1|15D FFA 2000+ tutorial : Balance in the 3 player stage

For me, these are not problems "in se", but because we could have much richer games and new developments and moves, and we are deprived by what Tom called once "inevitable moves/openings", which is heresy for me.

Thanks Sigma!

Impressive how many presumably good players (2200+) ignore this...

For instance: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5974493

Impressive how yellow was continuously helping red to win, all the 2nd stage through (whereas red had much more points and more material). I could win somehow, but largely by luck.

...because that's the best strategy (unfortunately).

Do you know the prisonner's dilemma? It's a clear case. You can't resist alone against a (likely) joint attack from your neighbour and therefore you're obliged to cooperate in the 1st stage FFA. So yes it's clearly 2 vs. 2 in the beginning.

It's just a matter of efficiency really. You save time + energy. You don't want to waste your energy and sources by taking it up on 3 players. You have to remember, it's 2 bishops, rooks, knights,... versus 6 other bishops, rooks, knights,.... 

Technically you are fine as long as your defense is solid but if you slip at some point, which you will, you don't want to be 3 v'd 1 at that moment. Believe me, once a corridor is opened and you are left vulnerable by a player, the other 2 players will take advantage of that and you'll be out within few moves. At such moments you are going to wish that your opp attacked the other two to give you some breathing space. Even the best players with an ELO above 2800 cannot outperform such a gang attack. (A little hint : look at the archives of the strongest players. You'll find clear examples of the above mentioned game types.) 

Besides, you have to divide the game in stages. The first stage is teaming yes, accept it. It's all about learning, adapting and overcoming. Embrace this mindset instead of whining and you will taste victory. The second stage is the most interesting and complex part of the game. It's the stage where one player is eliminated and 3 players are left. In this phase it's every man for himself and this is where the true nature of 4 player chess reveals itself. Sometimes you will have to attack a player and sometimes you will have to protect that very same player to keep a good balance in order for you to win. Emotional control is required in this stage as it is easy to get angry with a player for continuously attacking you and playing for revenge resulting into both players losing and making it an easy win for the third party. 

The final stage is where you use your 2 player chess skills to wrap it all up. So it's basically normal chess with some extras applied. 

Try to see the bigger picture. It's not only every man for himself but it is also not full blown teaming. 4 players chess FFA entails all of it and as I said exists of 3 stages. The semi-teaming stage, the every man for himself stage and the 1vs1 stage. 

Basically you can consider it as a mario game with 3 levels. Every level requires its own strategy and method. Realize this and you will prevail. 

Sadly there is truth in this. Even most of the higher rated players are paying way too much attention, and making it their main goal to eliminate the chance of getting fourth place. But in order to get to the very top, the most important is to consistently win a lot (1st) instead of consistently being able to dodge fourth place, and then see what happens in the three player stage, having already the safety net of not getting last place that game. That's where most players in the 2300+ are. Most of the time they get 2nd or 3rd. Sometimes 4th maybe more 1st place, they go up and hit even 2500/2600, then they get a back streak and drop down again, and so on... Getting to the very top requires winstreaks of first place.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5984245-44 a funny example on this topic happened now, red finished off green (i.e. avoided 4th place), but got mate on the next move (i.e. missed 1st place). It's a mistake in solo, but is it a mistake in ffa?

The reason why the teaming aspect stops after a player is eliminated is because only the first player gets a decent score. You could argue that they could take turns and boost their ELO but that would be considered cheating due to unfair play and pre-arranged teaming. Besides places are chosen randomly so the chances that they become opps is slim. 

However, I understand what you are trying to say. I hate it as well when players persist on being loyal to their opp even after a player is eliminated and that makes the game unfair. What I don't agree on is that teaming should be completely left out. Imagine 4 people playing all for themselves the entire game. Jesus Christ, can you perceive the amount of time that game will take? It will take forever to finish such a game as everyone will just try to queen and strengthen their position. The whole point of FFA if not 4 player chess is to take advantage of a weakened player. That's the entire point. So according to your logic it would be a sin to attack a player who is in check or already getting attacked, which makes no sense. Man gotta be a little opportunistic here

No, it doesn't.

First of all, prearranged teams are against the rules. It makes indeed a BIG difference.

Secondly, they won't be systematically in front one from another. And to team up being neighbours is tricky (due to the config. of the board). In addition, in anon. games they won't even be aware of who is where (and it's illegal to make know in any way).

But more importantly, in the 2nd of the 3 stages (and this clever thread is about this one specifically), your 2 teams champions won't be helped anyway. They won't continue to team up necessarily (unless they accept to be 1st and 2nd, i.e. 2nd in 50% of cases, and that anyway would be a prearranged team clearly). To play for 2nd is cheap and silly.

I don't care to lose and to be 3rd or 4th from time to time. But it's very frustrating to see so many cases where someone wins not thanks to his exceptional judgment and skills, but simply because another player offers him the victory as he plays for 2nd instead of playing to win. Even some 2250+ games are like that! People sometimes continue to attack the underdog, playing totally against the balance, thus offering the 1st place to another player on a plate.

Example (among so many...) : https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=6608661

That's why Solo is more interesting, people very seldom do that. Whereas in FFA it's not that rare. Instead of assessing the position, the points, the material, the remaining time, the perceived force of the players, etc. in order to cooperate with the appropriate player, they sometimes continue the alliance they began with the opposite player, beyond reasonable. Frustrating when you are the 3rd player as you physically feel you're wasting your TIME. (Once again, between the 2nd and 3rd place there is no real difference, and to play for 2nd is utterly silly).

why do you consider it cheating? 

opposites work together to eliminate a side player because it gains them a strategic advantage. When a side player is eliminated it is easier to queen so it would be foolish to not work together. But once a player is gone teaming is over. It is not cheating it is being smart. 

Calling this 'cheating' is simply a sign of a limited perspective. Don't build your world on laws and rules only. Try thinking outside of the box

Black_pencil, your FFA rating is 2086... I'm not sure you're qualified to comment so far.

Rule 1: Try to get as many points as possible compared to the opponent with the most points.

Rule 2: Never let an opponent that is less than 40 points behind you, get into a position where he/she can checkmate all other remaining players by force. 

Come on man, I’m not in the mood to have a discussion on the matter since it’s already been talked about so much. Look at Sigma’s/Hest’s ratings lol. When people that are infinitely better then you are trying to explain something and you’re just not getting it, should realize that your understanding of the matter is so very much low. Yes, you’re probably not qualified, don’t have the high rated game experience to be able to form a well thought out opinion and so on and so forth...

ChaCha, Sigma, Hest were polite, I won't be a lot: one shouldn't argue when one is not qualified for; and it is terribly rude to call "cheating" something that is NOT AGAINST THE RULES. Only idiots do that. 

The syllogism is pretty simple:

1) FFA means FREE FOR ALL. One is free to play however he wants.

2) the best strategy in the 1st stage is (or at least seems currently) to play jointly with the opposite player, as temporary alliance.

3) That's why the best players do it, and as it is not against the rules (and the point 1 above), it's fine.

In addition, you speak about the chat: YES it is contrary to the chat rules to propose or to announce an alliance, and it is normal as it is contrary to FFA logic (you have always some degree of uncertainty about what the tmporary partner would do; and if an alliance is announced and agreed, that's not FFA anymore even if yes, one could still betray, etc.).

Nope, I did't choose the Rapid because that's where I was higher, but simply because the FFA Rapid is the MAIN rating, by any means. You're very high in Bullet (both FFA and Solo), nice (BTW my places in Bullet are also largely higher than my place in Rapid!), but THE rating is FFA Rapid (1/15), it's like that and probably it will always be. And YES you can't really comment on a matter where you are not even 2300 not to mention 2500-3000 (as for the 3 other participants, a/mentioned).

The reason why it is not allowed in chat is because every player should think for himself. Suggesting a move or manipulating another player to play as he wishes, now that is cheating. 

What matters the rest of your comment, just smh man. I don't even know what your goal is anymore. Can we just agree to disagree and leave it at everyone's perspective of the game. 

It is obvious that we cannot change your mind but that's okay. Play as you wish and call it cheating. I'm not willing to explain any further if you are not willing to understand. 

I don't want to be rude but you annoyed me a little with your comments that don't make any sense to be honest. 

You did an outstanding job. I am not a player of this game anymore, but I find it helpful.

1|15D*

No balance for @^_K