yah I thought he resigned way too early.  I may have had an advantage but he resigned way too early.  Thanks for posting the game.

Neither player could be accused of cheating based on the moves. The resignation was not warranted at all. White is safely up an exchange.

I guess he is saying our moves were so bad he recognized we  were not cheating.  :)

I looked at the moves and the ratings. I believe the players did not need help to play these moves, good or bad. I did not "show" the game to an analysis engine. I'm sure it would "help" the players and show they did not consult it. Perhaps, both players could find a better candidate cheating game that they played.

Black even left himself open to basic tactics in that game like 21.Qxf6 Bxf6 22.Bxh6. I don't think either player was using an engine, and I have no idea why White resigned.

maybe both players were using decoy-misere engines? ie Engines that find the worst move that doesn't look like it is throwing the game? ;)

Who plays 3.Bb5+ against Philidor‘s Defense?

decoy-misere engines do. ;) [see my prev post]

hehe

Thats one thing I am finding out about this site that is  a bit disconerting.  Someone always  has to find a way to  try and insult, make themselves out to be the next great chess player or act like beginners dont belong.  If one of the last three posters is trying to  say neither of is that good and are moves are so bad we couldnt have cheated than so be it.  The only thing you have accomplished is to make me regret paying for a membership.  I guess you feel important now.  I am done with the forums and anything beyond cursory comments during the games.

Wojytla wrote:

Thats one thing I am finding out about this site that is  a bit disconerting.  Someone always  has to find a way to  try and insult, make themselves out to be the next great chess player or act like beginners dont belong.  If one of the last three posters is trying to  say neither of is that good and are moves are so bad we couldnt have cheated than so be it.  The only thing you have accomplished is to make me regret paying for a membership.  I guess you feel important now.  I am done with the forums and anything beyond cursory comments during the games.

 A little OTT reaction perhaps?

Perhaps when a gambit was played for the 1st time it illicited comments like these.  I wouldn't put too much weight on the comments above.

The question of alleged cheating is what brought up the question of the quality of play. Was it unexpected good play that led to Black winning? Some moves and the resignation were questioned. The rate of play was one move per day, which allowed time for help from humans and machines. Considering the original question, comments would have to say there was or was not cheating. If cheating was the conclusion, then an insult was apparent. If cheating was not the conclusion, then poor play, that is below the expected standards of help would by implied, from which another insult could be inferred. Concluding that play was below the expected level of help, but not necessarily above the expected level of the ratings of the players should not be regarded as insulting. Except for light-hearted comments, I do not see the need to suspect a hint of deliberate insult from the answers to the original question, and even there just a hint, so far.

Wojytla> Someone always  has to find a way to  try and insult, make themselves out to be the next great chess player or act like beginners dont belong.

Nobody's insulting you. I spend countless hours each week reviewing games and writing articles to help players of all levels improve at chess. Yes, we saw moves you didn't, and our engines saw moves you didn't. Does that surprise you? Chess is a complex game and I doubt you, or I, or normajeanyates, or NM Green Laser will ever be at the point where we won't miss things. Kramnik misses things. Relax and enjoy the game.