Yes, this system does not have the problems of Solo or FFA, but it has its own problem: the 2nd place is advantageous compared to the 3rd and 4th places. This system is close to Solo, but at the 3-player stage, there is a clear distinction between 2nd and 3rd place, which hides the game for 2nd place under unfavorable circumstances for playing for 1st. In my opinion, any promotion of 2nd place compared to 3rd and/or 4th is detrimental to the game. If the 4th place is usually the player who showed the weakest game in tactical terms (bad team play), then the player who received the 2nd place is usually the player who showed the weakest game in the strategic plan (usually he upsets the balance of power at the 3 players stage). I value the strategic component of the game more than the tactical one (as it relates more to the team play). But unlike similar offers, you have a very large jackpot for 1st place, perhaps this will force even the most cautious player to risk 2nd place
But most importantly, I think it won't change the game much. It is unlikely that this system (maybe any) will be more fair than FFA or Solo for a particular game (statistically, all these systems are fair and the final rating of a player depends on his level of play)
A new idea / FFA, Solo, NEW SOLO
Sort:
Some postulates first.
The points we attribute for places influence quite a lot the game style.
Solo (WTA) appeared 3 years ago when one realised that for high profile games FFA means Teams during the first of the 3 stages (4 players stage), which is implied by the geometry of the board. WTA was first MANDATORY for all games above 1550 (=1850 now), but then it was decided to split and now we have separately Solo and FFA. Which is bad because there are much less games because of that (the same effect is also due to the fact many variants have been created...). 2-3 years ago it was much easier to get an individual (FFA) game of a decent level, now we have sometimes to wait for 5-15 min. to get one unless we agree to play with complete beginners or complete idiots otherwise who attack the opp' and ruin games, etc.
Some ideas have been formulated how to address the teaming most unpleasant forms, cf. for example https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa.
But as for today, we have FFA (where the 2nd place earns very few; the 3rd place loses very few; whereas the winner gets most of the points and 4th loses a lot). And solo where 2-3-4th lose equally, whereas the winner takes all (WTA).
Why both systems are bad?
- in FFA, many are encouraged to play for 2nd at some point (either because they estimate that their chances to win became zero) because the 2nd player still earns something, in addition another perverse effect exists: if one estimates that his opp plays too badly, one sometimes plays in order not to get 4th which also makes the final outcome different from what it should normally be according per levels and skills. One should always play to win, not just to avoid being 4th.
- in Solo, sometimes you're clearly the best but still finish 2nd just by chance (someone estimates he has absolutely no chance anymore to win so he resigns as 2/3/4 places are all equal, and then another player grasps 20 that technically were YOURS because of the situation, or another possibility, you patiently prepare a checkmate, the guy sees it and there is no issue and abandons, his king then escapes via grey pieces and another player mates him immediately, and again you were winning, but eventually you are not and it's unfair that with your 2nd place you get nothing contrary to FFA. Furthermore, in Solo at some level 3 players will do everything possible to prevent the current leader from winning, and instead of trying to win all 4 will spend most of their time to prevent others from winning, and that's again because of the points structure, everything for one player, and 2-3-4 equal.
Hence after some reflection the following proposal.
1st place: +5.5
2nd place: -1
3rd place: -2.25
4th place: -2.25
3rd and 4th lose equally: ppl won't do everything to avoid being 4th anymore.
2nd loses points: no more real incentive to be team from A to Z, at some point one is OBLIGED to betray, like in Solo, especially in high level games and in anonymous games for obvious reasons.
1st earns a lot: everybody is definitely encouraged to play for win.
But it's still much better to be 2nd than 3rd.
AND the difference 1/2 is much higher than 2/3, it's fully deliberate.
I'm sure that such a structure (maybe to adjust after discussion and counterproposals) would address many of the current issues and we could then remerge FFA and Solo calling it "Individual" (as opposed to "Teams"). And there will be much more games again, etc.
(Another 2 ideas that I proposed elsewhere on the forum were:
- to have different points attribution structure per level of the game, for example 3 tranches, average level under 1800; 1800-2100; above 2100, but in this case it should definitely become forbidden for people to join a rated game if there is a player with more than 200 points of difference in level;
- to attribute different points according to whether the 1st and 2nd are opposite players or not).