About two and a half weeks ago I linked to a story that started off as one of those things that happens on a day of the week ending with the letter "y": a low-rated player makes a string of surprisingly good moves and defeats a higher-rated player, who accuses the lower-rated player of cheating. In this case it happened on Chess.com, the lower-rated player was investigated and deemed to have cheated. Normally that would be the end of it, but the event went viral and the higher-rated player even received death threats.
And normally this would be the end of it: the storm would blow over, the lower-rated player would disappear, and the higher-rated player would eventually get back to Life As Usual™. But once again: not this time. A face-to-face match was arranged between the amateur accused of cheating and an IM. Not the one involved in the original incident, but a countryman - or in this case, countrywoman - of the amateur. You can read more about it here, and watch a video of the event, but I will offer only the conclusions of the sordid event:
1. The amateur really is an amateur. He's not a horrible player in the man-on-the-street sense, but he's not close to the IM level--not tactically, not positionally/strategically, not in terms of his opening knowledge--not in any respect. To err is human, and on a good day he might beat a titled player in blitz if the latter blunders or falls into an opening trap. Amateurs do beat professionals from time to time, especially in online blitz. But when that happens, it's rare that one is accused of cheating. If the pro hangs a piece or misses some sort of relatively simple tactic, the issue is that their level has fallen, not that the amateur is playing suspiciously well. (By way of analogy: If I race with Usain Bolt and win because he pulls a hamstring or trips, no one is going to accuse me of doping.) The reason the IM complained in the online setting, and why his complaint was upheld, was because of the level and sophistication of the amateur's play; it was not merely a matter of a negative result. (Chess.com gave his online performance rating as a stratospheric 3000, while estimating his performance in the three live games at 1127.)
2. The amateur was rewarded. This, to my mind, is the most depressing aspect of the story. The IM he played made $14,000, while the amateur made a tidy $7,000 for his "efforts". Needless to say, the IM who was presumably cheated against hasn't made a penny, had to suffer death threats, and hasn't received an apology or an admission of wrongdoing from his erstwhile opponent.