A list of games where Solo-for-all fails the 3-player stage.

Everything that can be said on this topic has been said. So I'm just going to start a list of examples of games where solo-for-all fails the 3-player stage because a player throws the game. Feel free to add games.

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27718580

In this game, Red had the most points, but somehow Green thought it was a good idea to keep relentlessly attacking me, giving Red the win.  Green also sat back passively watching blue get attacked, because "nickcam:  that's not the way I play, if I wanted to play teams, I would play teams and help him, in ffa, everyone's on their own" 

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27706785/91/3

Blue throws with a Minute left on the clock

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27402872/134/3

Red intentionally goes into a completely lost 2 player stage 

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27442070/415/2

Blue accidentally gives mate and claim to yellow

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27348718/436/4

Yellow (me) gets frustrated and resigns, giving green the win

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26862612/326/3 

Green flags, accidentally or on purpose, giving yellow the win

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26554348/300/2

Green flags, giving the win to red 

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26445607/232/1

Blue kamikazes into yellow after hanging his queen, giving green the win

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26042182/305/3

Green gives blue a mate and claim on red

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/25953009/144/1

Green takes blue's queen, giving the win to yellow

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/25554134/308/3

Yellow hangs a mate and claim, giving the win to red

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/25553115/313/2 

That's a throw in 9 out of 12 high rated games I've played since the merge. 

Good idea to start compiling this guys  

The truth yes, I have several game records, 

However I invite you to watch this game with the current ranking system:

1 | 7 FFA 2500+ | 29-04-2022

empty_K3 | DZIRI05 | JCrossover_14 | Typewriter44

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26445607/268/1

- The 4 player stage, it was TEAM or Strategic Alliance, which is absolutely natural, and inevitable.
- The 3-player stage was extremely close where no one wanted to attack, everyone was passive, and there were many passing plays.
- Typewriter44 He is highly skilled at playing positional, which is a virtue for this system and can lead you to success.
- Time control 1 | 7 FFA, I lead them to make many mistakes due to time, due to the possible fall of the flag and I take good advantage of that red, in the center of the board.

For me, that is really boring, since those games lack the essence of FFA. And as I said in the chat comments, it is literal and textual, because that's what it felt like at the time.

 That's how SOLO games are, Eternal 🥱😴💤💤💤

This is the most boring game I have ever seen in FFA in its entire history!. 100 passing moves, all passive, nobody risks anything, and they don't seem to care.🥱 😴 . clearly in the chat they made it noticeable, at the end of the game.

Anyway, there are still people who continue to enjoy this perfect boredom, (Ranking System SOLO).🥱 😴

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26640247/616/1

Can we report passive opposites here like @empty_k3?

Yellow to move, do you play Qh12 or Bg12?  I expect more from "World Class Players". 

Is this the type of game where it's acceptable to attack your opposite?

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27745318/23/1

Spoiler Alert:  BG crushed this game. 

While BG start attacking Red, @empty_k3 starts pushing his pawn to promote and does nothing else till I'm mated.  

@LosChessquire
That is the mythical opening of Pegasus, we already learned to deal with it. When you see that, clearly your opposite is saying that he is not interested in making teams in the opening, although in the middlegame, @empty_k3 he can help you a lot, which is where he becomes stronger.

Please dont call it the mythical opening of Pegasus... it is just garbage

it's actually called the "Please mate me" opening

Also, he "can" help you plenty in the opening as well, he just isn't going to, if I see my opposite play this im mating them first chance I get.

Pegasucks should remain a myth.  The next time my opposite plays this, he's getting attacked first.  He immediately got attacked in the 3 player stage, and finished 3rd.  

The problem is not passive players, but rather active players playing with passive players

We can to some extent try to improve passive players

We can also try to change the culture around this so that players are more focused on their own mistakes rather than others, which would in theory make this less of an issue

The biggest thing we can do, however, is make active players play each other, and passive players play each other. This may include altering the rating system to accuratly reflect strength, though I think that does an OK job. It also includes making players of the same strength play each other, and growing the player base.

ETA: in defense of empty, the average 1750 blitz cue, I don't think, has very much teaming, so I think it is understandable that he didn't coordinate his queen and pieces, albeit unwise

@HSCCCalebBrown you make some excellent points, but I don't think our player base is big enough to put passive players together, and how would you determine who's passive or not?

The highest rated player at our game turned out to be the most passive.  With my Queen out, and my set up I made it obvious that I wasn't playing passively and he should've got his Queen out.  He chose to push pawns instead.  I never attack my opposite, but I'm making an exception next time my opposite plays passively like that.

For FFA Rapid (not blitz and bullet), ratings should more or less be similar to strength. Maybe I'm wrong, but the average 2200, 2300 ect. are more or less similar in teaming strength (and three player stage strength) to their counterparts. Do you think I'm wrong on this?

If I'm right, then you just make players of similar ratings play each other (we should do this anyway, new players should not play with 1800 players, but anyway) and the issue is mostly solved?

There are exceptions, like your game (though A. empty does know how to team B. it's blitz where ratings are more off...green wasn't 1800)

Generally, I wish four player chess would move away from the mentality that your opposite owes you good play, it would be better for the game, I think. But anyway

"When we play in FFA"

 We must consider that our Opposite is simply a strategic Ally, but it is totally momentary.  There are 2 situations at all times, which are:

 Your opposite can decide how to make the best move, thinking that it is the best for both of you.

 Or also, your opposite can think and decide what is the best "TEAM style" move that is more beneficial for himself.

 What I'm trying to say is that when you go out on the battlefield in FFA, you should in no way think that your opposite will make the best plays in the 4 player stage thinking together as Allies, it's right here, how many TEAM players , they are not good FFA players, since as I have always said, they are worlds that are similar, but they are totally different.

"Cuando jugamos en FFA"

Debemos considerar que nuestro Opuesto, es simplemente un Aliado estratégico, pero es totalmente momentáneo. Existen 2 situaciones en todo momento, las cual son:

Tu opuesto puede decidir como hacer la mejor jugada, pensando que es lo mejor para los 2. 

O también, tu opuesto puede pensar y decidir cuál es la mejor jugada de "estilo TEAM" más beneficioso para el mismo. 

Lo que intento decir es que, cuando sales al campo de batalla en FFA, de ninguna manera debes pensar que tu opuesto hará las mejores jugadas en la etapa de 4 jugadores pensando de forma conjunta cómo Aliados, es justamente aquí, qué muchos jugadores de TEAM, no son buenos jugadores de FFA, ya que como he dicho siempre, son mundos que se parecen, pero son totalmente distintos.

@HSCCCalebBrown I agree with you, and it made me think about adjustments I need to make in my game.  I started out as an FFA player, but I'm mostly a Teams player now so I'm used to coordinating with my opposite, and now need to adjust to having passive opposites. 

You're right in that assumption, I'd say in general a lot of 2000-2300 players are around the same Teaming strength, most don't really play Teams so it's understandable. 

In general, I don't expect much from my opposite, Michael knows how to co-operate and simply chose not to, so I need to adjust accordingly.  He ended 3rd, so his passive strategy didn't exactly work out when BG were working together. 

I think the problem is not active players playing with passive players but active players not learning how to adapt to passive players. For example, betrayal is often an excellent option. Sensing when to betray I think is a crucial FFA skill—especially when the rating system is not solo for all.