Is it ok to abort 50-70% of corr. games at the start?

Over about 243 correspondence games, only about 14 or 15 of the time out wins (which is what usually happens with cheaters) were against players who's account's closed, or says that they cheat. (2 of them against the same player). There's maybe about 5 of them with inactive players, which could be cheaters but there's nothing for sure. So that's not even 10%, most of them 1-2 years ago.

What this means is, (at the very least!) over half of time OP aborts a game, their opponent was likely not a cheater. So it's probably fair to say it's just abuse.

And then there's this game, which I got 0/0/0, so I must have been engine abusing. (Eyeroll) lichess.org/E6nIKxaj#20
I don't know if white was cheating, but if they were, it didn't work.

I love the point that the whiner in the original post hasn't played 1000 games himself. So, by his own criteria, nobody on this site should want to play with him, and there is no point in his even seeking games. We obviously can't assume he isn't cheating, because he has not played 1000 games, so nobody should play with him.

That, or this 1000 game standard is laughable nonsense. One of the two.

And to the „I can do whatever I want to do in the internet“ fraction. Not in any case. As long as no one feels bothered, yes.

Does anyone feels bothered when someone agrees to play with you and out of a sudden not? That‘s why I plead for measures that most people feel comfortable here.

@Chessty_McBiggins The problem for you is that at your ranks of 1300-1400 people rarely know how rook is different from the pawns. They ussualy learn moves first then start using engines. Thatswhy you dont see engines as a problem.

Another thing is that chts would strongly dislike if there will be a conditions under which 90% of them would be sort out even without ban. So such an agressive reaction is understandable

Upd: Unfortunately shortly after reading my posts you have a hard time remembering anything from there. There w 2 points and you forgot them both.
1.Main point is close ratings among fast and slow controls. High number of games is secondary but neccesary condition. For new (related to overall # of games played) accounts it can be 200 fast games. But old account is fine to abort if paired against new one. But not vice versa.

2. My game aborting conditions are related to slow chess only >10min. Esp. corr and standard. Until I get 1k fast games anyone is fine to cancel slow games if paired against me.

Overall I say that being fair isnt enough nowadays. People should care about their reputation that is reflected in their stats. Since 90% of the chaets cannot get reputation withoit effort and risk of getting kicked.

@Fairplayer1

My correspondence rating remains around 2100 and rapid rating around 1800 for over a year now.

By your criteria ... I'm obviously a cheater?

Oh ,by the way, my rapid rating suffers because of a slow connection. Lose many games because of it, but I play anyway. Also, I "panic" in time trouble. Old age and all. Not so fast on my feet anymore.

Do you even consider these factors before making your assumptions? (There are far too many fallacies presented). Also, statements as "1400 players don't know the difference between rooks and pawns" is an insult. Not much credibility left. You talk of "reputation". Yours is shattered. You've played a grand total of 44 rapid/classical/correspondence games. Hardly can you make your claims based on any experience.
A positive is you are now blocked, avoiding the problem of aborting a game.

Regarding slow connextio. 99% I play with mobile connection which is unstable with average ping of 120-150 and im still relatively ok at blitz. What is connection that makes you suffer in rapid isnt understandable.
My best by far are rapid and standard but i dont play it until i get reputation as a player.

What you describe is an exception. I know there are aged blitzers who also play at slow controls equally. In that case you can exp'ain that in your,page and hope that your opponent believe in that explanation, but he doesnt have to.

Pings of 300+ in rapid make all the difference in the last minute of games, any time control for that matter. Your "understanding" is severely handicapped. Also, how do you establish your reputation if not by playing games? And by your criteria, everybody should abort playing you. And to think chess players are logical!

@Fairplayer1

Your insults are adorable and further endure you, I promise. That said, you didn't address my comment in any way whatsoever.

You have this silly, arbitrary standard for when a game should be accepted. You do not live up to this standard yourself, ergo by your own admission nobody should want to play with you. So there's no reason for you to be here.

That, or what you're saying is nonsense. Whichever of those makes sense to you.

EDIT: Actually, they both can be true.