First win against 1900 in blitz (unrated). Accused of cheating in the chat :(

nice you just gave him that absolute beatdown, and this is why i dont play people lower rated, they are always stronger than me.

You have close to 2800 completed blitz games on chess.com with your highest blitz rating being less than 1200. You played 22 moves with 95% accuracy against a 1951 rated player? Without ANY mistakes, blunders, or missed wins? OF COURSE YOU CHEATED!!!!

lol, nah. I just got lucky

I thought the game was relatively normal, but then…

d5 by white was eyebrow raising, as was Bg5. But they can be interpreted as normal moves by a 1000, too.

20.Nxf7 was interesting. I had expected white to capture a pawn with his rook or double up on the e file. 
21. Nb6+ is a red flag. Most people would have simply taken the rook on h8. I assume this was a blitz game, due to #3.

Its possible white is legitimate, I have my doubts, but chess.com’s team should handle this. Anyways, I expect this thread to be locked soon.

Damn, thank you for the compliment lmao. I definitely didn't cheat though. I just found some nice ideas and capitalized on Black's mistakes. I'm definitely not a consistent player though. Just had a decent game.

I beat an fm rated 2700 on lichess.

am I cheeting?

Statistically, you are a huge underdog but very rarely you are supposed to win against people higher than you. People tend to think such a large discrepancy in ratings makes it impossible for you to win but really it's just a really low percentage you're supposed to win. You could even win two or three games and although that would seem unlikely, mathematicians could see it as an eventual certainty due to the nature of variance. 

People literally accuse me of using a computer all the time. Bottom line if someone is cheating, chess.com will give you your points back. 

People who say anyone who beats is cheating has serious insecurity issues. I usually take it as a compliment but in reality those people could desperately use therapy.

This game was pretty straight forward. If you look at it one or two moves at a time, it really seems like black is winning a pawn but white got lucky and made the right follow up moves. White wasn't relying on the tactics that won them the game but they appeared because of solid development and poor calculation on black's part due to a false perception of invulnerability.

*beats them 

The lesson? Never underestimate your opponent. 

Fortunately for Black, it was an unrated game.

I could see a 1000 wanting to do both rook forks.  Black's play does not look like a 1900 to me, though.

If it was a longer game, like 10min, I would probably be more understanding. But I find it strange that a 1000 can spot a move like that in blitz.

Well your opponent didn't play very well. He should have castled earlier even if it meant losing material and then easily outplayed you later imo.

Not to mention, he's maintaning a pretty high accuracy rate, in 3 minute games, against 1900+ rated players.......under an array of different openings (Spanish, Caro, NID, Sicilian...etc.). Simply....wow

it's just more likely that a 1000 rated player will tunnel vision on the fork, especially in blitz.

Lol, well those are the players I matched up with in unrated. I played against similar rated players and got destroyed. The two 1900’s I did beat just played really bad, I think. I really don’t see the point in cheating, especially in an unrated game, haha

Does FM stand for fraud master?

@ajayjha25, that is really 2400, since they start 300 points higher than Chess.com and I would be curious to see the PGN and know your OTB credentials