You guys are just giving away all the secrets now 
1|15D FFA 2000+ tutorial : Balance in the 3 player stage
Sort:
Helpful, thank you. After reading, I followed your advices here:
https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4540007
Nice job
I think there should be a few more points: time, help to the opponent and the position of the king.
Time (paces). Sometimes it is better to be passive (up to repetition of moves) and not show activity (exchanges, holding queens, activating pieces in the center or on the opponent's flank), usually this is useful when you have an advantage in material and in points (both opponents neutralize your any activity), or being active can be bad for your defense. And sometimes you need to urgently activate, forgetting about your defense.
Help. You may not take free pieces of your opponent (passive help), may defend his pieces, or even give up your pieces in order to save one of your opponent (active help, here is a vivid example: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4499702-94 ) in order to maintain game balance.
A strong king position, usually consisting of pieces of low value, can require large material sacrifices on the part of the opponent, and also protect you from coordinated play (one checks, the other takes a pieces).
All these points are closely intertwined (and need examples), but I think its can be distinguished separately.
Arseny_Vasily wrote:
Nice job
I think there should be a few more points: time, help to the opponent and the position of the king.
Time (paces). Sometimes it is better to be passive (up to repetition of moves) and not show activity (exchanges, holding queens, activating pieces in the center or on the opponent's flank), usually this is useful when you have an advantage in material and in points (both opponents neutralize your any activity), or being active can be bad for your defense. And sometimes you need to urgently activate, forgetting about your defense.
Help. You may not take free pieces of your opponent (passive help), may defend his pieces, or even give up your pieces in order to save one of your opponent (active help, here is a vivid example: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4499702-94 ) in order to maintain game balance.
A strong king position, usually consisting of pieces of low value, can require large material sacrifices on the part of the opponent, and also protect you from coordinated play (one checks, the other takes a pieces).
All these points are closely intertwined (and need examples), but I think its can be distinguished separately.
I'm glad you pointed out, Arseny. There is indeed still a lot to say about the 3 player stage such as King's safety, timing, pitting the two opponents against each other, the importance of pawns, stimulating an incentive to make a player attack and so on... But for the sake of keeping the article nice and compact I decided to focus on the main factors. I might make some adjustments in the future or write another article but for now let us allow people to thoroughly chew this knowledge first
Aug 20, 2020
0
#28
Great post, thanks.
As for checkmates: I think it's slightly more complicated. YES not all checkmates are good, of course. But sometimes the weaker player is likely to be checkmated by the stronger player very soon (not immediately though, in which case there is no discussion: if a player is mate minus 1 and you cannot save him at all, it's of course better to checkmate him yourself regardless, even losing a piece... otherwise you just offer 20 pts to someone else and could even finish 3rd). Because in this case it's tricky: sometimes the weaker player is not far from death and you don't see what you could do to save him, unless you give up too much material. Do you still think it's good to let him alive (with the risk of having 20 pts for someone else?). I mean, in some cases to prevent the stronger player from having 20 and taking them yourself at least guarantees you the 2nd place (and sometimes better). YES you will say the outcome is anyway the same, you're 2nd in both cases. But not really because sometimes, letting the weaker player alive, you finish in fact 3rd either because the stronger player kills you first and then claims or even because the weaker player doesn't care and contrary to your wise advise, just attacks you instead of the stronger player. That's why I believe the expectancy is in favour of mating him (UNLESS once again if you feel a) you can protect him effectively and b) he's a rational guy and not a total idiot).
Aug 20, 2020
0
#29
hest1805 a écrit :
Great work, pretty much all of this is also very useful in Solo by the way.
There's more to be said about trades in my opinion. Trading pieces is quite an efficient way to gain points, so I don't mind it too much in general as long as the balance is maintained.
With my (much narrower) experience, I would say that in solo the concept of balance is even more important. But most players in solo understand that in fact correctly, I mean it's much more seldom to see ppl attacking the weakest player on the board and most would (temporarily) cooperate against the guy with more material/points/better position.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#30
pjfoster13 a écrit :
Great article, the real ones already know. Agree with hest about it relating to Solo
One comment I will also add is this:
when the 4th player has resigned or timed out instead of being checkmated, and there is not any imminent mate in 1-2 that only you can get, you should just let the zombie king roam around and focus your moves on the 2 opponents who are still playing. Get the +20 at the end after you win the game. The presence of zombie king also means that one of your opponents (or you) would need a 40 point lead to Claim Win, so this wider gap means matches will often go deeper into the endgame which can often be used to your advantage if you have strong endgame knowledge
Sincerely I fail to agree on this one. Very often it's better to take these 20 ASAP. Because a) your neighbours can do otherwise, and b) very often such king is stalemated (silly... points spread equally) or just checkmated by someone else inadvertently, especially in blitz and bullet.
"and there is not any imminent mate in 1-2 that only you can get"
angelo_5113 wrote:
how long did that take to make?
Roughly 3 hours
Indipendenza wrote:
Great post, thanks.
As for checkmates: I think it's slightly more complicated. YES not all checkmates are good, of course. But sometimes the weaker player is likely to be checkmated by the stronger player very soon (not immediately though, in which case there is no discussion: if a player is mate minus 1 and you cannot save him at all, it's of course better to checkmate him yourself regardless, even losing a piece... otherwise you just offer 20 pts to someone else and could even finish 3rd). Because in this case it's tricky: sometimes the weaker player is not far from death and you don't see what you could do to save him, unless you give up too much material. Do you still think it's good to let him alive (with the risk of having 20 pts for someone else?). I mean, in some cases to prevent the stronger player from having 20 and taking them yourself at least guarantees you the 2nd place (and sometimes better). YES you will say the outcome is anyway the same, you're 2nd in both cases. But not really because sometimes, letting the weaker player alive, you finish in fact 3rd either because the stronger player kills you first and then claims or even because the weaker player doesn't care and contrary to your wise advise, just attacks you instead of the stronger player. That's why I believe the expectancy is in favour of mating him (UNLESS once again if you feel a) you can protect him effectively and b) he's a rational guy and not a total idiot).
First of all, I kindly thank you for your opinion.
Well actually this kind of mentality is the reason why I decided to address this problem by writing an article. What you are suggesting is the total opposite of what has been discussed and usually leads to 2nd or 3rd place. Besides I realized you have mixed first stage strategies (semi-teaming) with 3 player stage. Settling for second place is already losing the game in your mind making it less fun for everybody. Playing with a player who has no common sense is frustrating, yes, and it mostly eases the work of one player as making it harder for the other to win turning it into a zero-sum game. Basically he decides who gets first and who gets third while he himself settles for second. This is exactly what we are trying to stop! I don't feel comfortable with allowing another player to decide for me. It is important for me to impose my will. Feel free to play for second if you feel encouraged by it but unless you want to dwell on the same ELO range, I suggest you start playing for first.
Aug 20, 2020
0
#34
No: we speak about same things. There are clearly THREE stages in FFA, 4, 3 and 2 players; here you (and me) focused on the 2nd one (which indeed is the trickiest, hence your clever post).
My point was that contrary to what you suggest, it's not ALWAYS good to let the weaker player survive, I mainly reacted on this argument. I was saying that in fact it DEPENDS, and in terms of expectancy in SOME precise cases it's still good to kill him (IF and IF, etc., some conditions) because otherwise you're 3rd (and in some cases even 4th). Well YES the difference 2nd/3rd is not relevant and YES one should always play to win, I agree with you. The problem being that in some cases (if the third guy attacks you - against the spirit of this post because he didn't read you , and/or if his death is imminent anyhow AND the stronger guy is likely to kill him very soon) it's still better to kill him I believe. But well, in MOST cases you are abs. right; and next time I see a game which illustrates my point, I'll respond more concretely.
Indipendenza wrote:
No: we speak about same things. There are clearly THREE stages in FFA, 4, 3 and 2 players; here you (and me) focused on the 2nd one (which indeed is the trickiest, hence your clever post).
My point was that contrary to what you suggest, it's not ALWAYS good to let the weaker player survive, I mainly reacted on this argument. I was saying that in fact it DEPENDS, and in terms of expectancy in SOME precise cases it's still good to kill him (IF and IF, etc., some conditions) because otherwise you're 3rd (and in some cases even 4th). Well YES the difference 2nd/3rd is not relevant and YES one should always play to win, I agree with you. The problem being that in some cases (if the third guy attacks you - against the spirit of this post because he didn't read you , and/or if his death is imminent anyhow AND the stronger guy is likely to kill him very soon) it's still better to kill him I believe. But well, in MOST cases you are abs. right; and next time I see a game which illustrates my point, I'll respond more concretely.
Thank you, you can always share examples and experiences to clarify your point. I'd be happy to take it!
Aug 20, 2020
0
#36
Sigma, in the meantime I'm quite interested to know your opinion on https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-new-idea-ffa-solo-new-solo.
Because a) many of the problems we have in FFA (assisted checkmates, blatant teaming, queens-out-blitzkrieg that deprives us of many potential interesting games...) and b) what you've just described (playing for 2nd in some cases) and c) a perverse behaviour "not to be 4th at any price" and d) the split that was operated between Solo and FFA 2 years ago, ALL THAT is technically impulsed by the calculation mode. If it changed, some of such problems would be addressed.
nice
Oct 24, 2020
0
#39
Sometimes to resign is the best option, depending on the points, material, position and the likeliness of some of the 2 remaining players to checkmate the other one...
https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5162343
Indipendenza wrote:
Sigma, in the meantime I'm quite interested to know your opinion on https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-new-idea-ffa-solo-new-solo.
Because a) many of the problems we have in FFA (assisted checkmates, blatant teaming, queens-out-blitzkrieg that deprives us of many potential interesting games...) and b) what you've just described (playing for 2nd in some cases) and c) a perverse behaviour "not to be 4th at any price" and d) the split that was operated between Solo and FFA 2 years ago, ALL THAT is technically impulsed by the calculation mode. If it changed, some of such problems would be addressed.
I find it curious that you call these things "problems." My perspective is that the game is richer for having multiple stages that need different strategies and approaches; I think the game has been working pretty well in its current incarnation, but there is a gap for people appreciating it as it is and thinking "it should look" somehow else based on their assumptions. Sometimes it feels like people just expect 4PC FFA to be a 2 player chess tournament semifinal where 2 people fight each other, another 2 people fight each other, then the winners fight in the final, and there's nothing messy in between. Granted, it's good to have discussion since 4PC FFA is still young and in development, but I think what you say is pretty far from how I see things, since a lot of what you mention is in fact what creates interesting games, rather than preventing them in my view (though I wouldn't use the same language to color those features in an undesirable way as you do).
Great post. I think the thing that may help a lot of 2k rated players is recognizing the massive points difference between being 1st and 2nd/3rd. Psychologically I understand it feels bad to lose points, so with 3 players left, there's often the "loser" mentality of simply avoiding being 3rd by say attacking the weakest player or continuing to cooperate with your across even though he's much stronger/has way more points. But if you spend all that effort to "secure" 2nd, you've only netted something like +4 points (+2 for 2nd vs. -2 for 3rd), whereas going for 1st may yield something like 20 points. The question you have to ask yourself then is if you'd rather have a shot of getting +20 or keep on settling for +4 five times to achieve the same points gain. If you are rated similarly as the remaining players and have a roughly equal position, it seems fair to assume you have a 1/3 chance of getting first, and the expected value of 1/3 * 20 is higher than 4.
There we have it proved with math/statistics. Numbers don't lie