The art of betrayal in FFA 4 Player Chess

In life, there are social, unspoken contracts that we all follow, which vary from culture to culture. The result of these contracts generally results in a superficial social cohesion. For example, groups of schools tend to rally behind their football teams, but to root for the opposite team in a game may result in social isolation. But on deeper inspection, just what kind of social cohesion do such contracts cause? What if some player from the other football team makes great plays? In general, unspoken social contracts based on what is common, as opposed to decision making based on rational consideration, lead to unsavory results.

Whereas the purpose of FFA is for every player to play in his or her own interest, to play in our own interest, we should team with our opposites temporarily (see https://www.chess.com/blog/GustavKlimtPaints/free-for-all-in-4pc-ideas-in-the-early-four-player-phase). This realization has led to the current social contract among higher-rated players to temporarily team with one's opposite. Because FFA is not based on prearranged teams, however, when taken too far, this social contract can prevent one from betraying one's opposite at the right time, thus making the game unfair. Fairness should not be based on loyalty to one person or one group, but instead loyalty to a set of principles. And the principle of FFA is every player for his or her self (ironically, in FFA to be fair is to be self seeking).

Consequentially, we should know when to betray our opposites during the 4 player stage. Not everyone is willing to play as part of a team. And 2 versus 1 is not a winning fight. Although betrayal makes getting 1st place less likely, it also makes getting 4th place much less likely. Thus, at times, our own interest depends on betraying our opposites.

Some of you might wonder why we cannot also just play passively and hope for the best. The issue with this approach is that if our neighbors play as a team and they decide to not target our opposites, but instead us, then we cannot defend ourselves (i.e., https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=9972803).

In further illustration, take the following game, for example: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=10037128.

Green was mercilessly slaughtered by Red and Yellow. Blue was nowhere to help. Is it Blue's fault that Green got 4th place? On the surface, it is easy to say yes. On deeper consideration, Green should have been prepared to betray his opposite. He left himself open to the checkmate because his queen was not vigilantly prepared to betray Green.

I therefore believe that during our FFA openings, we should prepare to betray our opposites. Because our pieces are so far from our opposites, betrayal should be conducted with our queens after vigilantly determining whether they are passive.

Consider the following position.

After Green plays n14, which is arguably a passive move, I  already started to consider betraying him. After a few more passive moves by Green, I found my opportunity to strike.

Needless to say, Green was checkmated, which assured that I would not get 4th place: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=9998341.

Even if we waver too long before deciding to betray our opposites, we can still generally betray them if we act swiftly. For example, consider the following position. After Green took my bishop, Red was nowhere to help. It was clear to me that after Bh2, Red is not a team player.

Naturally, at this point in the game, I decided to wait for an opportunity to betray Red.

He also ended up in 4th place: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=9979294.

I should also point out that if we are to disregard the social contract, then we also have a choice to what extend we choose to betray opposites not because they are passive, but because they leave themselves open to betrayal. In this vein, we should defend ourselves from those opposites that may choose to take advantage of our trust. The following position is one where an opposite opportunistically took advantage of my temporary positional weakness to betray me.



Needless to say, I received 4th place that game: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=8935885.

One of the other advantages of bringing out your queen early, ever vigilant to betray a passive opposite when neighbors choose to team, is that you can easily punish pawn pushers. Look at the following game, for example: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=9982112.

In summary, the make FFA fair, we should vigilantly seek to betray our opposites when they are passive and our neighbors opt to team. And simply put, we should seek to conduct this betrayal with our queens. This means that rapid queen development is especially important in FFA.