A clear example of why the FFA rating system should change

I think you made a great decision by playing for 2nd here. This does illustrate my experience of playing for 2nd being a viable backup strategy in the three-player stage.

Liquid, I do understand that my positions are necessarily personal and many will not agree. Wanted to share my views nevertheless, maybe it could help the collective reflection.

I said the 2nd player is the main loser because quite often, at least in the 2400+ games let's say, the 2nd player is in fact the one who messed up the 2nd stage (from the 3 stages), which is notoriously the most complicated and subtle. I mean, it's someone who could've (/should've) won, but couldn't because he made mistakes. In this sense he is the 1st loser. (You are usually 3rd and 4th because you played badly both the 1st and the 2nd stages...). At least that's my feeling. (cf. also https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-real-loser-in-ffa)

I do not agree that "4th should be punished a lot" because far too often it's not your fault, especially when you're G and B is passive. And the strategies you mention are not always effective, in many cases you are simply not given this opportunity/time, if the sides are very good and cooperate extremely well.

"I think that there is nothing wrong with 0 for 2nd because it is only players who don't play to win who continue to team with their opposites, meaning that one could put such players in 3rd.
Are your concerns primarily aimed at those who foolishly seek to team to the end and have opposites who do not punish this?" : no, it's mainly to address 2 problems:

1) players who understand that they don't have anymore a lot of chances to win, so prefer to throw a game to someone helping him to win in order to be sure to be 2nd (and, in your configuration, not to lose any rating). It creates a wrong incentive I believe.

2) players who would like to leave a game and thus artificially shorten it, accepting to be 2nd, playing a kamikaze in order to accumulate points (trading, etc.), as it modifies the natural order of the participants at the end, and is quite unfair for the victim of such behaviours. 

Basically if the 2nd = 0, it creates too many perverse effects. For instance if I'm SURE to be at least 2nd, it becomes positive expectancy to take bold risks (maybe you're 1st and win, or in the WCS you don't lose, being 2nd) or to trade.

Get to 3000+ then lets talk, something neither Michael nor Neo have achieved.

Wouldn’t new players be discouraged from playing after losing one game or getting 2nd?

They didn’t achieved because they didn’t even play enough. Neo did not play FFA at all! And he hopes he never will again!

We are now in the first league! Let's leave the children's things ( FFA ) behind and see who will be the master now! I give you, how many, 600-700 points of advantage!

Oh, I forgot you don't play 4pc anymore, maybe you don't want to risk your hard earned rating through FFA. Or do you not want to play in the first league?

P.S. This provocations will stop (at least on my part) because it might be interpreted as something I don’t want. I respect and appreciate you too much to argue with you.

PS.S.  Sorry Liquid because I used your topic for things you didn't want. The title of the topic is a bit provocative and I wanted to present another point of view.

OK, no problem. We are here to discuss ideas rationally, after all. no provocation intended.

I think it is too soon to call FFA a children's thing, however, because I think the evidence also supports the notion that while SOLO may allow players to be punished for being suicidal *to some degree*, as you have suggested, I don't see this working in practice. The mere fact that it is in the power of another player's hands to harm your rating, coupled with how very common this issue of spite arises (as noted by many people in this thread) makes it difficult for me to imagine accepting SOLO for all as an optimal system in both theory and practice.

Once again, from what I have seen, I think the evidence supports this assertion strongly.

I call it children thing because of Radon - of course that I dont think that!

That's exactly this.

a) people who are new to 4p do not actually expect to see their rating climbing when they are 2nd, so I don't think the objection from ChessMaster is relevant, he is influenced by his own rich experience...

b) what discourages new players most, it's clearly when they are teamed on (even sometimes by the 3 other players!) and I am pretty sure that's where we lose 90% of those who have played under 50 games. In fact if someone wanted to analyse this really (=to invest some bucks into the understanding), it wouldn't be very difficult (a) to see the stats on players who are still active on Chess.com in 2p but haven't played on 4p for let's say more than 1 year: how many games have they done, what is the breakdown in these games between standard 1 15 vs. 1 7, FFA/Solo/SFA vs. Teams, how many games have been played by them and which rating has been achieved, etc. b) to look into some players' 5 last games, c) contact some in order to ask them and understand why they left, etc., it's a basic marketing job that I used to do 20 years ago when I worked in a position that involved such analysis of something like 12 thousand on-line users).

Why I say I'm sure that most left because of that? Well, because I remember very very well. In the beginning your games are a total mess. Everybody attacks everybody, etc. THEN at some point you understand that to push for promoting is silly and that your most dangerous enemy is the guy at your left and that the guy in front is your ally whom you must protect and even save sometimes, that the fact the sides work together is normal and due to the board configuration, etc. etc. All that is progressive and you have to learn hard way, unless you read something like https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects (that I would've loved to read 4 years ago instead of losing a lot of time). And I'm sure that about 70-80% of the reports (or even 90%? The admins can say) and complaints from players are about "the two bastards who attacked me together", i.e. totally irrelevant, despite of several posts on the forum like https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/but-is-it-teaming, etc. So yes, I remember about these different stages in your understanding of the game, and I remember about my own frustration when the sides were cooperating (rather badly in fact!! As it was still around 1500-1600 <we were all 300 points lower then, as people used to begin at 1200, not 1500 like now>. I mean, it was not even the "2 queens out blitzkrieg and assisted mate within 5 moves from start" that appears much much higher as the ratings). And I remember how furious I was, how I was later in other games stupidly targeting the concerned players with kamikaze attacks, how I then learnt to block people (all unblocked since...), etc. I remember about some 3-4 particular games where I FINALLY understood. Games where for instance a much stronger opp was helping me; or was putting his Q at risk (where an idiot eats it, whereas someone else stops and thinks "Wait, why did he do that? It can't be inadvertent!"), etc. Or games where I was attacking in front (as I was a total noob then) and the guy in front patiently played without reacting, and/or explained to me later how stupid my play was, etc. So it's obvious that the retention of these new players who are still learning the basics depends greatly on:

- their personality (open to new knowledge or not),

- their patience and tenacity (some will play 14000 games like me, some will abandon after 150 games because of 5 games in a row where their sides attack them together and the incompetent guy in front does nothing or even comes to help them),

- the luck (to have other players who share their experience and knowledge with them or not).

I believe strongly that the presentation of the game should insist on these aspects much more, maybe even with a warning that would be displayed to all players who come to play their 1st, 50th and 100th game for instance, like:

"Congratulations! You've reached the 50 games threshold. We would like to remind to you now that there are 4 players in a 4p chess game, which means that it is impossible to win alone without cooperation with other players at different stages of the game. This also means that other players will cooperate against you and quite often will attack you together or simply profit from the moves by other players who attack you. It is natural and should not be reported (unless it's a pre-arranged team <link to explanation>). Good luck and enjoy the game!".

Because unless you come to the forum (and 95% of the players do not), you are simply NOT AWARE of that, and I am sure that we lose many new players because of that.

I would like to add that those who thought that the rating system would SOLO eliminate the "team player" were very innocent. Alliances will always exist, even still the actuality can be witnessed in the higher levels. the 4-player stage, in most cases, is played the same as before, when we were with the FFA rating system.  The 3-player stage will always be complex, or subtle as indipendenza says, apart from the 1/7 time control you give the players less time to think and there have been a huge number of errors that were literally unforced movement, even many lose by flag drop, it's pathetic.  Time 1/15 for me was fine for rapid, 1/7 is a blitz the way I see it.

The challenge and main focus of all this is precisely there, in perfectly improving the 3-player stage.

That's not what's happening. Most beginners first play with no clear view on it; once they're teamed on, they protest and are furious, and quite often either leave totally, or complain, or write posts about it on the forum (cf. a very recent thread of that kind, again), and also do not dare to cooperate as they feel it is not moral/honest/legal/normal.

We may simply disagree on a few points here.

From my experience, while opposite defection / passivity can be frustrating or really difficult to deal with, its definitely not impossible to deal with. Before I stopped playing due to the changes, I had learned to betray my opposite at the slightest hints of defection or passivity. Players who I betrayed were generally really annoyed by my decisions or even morally condemned my betrayal at times (One really high rated player, for example, acted as if I was morally wrong for betraying him when he was clearly playing passively and he held onto his spite even after the game). However, with this system, I rarely got 4th place.
Also, my experience is that sharp decision making and preparation allows you to counter kamikaze-like play from a player playing for 2nd in the 3-player stage. I have successfully prepared for and countered such play, thus attaining 2nd, in many 3-player stages.

The trick with these strategies is that you have to look far ahead and make decisions before it is too late. You have to remain ever vigilant to signs of opposite defection and passivity and kamikaze-like play in the 3-player stage.

Oh yes, and to address this comment in more detail: although these tactics are relatively sharp for FFA, they are not what I would consider "championship level" or "egregious." From teams perspective, these tactics are more beginner-intermediate. Whether players play for the integrity of the game is besides the point because this is really low level stuff. In other words, I see Yellow's decision to resign as not so different from choosing to attack a player simply because he / she has the highest rating.

My apologies in advance if any of my points are confusing. I can clarify if need be. Some of my writing is repetitive and some of my wording is weak, but it should be good enough. It is rather long, so you may just want to read the Tl;dr at the end.

First,I would like to point out that there are two changes. First, it is easier to lose (three players lose instead of one). Second, there will be (kinda is) an end to playing for fourth. What I have not seen, and am unsure will be even when top level play grows, is either an increase in rage-quitting/attacking or in playing for first. Due to incentives, it seems logical to suspect that these things will occur more often, which are both positives and negatives. I am hesitant to say that rage-playing has gone up, due to confounding variables.

Second, as an aside, I think part of the disagreements are just personal opinions on psychology as it interacts within the game. I just consider spite moves a normal occurrence, and care less (though I still don’t like it), than some other players. I consider it more normal, in a sense. This is why we vary on how much of the fault belongs to blue. This also applies to game preferences…Some players like positional/tactical play; others are more attracted to strategy. The important thing is to find the best outcome that appeals to the most relevant people.

Third, I think 3 0 0 -3, or that with solo 2700+ (I would hope option two but the sort of disaster that has happened makes me worried it wouldn’t work) should be, at least, a stabilizing outcome. If we want to change it (I honestly don’t have any problem, besides less high-rated play) I think those are the best two outcomes

Fourth, when second is zero and third is negative, then second, I think psychologically, is a half-win to many people. While I don’t play for second, I think that people would be happier to do that than they are now.

Fifth, in defense of yellow, they are a relatively weak player. I don’t expect the 2300s to be at a level of 2500s+. Moreover, I would assume that the average opponent they play against is not as strong as blue. In other words, I think that they are often lost in that situation because lower competition doesn’t know when to stop, if that makes sense, which would explain why they thought they were lost.

This leads me to point six. What rating range are you referring too? 2300 players are very different from 2600 players. My points refer more to 2500+, so some of them are applicable to 2300s, for example, but some of them are not.

Seven, I don’t know if, for high rated (2500+), which is better in the long run. 3003 may be better because losing due to luck is unpopular. On the other hand, solo has no apathy…i.e, in solo, you either win or lose, which I think in theory should appeal to some people. 

Eight, long term the game turning into basically luck at certain points is a big issue which I don’t know can be solved. I don’t see any of the rating systems solving this issue. I am worried about situations where the game becomes completely luck based, and I am worried that as players get better it will increase. I.e is the winner at the end of the game where there are three kings and three queens only the person with the most points, or does it depend on who is lucky/throws?

Nine. The problem with 3 0 0 3 is that players play not to get forth, and sometimes don’t deserve to be forth. This is just a weighing outcomes problem

Ten. The systems most likely to regain the top players are 3 0 0 3 and 3 0 1 3. Next is 2700+ or so solo and obviously the current system doesn’t appear to be helping. It is possible some of those players are lost forever. Similarly, even if a system is most likely to regain them doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the best system, long term.

eleven. A system set up where we need to attack players who play badly seems like a disaster. It would drive away weak players, and some players would be very edgy, quick to attack and basically end the game because they misinterpreted attacking play. But I don’t think this is really being argued for so it is irrelevant. I don’t know what the best thing for 2300+ play is but I would think that the solo cut-off needs to be around where strong players are, so maybe 2500+ (but as I’ve argued it should start higher), at least for the start. I don’t think this is healthy or is needed…I see no need for +3 0 -1 -3 for 2300s when compared to +3 0 0 -3

Twelve. I am fine with keeping solo at a high rated (2700+) level. I personally am OK with some games being decided by throwing and bad play, especially considering the current solo system doesn’t lose too many points. I think it is high enough that it won't happen too often. Sometimes you just get a bad hand. In other thoughts, I wonder if the current system will lead to inflation.

So, about the reasons for a suggested change, I see three.
1.lose points even though you did nothing (or little) wrong.
2.fail-safe
3.game can be luck based

There are four main options, current solo; high rated (2700+ perhaps) solo, +3 0 0 -3, and +3 0 -1 -3. So I’ll call them Solo, High Solo, Half FFA, and FFA, for simplicity (I hope it isn’t confusing). I am concerned about FFA, or +3, 0, -1, -3, which I’ll explain in a minute, but first the reasoning for problems.

Problem one. This is a problem in solo. I think this being a problem in High Solo depends on your point of view (see point two). This is the least problem in Half FFA and FFA, and there really isn’t much of a difference there. 

Problem two. This does not apply, in my opinion, to high rated play (2500+). There are pretty much no players where you can predict that they are going to randomly attack you. It would, in theory, apply to 2300s, but, again, I’m not really arguing against that. Right now, I have not seen a strong reason for 2300s to be solo. For what I’m arguing (2500+) this just doesn’t occur, and shouldn’t occur either. This kind-of overlaps with point nine, but I don’t see the use of a system that is a fail safe. I think either High-Solo or Half FFA would work well for this, in relation to 2300s, and this is irrelevant in my opinion to high rated play.

Problem three. As with problem one, this is a problem with solo, in my opinion a tolerable problem in high solo (almost all high rated games, I think, the losers do make mistakes), and less of a problem in Half-FFA and FFA.

There are also two evidence based arguments. First, that there are more thrown games; second, that high rated players throw games.

For the first point, I will assume that is correct. If so, I do not see that as evidence that solo is bad, because I see the lack of players and position change introduce variables that make it unclear on what is to blame.

For point two, I think the important thing is to point out two things. First, the quality of the throwing, and second, the quality of the players. Red, Yellow and Green are left. I am yellow. I move my king. Green checks me, and that allows red to checkmate me. Who’s fault is it? It is greens, for giving red the win. It is also mine, for allowing green to give red the win. In my opinion, that is my fault as much as green’s. I don’t consider that throwing, or unlucky, but bad play on my part. Fairly, there are often more egregious mistakes, but I think we are too quick to write off a loss due to other mistakes when it could have been prevented by my play. Secondly, I think it is important to point out, especially in relation to my four options, who high rated players are. In the OP’s point the player who made the mistake, yellow, is not a “high rated player” as I define it for these purposes. While it is relevant to current solo, 2300, 2400, and perhaps even 2500s are not really relevant to the merits of High-Solo. The problem with current solo in my opinion, is that, even though I disagree, these half-throws, and complete throws and blunders, are a problem to many players. Just because I don’t mind a whole lot doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be changed. This is why I am not sure that solo going down to 2400, a.k.a current solo, is a good option.

My conclusion is that Half-FFA with or without High-Solo (morphing either at 2700s or wherever we determine we have high play) is probably our best decision moving forward. I see no use for +3 0 -1 -3, for high rated play, but my bigger problem with that is I think that +3 0 -1 -3 has flaws [again high rated play].
 
What are these flaws with +3 0 -1 -3?

Though this has already been mentioned, a problem with second losing less is that, sometimes, second can just rage attack and take out third and “win”. While in the posted example, second place arguably played better, it feels balanced out to me by occasions when players over-attack or take out another player for spite. I don’t think, at least in top play, that third on average plays worse, and often plays better. For example, in the late three player stage, often someone hands the mate to someone else. Did they play better? No; rather, they made the worst, game deciding mistake.

For what I see as the bigger issue, let’s look at the intersection between win probabilities and the number of players in the game. At the start of the game, I’m, on average, going to have a 25% chance to win. Obviously it varies by my strength and my starting color, but I’m going to ignore that because it is not very relevant. But what if one player loses quickly, leading to a balanced three player stage? Now I have a 33% chance to win. In other words, if I can get to a three player stage with everything being balanced, then it is 8% more advantageous to me. Now let’s consider if I can get to the two player stage with it being balanced. In that case I have a 50% chance to win, a pretty nice 17% increase. In other words, in FFA, if I can get rid of players, it is pretty useful if I can.

The problem is this. In 3 0 -1 I should just team with my opposite till the end. It is the best outcome for me. 

What prevents this currently is A.second is not a positive outcome B.my opposite doesn’t team in the three player stage C.accepted strategy. D.not being aware that taking out a player is useful. I fear with us taking away A. in other words making second a positive outcome, and better than third, in the long run incentives will overtake B and C.

I don’t know that this could be prevented because the 3 0 -1 -3 introduces incentives to risk second…I think even if this behavior would be frowned upon and punished-in game it would not, in the long wrong, prevent that from being the dominant strategy.

In the proposed 3 0 -1 -3, I think that, at first, people will play the same. I would think that players will start to, in situations where you and your opposite both survive the four player stage but you are severely weakened, I would not be surprised if people will go ahead and aid their opposite, collect second, and survive to another day. Like how teaming has over the years, I think strong material and points opposites will start to stop betraying at first, and I think eventual opposites will team to the end. 
In theory this could happen with 3 0 0 -3 , but I think the reasons that currently prevent it should continue to. If this ever becomes a major issue we could always make the second lose more.

An argument against this is that people will always play for first, but there are many exceptions to this, and you can easily play for first while aiding your opponent in the third stage. Another argument is that players will punish other players to do this, but that is neither good for the game nor is likely to, in the long run, trump incentives.

If we really want 3 0 -1 -3 then second is going to have to lose something. It doesn’t have to be as much as third (in theory), but it is going to have to be that second is not an acceptable outcome. Right now second is not an acceptable outcome…In 3 0 0 3 second and third were the same so it wasn’t obvious, nor was second a huge benefit.

It is possible that my theory is wrong..That this won't happen. But I think that, whether I am wrong or right, we would be taking a risk making this decision. The other problem is that I don’t see any benefit to making second lose less than third, making it a very bad risk reward scenario. 

This doesn’t apply if we are fine with players teaming to the end. I think we could discuss that versus the current three player stage we have now. I do think it would be okay to reconsider that decision. 

tl;dr/summary

Option one: current
Has the problems mentioned in this thread, which appear to be a major enough to suggest that what is current is not optimal

Option two: 3 0 0 -3 with solo for 2700+ (Or so)
It has the same problem as option one, but I think it would be decreased enough that it is an okay “price to pay.” I like that there are no apathetic endings.

Option three: 3 0 0 -3
The problem with this one is that people play not to get fourth. In my opinion it is like option two, acceptable prices to pay

Option four: 3 0 -1 -3
Players are likely to team to the end. In addition, I see no benefit to it over option three.

I see options two and three the best moving forward. I do not know what is the optimal solution, but I think either of those options will be, at the very least, a good stop-gap solution moving forward, if not the permanent solution. 

Caleb

Well, that's a very short contribution, thank you for your concision.

@HSCCCalebBrown

at no time did you mention this option +2 0 -1 -1 or +4 0 -2 -2

What do you think that the third and fourth place lose the same?

Some of us are of the opinion that we would avoid passive opposites, who let their opposite die, since they both need to help each other in the 4-player stage.

what do you think? By the way, I think it's great that you've activated your account again.

I feel like the issue, of opposites teaming till the end, would be the same. The specific numbers are different but I think it'd work out the same.

What is the benefit for third and fourth losing the same? After thinking is it because you don't want players to play to avoid fourth? But then they will play to avoid third and we circle back to my major problem with this idea.

I wonder if you are misidentifying the reason for the problem of passive opposites. In my opinion, passive opposites are the result of weak play/misunderstanding of strategy. If you want to solve this, make players stronger, or, ideally, make players of the same level play against each other.

a rating system which, in my mind's theory, avoids teaming till the end, solo, and playing to avoid fourth. The problem is, second has to either be the same as third or lose something, I think. Under those constraints, a system where second is positive must have third positive, but fourth can't be positive, so I think it's impossible?

Edited to add: I am not sure how third=fourth helps prevent passivity, except to the extent that the winning opposites continue to team together. Is it still the accepted position that we don't want opposites teaming till the end?

First, thank you Chaleb for sharing your thoughts on this topic. You are one of the legends of 4pc and your opinion must be appreciated

Your last sentence gave me one crazy idea: what do you think about

1. +4

2. +2

3. +2

4. +1

this way everyone would be satisfied, new players would not be demoralized (they would only progress less), those who fight for the first place would progress more and the second and third would get what they deserve!

Every 3 months, the administrators would delete 300 points for each (or, depending on the number of games ) and problem solved!

The issue I see with that is it benificial to play more. The weak player who plays four times a day is as high rated as the strong player who plays once a day. Is it mathmaticaly possible for each game to have a rating fee?

I assumed neo's +4 +2 +2 +1 post was a joke. If players have a "rating fee" to participate in a game, it's the same as the other systems where 4th (or 3rd/4th) lose rating.

it's definitely a joke , you're not going to take that seriously!