Free for All in 4PC: Ideas in the Early Four-Player Phase

The endless debate about "teaming" and "cooperation" in four player chess FFA (Free for All) rages on unquenched! I wrote a year and a half ago in a forum post entitled "But is it teaming?", in the four player chess club, the following paragraph, which is one of the main points I was trying to make:

"Oftentimes in FFA most threats on your position will be made by the players to your left and your right, especially in the early to middle part of the game; you can think of how difficult it is for the player across from you to threaten your position: their Knights are very far away, their Bishops would have to zig zag through dangerous enemy territory to threaten a square across the board, their Rooks are likely stuck behind other pawns \ pieces for a while; and it is unlikely they will move their queen near you where you can threaten it, while the other two players will create other threats against them. THEREFORE IT IS A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE GEOMETRY OF THE BOARD THAT MOST THREATS WILL COME FROM THE SIDE PLAYERS."

I wanted to elaborate on this basic fact of the four player board, the implications of which require serious consideration: when you start a game of four player chess FFA, the position of the other three players you are facing is asymmetrical. The player across from you (commonly called the opposite) is positioned very differently relative to you than the other two (commonly called the side players)! The position of the two side players relative to you is largely symmetrical with the exception of their royal pieces. Let's have a simple visual aid of the point I was trying to make about how difficult it is for your opposite's minor pieces and rooks to reach squares in your camp:

Fig 1: possible threats to Red from her opposite 

A knight from Yellow's camp would take a full 5-6 moves to even reach Red's side of the board; in order for bishops to threaten squares across the board they would need to zig-zag either smack dab through the middle of one of the side players' camps or perform some acrobatic cross-board maneuvers on squares that are often attacked or controlled by their pawns. What about the rooks? They can't really be used to get across too easily without some sort of dangerous rook lift or by opening files, which requires the consent of a side player to some kind of exchange. In short, Yellow's pieces do not have great access to Red's camp and therefore do not pose much threat to Red and vice-versa. Now consider possible threats that can come from Blue and Green in the earliest part of the game:

Fig 2: possible threats to Red from her side players

Queens and bishops can already target key squares and control important diagonals after simple and natural pawn advances. One knight (of the right player in this case) can threaten check on the Red king within 2 moves. Blue's a5 knight can create tactical threats on Red's queenside within a few moves. Both of these side players can advance their flank pawns right into Red's business threatening to capture pieces and compromising Red's pawn structure (while Yellow's pawns can barely dream of making it to the same half of the board!).

This is what I mean by "a natural consequence of the geometry of the board." There are four players playing on a flat board, as opposed to some form of 3D four player chess where each player is at the corner of a equilateral triangular pyramid (maybe one of you can invent that one day!) which would make each of the three opponents symmetrically placed.  On this board, the above observations about possible piece movements lead to the simple conclusions...

1) Blue and Green are very dangerous to Red

2) Yellow is not at all dangerous to Red

..and importantly to remember...

3) Yellow is very dangerous to both Blue and Green

Or as a general principle: side players are dangerous, while the opposite is not. It is important to remember this conclusion is reached not because of Yellow's mental attitude, but by the physical reality of piece movements on the board. Even if Yellow is a complete beginner to the game, and hasn't thought about such ideas, you will find they are much, much more likely in most cases to end up attacking their side players simply because of which squares their pieces can easily access.

In light of this line of thinking, I suggest you give consideration to some questions about possible situations that might (and often do) occur in the opening:

(a) if a Yellow knight across the board is hanging to Red's queen, what does Red have to gain from taking the knight? What does Red have to lose from taking the knight? Whose position is this knight exerting most pressure on? Whose position becomes safer from this knight being taken off the board?

(b) suppose Blue tried to initiate a trade with Yellow and Yellow took Blue's piece. Before Blue acts, a Red player with no other pressing issues in her position considers whether she should aim a piece at the relevant square (i.e. "defend" Yellow's piece). Similarly to (a), whose position is this Yellow piece exerting more pressure on? Whose position becomes safer if Blue is allowed to capture the Yellow piece? If Blue captures anyway and Red can take a second Blue piece, who benefits?

(c) if Yellow promotes a pawn to a queen, who would come under more pressure from this new force on the board?

(d) could capturing pieces simply for their point value without considering which players they are pressuring and their influence on the board be considered akin to playing mechanically for material value and ignoring positional considerations in two player chess? (i.e. beginner play)

Besides leaving you to consider these questions, I also want to discuss the idea of two opposites mating a side player using their pieces in a "cooperative" way, something that seems to enrage players, yet they insanely allow it over and over again on the basis of the flawed line of thinking: "I doubt this guy will want to hang his queen there and depend on his opposite."

Consider the following position (from this game) in which Red just advanced their pawn to g6, allowing the diagrammed moves to be played by Blue and Green to mate Red if they wish:

Fig 3: one of the most basic "cooperative" checkmate patterns in both Teams and FFA four player chess

That is in fact what happened in the game, as seen below, after which Blue took the Green queen and the game continued into the three-player phase. Now I want you to compare these two positions and game situations carefully and think about Blue's and Green's prospects in the positions before and after, then I will share my own thoughts below.

Fig 4: a common error of less experienced players is to not take the Green Q. However, Blue should quickly acknowledge the shifting winds of Red getting mated and realize in this new situation, Red is no longer a buffer between him and Green. The purpose of the temporary cooperation has been accomplished and a new phase of the game begins in which all players should play for 1st place.

The tremendous benefits to Blue and Green from playing this combination are abundantly clear, and cannot be overstated. Blue has suffered in absolutely no way materially, positionally, or situationally (i.e. point situation). Green has invested their queen by putting it at Blue's mercy, but through a one move stroke has ensured himself virtually no rating loss in this game no matter what happens from this point forward, a healthy lead in the point department, and an excellent position in the 3-player phase: their position is solid with no gaping weaknesses and where just a move ago one of the "dangerous" side players was ready to spread his tentacles, there is now beautiful open space to advance pawns on, develop, and perhaps find shelter for the king.

So why do people attack in this cooperative way and is it unfair? Some players seem frustrated to come up against it, but I would argue that their frustration comes from lacking understanding on how to defend against these ideas. While in the above example, Red's error is obvious, in many cases it may be difficult for players to understand where they misplayed their opening. I've personally yet to see a game in which a player is mated early in a cooperative way where improvements could not be suggested in the defense they played. For example in this recent game in which I got mated on move 9, I learned the important lesson that very tactical defensive ideas are not going to work as well in FFA as in Teams (if the position is similar) because opposites cannot work together as accurately as teammates. What you need to do is find ways to close lines, disallow access to your king as much as possible. The two side players cannot play as sharply and precisely as teammates in Teams either because they lack communication and fortunately for you their attack will peter out faster. My move 5. (g) Qk6 in the game did not work well and if I were in the same position again I would try 5. (g) Nj5. It is also probably better to play 1. (g) k8 to close the diagonal to m6. If it were the case that Green would be doomed from the onset through good play by Red and Yellow then FFA would be a broken game, but this definitely does not seem to be the case! What I often see from people getting mated early is a lot of frustration and being quick to blame their opposites for passive play. However, it is much more constructive to be self-critical of our own play and find ways we could have improved instead of blaming those things that are outside our control. I don't think FFA would be a very interesting game if it weren't possible to have relatively consistent results no matter who is playing across from you and how they are going about it!

One of the simplest things you can do in the opening to make sure you aren't the victim of a checkmate from your side players is to stay away from any check threats like they are the plague. Anytime a player has a possible check on you, you should always be keenly aware of it. Check threats are always dangerous in four player chess in general, because whenever you are in check, you are forced to deal with it while another player can munch your pieces. If you are in double check from two players but your king can't move, you are mated, as in the game example above. As a general principle, whenever a side player can put you in check, it should be one of your top priorities in the position to remove that possibility. Even if the check involves sacrificing material (perhaps from the player to your left), you should carefully consider whether it would allow the player to your right a free threat to win significant material like your queen, a move from which they put you into a mating net etc. If the player to your left is playing well, they will certainly be on the lookout for such opportunities to play against you and will find their investment of material is worthwhile.

To summarize: the side players are dangerous to you when the game starts, while your opposite isn't, based on where the pieces can move. Awareness of this principle motivates players to attack together with their opposite to focus on eliminating one of the dangerous players quickly, which has tremendous benefits for both of them and very much improves their chances at winning (someone has to go first, so why not one of those who poses the greatest threat?); eliminating a side player at the cost of significant material is worthwhile. Understanding the advantage of cooperation between your side players, you need to have tactical awareness of combinations and mating ideas that involve these players in order to successfully navigate the opening phase.

PS: hope someone finds this helpful in some way! I might write some further blogs about FFA at some point or another, and I think some interesting topics would be: why you should always play for first in the three-player phase, common mating patterns in the opening, how to castle the king safely \ king safety principles. Let me know if any of these are interesting to you...