If you want to confirm your 'suspicion', you could "follow" this player for a dozen or so hours so you'd have something to post about. Else all is very speculative thinking.
There are many, many reasons for aborting before the game is official (White's 4th move), most are quite legitimate.
sftac
ps. I don't think it appropriate behaviour to 'gossip' about someone you've specifically named in these forums in such a negative fashion.
when you abort, it gets noted in your log. too many aborts, you can't play. no need to report - its automatic :)
Well, your response raises more questions: If we've connection / sound issues leading to "too many aborts", we can expect to 'not play'. Not so bad a way of handling free members but since some members pay for the service of playing here:
a) is there a warning system in place? Do we receive three or more warnings, before being CUT OFF from playing here? Is there a graduated system of progressively longer 'not playing' periods in response to continuing aborts? That would give a member some chance of redemption.
b) is "too many" an absolute? (eg. if you plays thousands of games you're doomed to eventually accumulate "too many" aborts), or is "too many" a ratio? (eg. if you abort more than 10% of your games, that's "too many") Or, is it a combination of the two?
I'm not asking for specific abort limit numbers or ratios (as too many would feel free to push up to their limit), merely the general nature of the screen that's in use (to help get a sense of how HIGH RISK it would be for me to invest in a membership here).
sftac
ps. I've aborted perhaps a dozen or more games [connection, sound, mis-match issues but mostly I abort when my opponent is slow to start the game] out of merely 300 or so played. Am I even 'close' to being shut out from playing here?
And, I'm wondering just what happens to those who are cut off from playing -- is their account disabled so they cannot whine about it in the forums (as I've not come across any whining of that character and I'm a fairly avid forum reader)?
eg. Are they branded 'cheater' (perhaps on the theory that by exceeding the site's abort limit they're somehow 'cheating'), and that's how they're being dealt with? (Which, I think might help explain where so many cheaters are 'coming from'.)
[...]
There are many, many reasons for aborting before the game is official (White's 4th move), most are quite legitimate.
sftac
ps. I don't think it appropriate behaviour to 'gossip' about someone you've specifically named in these forums in such a negative fashion.
I wrote "For all I know, maybe suddenly the other player had something do, so no big deal. Or, maybe he does this repeatedly when presented with a first move he doesn't like, which is my suspicion." I base this suspicion on the correlation between that particular first move and when opponents abort, hence the suspicion and the post.
As to your second point, I carefully edited his name out from the game log. You're right, accidentally I wrote his name, but have sinced edited that out. I wasn't meaning to badmouth that particular player, just that behaviour, which seems to correlate so highly with that particular first move.
Note that he didn't say anything in chat like "gotta go because ...", which would at least be courteous. Only adds to the suspicion.
In general, chess.com is *much* better than yahoo chess, I think because players can't cherry pick which color to play! So, I think this player was cherry picking, if not the color, then the first move. Of course it's speculation, I never claimed otherwise.
Well, your response raises more questions: If we've connection / sound issues leading to "too many aborts", we can expect to 'not play'. Not so bad a way of handling free members but since some members pay for the service of playing here:
[...]
I agree. I get many disconnections for many reasons, and from a technical point of view doubt that there's any way server side to distinguish between a browser crash and exiting the browser, or wi-fi problems, or whatever. I suppose if a huge preponderance of the disconnects occur when at a disadvantage that's suspicious. However, that just seems to open a can of worms. On the other hand, it's annoying for the other player.
In this case, it was that the opponent actively selected abort without even trying to make an excuse.
Abort should be like draw, in that it requires consent. Of course it's ok to abort games, and the button should be there. However, once a game is started, it should either get greyed out after a single move, or require consent, or something.
[...]
There are many, many reasons for aborting before the game is official (White's 4th move), most are quite legitimate
> (quote and/or display function is glitchy (else you're editting while I'm replying), I'm manually adding this bit) Gotta say that I disagree with your first point. Nope, after a move has been made then there should be a conclusion to the game. IMHO the abort button should be greyed out after one move. What are those reasons?
Example: I place or accept a Seek Ad for a 10/0 game. I consider it appropriate to Abort if:
a) the game starts, my opponent as White does not make a move for 30 seconds (I assume my opponent's away from the PC, a reasonable assumption imo). btw, I find most opponents abort at around the 5 second point if I've not made a brisk first move.
b) I play my move as White, but Black takes more than 30 seconds to respond. (again, I find most opponents will abort at around the 5 second point here).
c) White and Black play their first three moves briskly (say, 2-5 seconds/move), then one minute passes. I know site policy will not 'count' this game if I choose to abort, so I consider it's at my discretion to abort. Depends on just how impatient I feel at that moment in time, sometimes I'll abort, sometimes not. Certainly I'll abort if two full minutes have lapsed between the third moves and White's 4th move, if the first three moves were paced at around 2-5 seconds/move), as two minutes is 20% of the total game time quota (for just one opening move -- odds are Extremely High, that my opponent's wandered off and probably knows about the site not rating such a game so there's no risk).
btw, Some players are aware of the site's monitoring the frequency of their aborts, so, I think they'll figure well, I'll try to get my opponent to abort instead (by, not moving). I wonder if the site's monitoring that activity?
sftac
Example: I place or accept a Seek Ad for a 10/0 game. I consider it appropriate to Abort if:
a) the game starts, my opponent as White does not make a move for 30 seconds (I assume my opponent's away from the PC, a reasonable assumption imo). btw, I find most opponents abort at around the 5 second point if I've not made a brisk first move.
b) I play my move as White, but Black takes more than 30 seconds to respond. (again, I find most opponents will abort at around the 5 second point here).
c) White and Black play their first three moves briskly (say, 2-5 seconds/move), then one minute passes. I know site policy will not 'count' this game if I choose to abort, so I consider it's at my discretion to abort. Depends on just how impatient I feel at that moment in time, sometimes I'll abort, sometimes not. Certainly I'll abort if two full minutes have lapsed between the third moves and White's 4th move, if the first three moves were paced at around 2-5 seconds/move), as two minutes is 20% of the total game time quota (for just one opening move -- odds are Extremely High, that my opponent's wandered off and probably knows about the site not rating such a game so there's no risk).
btw, Some players are aware of the site's monitoring the frequency of their aborts, so, I think they'll figure well, I'll try to get my opponent to abort instead (by, not moving). I wonder if the site's monitoring that activity?
sftac
I paired down your quote with the ellipses.
Your reasons are legit. However, nothing explains why *this* player aborted after one move. The only possibilities I see are either he didn't want to play e2-e4, or, something else came up, like an important phone call. The lack of chat, and the *frequency* of this type of abort points to it not not being the latter, though. Do you disagree?
As to aborting a game in progress, I gotta say *only* if both players agree. One player unilaterally aborting a game in progress, and one move makes it in progress, is not good sportsmanship, I gotta say. I think we'll just have agree to disagree on that.
In turn-based chess, what is a reasonable amount of time to allow an opponent to make a first move (assuming he is white) before I abort the game? It keeps happening to me, mostly with unrated players, and they just never make a move, which is driving me crazy.
On this site, in practice it comes down to between 5 and 30 seconds. Most players seem to opt really close to 5 seconds before they'll abort.
sftac
ps. All chess is turn based chess (did you have a point when adding that remark?).
On this website, "turn-based" refers to slow online chess, where you have a minimum of one day in which to make your move. If you look at my rating, you will see that it says "turn-based" next to it, as opposed to "blitz" or "bullet" or whatever.
OK, I'd thought in online chess there's a move pace, such as 1, 2 or 3 days per move. Presumably if they use up their time for any move for the first 3 moves by Black or White, the game would auto-wipe as an incomplete game.
If (like Live Chess) the game doesn't even 'start' until the first move is played by both players, well, in that case I'd give them not more than the game's pace (typically 1, 2 or 3 days to make the first move, then I'd abort).
sftac
ps. I've played one online game, so, I know all about online games here. 
In turn-based chess, what is a reasonable amount of time to allow an opponent to make a first move (assuming he is white) before I abort the game? It keeps happening to me, mostly with unrated players, and they just never make a move, which is driving me crazy.
The clock in live chess doesn't start *until* the first move, for correspondence chess, the clock starts once the game is agreed to. So, for live chess, you need to be able to abort, else you could sit there forever. With correspondence style chess, the clock is usually one day, etc, so I think you gotta lump it if your opponent takes a day to make a move.
If they're playing correspondence chess, maybe they don't have a reliable connection or something, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt.
Here's the log:
NEW GAME (174766753) - thufir vs. (30 0 rated) (win: 9, draw: 1, loss: -7)
has joined the chat.
thufir: gl
GAME ABORTED - thufir vs. - Game has been aborted by the server. has logged out.
has left the chat.
Now, I can't say why <blank> logged out, but it seems that after one move, e4, he decided he didn't want to play. To my mind, that's gaming the game. Either he doesn't want to play black, or just doesn't like that particular move.
This sort of thing happens frequently enough, and all too often with kings pawn openings, that I don't give the benefit of the doubt.
What button or link do I click to report this suspicion? Again, it's not that a single instance means anything, just that I've seen a general trend of this. For all I know, maybe suddenly the other player had something do, so no big deal. Or, maybe he does this repeatedly when presented with a first move he doesn't like, which is my suspicion.