Ulhumbrus: After 5 0-0 White has his central pawn on a white square, which makes his bishop good. How can he lose? And yet he loses, nevertheless. White can be said to have been cheated out of his win, not literally, but in a manner of speaking.
William Hartston has written a book titled <How to cheat at chess>
I don't know which tricks have been mentioned there but perhaps this game can be called an example of REAL cheating: The opponent gives the player a position where the player has reason to believe that any win or at least advantage is rightfully his but then the opponent proceeds to win all the same thus "cheating" the player out of that win.
One can imagine Carlsen or one of the top players eg Kramnik winning such a game. Perhaps one has to play really well in order to win in this way.
So how does Black "cheat" White out of "White's" win?
If we look at the position after 5 0-0 White has his central pawn on a white square.
White himself changes this state of affairs at moves 7,8 and 10 when he plays 7 c3 followed by 8 d4 and then in reply to 9...d5, 10 e5 placing his central pawns on black squares. Now it is White who has the bad bishop and Black who has the good bishop.
This suggests that the move 7 c3 which begins to place White's pawns on black squares also begins to cheat White out of "his" win.
And that is how the opponent cheats at chess by winning a position which is won for the player : It is the player himself (or herself) who cheats himself or herself by making at least one questionable choice. This is not the whole answer, because the opponent also has to play well enough to take advantage of the player's choices.