No, aborting arbitrarily will be sanctioned sooner or later and discussing cheating is a no-go.
It may sound harsh but this look like a paranoia in progress:
lichess.org/qa/4245/why-is-draw-declared-in-a-wining-positionRelax. We all encounter cheaters now and then. We cannot prevent it beforehand.
@Sarg0n You have not played a single correspondence game to speak from experience about the amount of games a player can abort before receiving a notification and possible sanction.
From experience, the amount is certainly greater than live play, more leniency is given, as correspondence games are a long term time commitment. The exact numbers will not be given out about overall instances. On occasion I have aborted 2-3 games in a row (sometimes due to not blocking a member and get re-paired) with no notice from lichess. Doing so in live games usually results in a notice rather quickly, if several games are aborted in a row.
We see posts regularly about complaints, questions regarding being sanctioned for aborting games, but these are for live games. Answers are found in FAQ's and occasionally a moderator will chime in with an explanation. Usually, the sanction is restricting play for 1/2 hour, an hour or some such. It does not take many aborts to be notified.
However, I have yet to see a single post about someone complaining about being sanctioned for aborting in correspondence chess. What would the penalty be? Correspondence chess is a long term investment of time. I think more leeway is extended for players to select their opponents.
Certainly, it can be assumed that abuse will lead to a notification, but how often a player can abort in correspondence, I have not seen answered in FAG's or by any moderator. Mabye there is no policy? For all we know a player can abort 50% of games in correspondence as it's a completely different beast than live play in regards to challenges. The standards are clearly different, as well they should be imo, but I have not seen anywhere any clarification.
@Sarg0n As i said last month there were 4 cheaters flagged after my report. Surely you saw thoze posts since you live here basicaly. Its a problem wellcknown to lichess and to anyone And when question was asked about a way to avoid problem you answered with agressive shtposting. That is sort of mental isssue i suppose.
Lichees is doing what they xan but their capabilities are limited. Players themselves should realize under which circumstwnces internet cheess games are played.
Having second acount, account w/ low number of games plaed, are a ways to avoid detection. Same for not having rating at different controls and variant.
Personallly if there is 300+ difference between corr\classical and 5+3 I will cancel always. If less than 1k will do the same.
Waste a week of time playing vs engine assisted noob is such a fun yeahh. None of those 4 flagged would pass my filter btw.
Should I report players that "abusively" abort correspondence games? Not referring to Fairplayer1 specifically, but certain other opponents I have played that abort every time they get the black pieces, for example.
A solution is to block those players, then you will not be paired again in the future.
I think you're paranoid. I'd be a little pissed if I waited a long time for someone to accept my seek (which sometimes you have to do) just to have it be aborted.
At the very least you definitely have too high of standards for your opponents. 1000 games? That's silly.
Just play games. On the off chance your opponent is a cheater, they'll get banned and you'll get your points back and everything will be alright.
It's online chess. You can absolutely set criteria by which to play. You're not committing some grave offense if you choose not to play someone.
I play chess for the enjoyment. If your paranoia (and in online chess, it's justified), keeps you from enjoying your experience, then you should be able to modify the conditions. Why should you be forced due to some honor system to play people whom you suspect of cheating? Win or lose, if you're concerned about your opponent cheating the whole game, you're not going to enjoy playing.
@self_service I agree when it comes to correspondence challenges and it seems a greater leeway is extended for correspondence play.
In live play, I agree with sanctions to players who abuse the privilege. The pairing system would easily become a farce if most players are constantly aborting. The penalty is rather slight anyway, a short timeout from playing.
If you want to set criteria for who you play, you need a site that does that (to the degree that you want - you can already choose a minimum/ maximum rating for who can see your challenge) Asking for 1000 games is too much, especially from someone who hasn't played 1000 games.
You should just look at the game offers and see who fits your criteria. Having an open challenge when by your own admission 60-70% of the people who accept it don't match it - that's just wasting everybody's time. Honestly, "everyone's a cheater" is something I'd expect a cheater to say.
