A proposed solution to the " opposites = cheating " controversy

I told you guys, I am done trolling and this is proof. I propose a game called " FFA - No Opposites " be created.  The enforcement would be uniform, for players who are chronic offenders as well as people who consistently waste admins time. Opposites can be claimed when a player is being cut to pieces by 2 players in successive moves. Yes, in some games this would mean banning play in the regular game that is perfectly legal by all standards to help catch the cheating players. And the game would go through some " teething pains " but the upside would be more players being able to stay in games longer, and thus get more playing time against live opponents. I believe the quality of lower rated players would improve under such a system.  I know my haters are going to tee off on this, but I don't care. I honestly believe it's a helpful idea.  

Actually to be honest I guess you're right in some way (morally, at least). My only concern with this is that now games will be very heavily luck-based since you never know who will attack who to "keep the balance". At the lower level especially, this never happens: people either attack the highest-rated player or they attack the guy with no pieces because they think that it's funny

The problem with this is that there's no way to enforce it. There's no way to clearly and precisely draw a line between full-on cooperation and players playing in their own interest.

For example, in the following position, is blue prohibited from trading with red on because it's possible for green to also attack/trade with red?

If blue takes red's knight, that's just blue initiating a trade. If green then takes red's other knight, green is also trading with red. But for red, he just lost two pieces and can only recapture one. There's no way to make clear rules on this.

>I propose a game called " FFA - No Opposites " be created. 

It's already there: https://www.chess.com/variants/4pc-max

>The enforcement 
Doomed to fail. You can't force players to play bad moves!! or forbid them to play good moves, that's ridiculous!

The point is that we suspect that in 4pc max, opposite teaming moves are bad, not good. And so there's no need to enforce anything.

I dont understand what it means can u pls explain to me

Also, is @DoubleSpeedRocks the alt of @youtube4playerchess

no

lol

44 :

I think you're missing the point. Firstly, you are calling losing a piece a trade, this is a possible reason for your misunderstanding  here. Next, ( new example ) if red takes a piece from blue, and green takes a piece from blue, and that's the end of it, blue has lost 2 pieces. If red's next 3 moves and green's next 3 moves are all taking pieces from blue, then that's a problem. 

I hope that helps :

Double

YT4PC and I are 2 separate players. He runs the world championships every year, and happens to agree with me on a lot of stuff. He's a very good admin, and doesn't deserve the hard time he gets just because he thinks my point of view has merit. If you have a problem with either of us , be woman ( or man )  enough to come out with it to my face and not hiding behind your friends.

where can i find the rules for PC MAX ? Cause if you are serious,  I'm a happy camper. Where do I sign up ?

My point is that there's no way to clearly define it. What if it's 2 moves in a row instead of 4? Or what if one player gives a check that doesn't lose any material and another player adds another check making it checkmate? In that case, neither player took any risks at all, they just gave checks, the first player completely independent from the second.

don't think he's an admin...

Agreed

this is never gonna happen. If a dude's tryna kill me, and my opp wants him dead too, wouldn't it be beneficial for my survival to kill him? But, if people are cheating, there's always the report button for pre-arranged teaming.

Sorry?

Space :

I looked at 4PC max. in 2 words " it sucks " . 11th rank to promote a pawn and 5 points for mate. It isn't even close to real 4PC. I won't be playing it. Now back to my original thought, " create 4 player no opposites " 

Your turn

Double

I have said it soo many times, and there are years of forum discussions on this topic.

The best strategy in regular FFA is to team with your oppo. The only solution is to change the hard rules (like how many points for mate, starting position, anything like that, I mean rules of the game, not some obscure 'no teaming' rule which relies on admins policing it.).

..to change the hard rules so that teaming with oppo is not the best strategy. many great minds have dwelled on this problem. and having low king value is one of the most promising ways to make teaming 'not profitable'.

You see, you think it's easy to create a game that is just like FFA but is totally not like FFA (in a sense that the best strategy be completely different).

Can you come up with something?
Your turn

btw 4PC MAX only sucks because it's not like what you are used to. Sure it's a different game in many ways. It has to be. But it's also very similar in many ways.
If you and everyone else were to play it for a year or two and grow to love it, I doubt you'd say it sucks.

Discussed 651615 times already. 

a) there is NO technical possibility to create such a rule that the computer would be able to enforce it. In many situations there is no teaming at all, but with the definitions you could imagine the computer would decide it's teaming. It would become impossible to profit from other players' moves, you would kill 4p chess for sure.

b) if you're against the opposite cooperation, fine, it's your right, but the only way to eliminate it is to make it economically irrelevant, punishing it. Several proposals have been formulated, for instance:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-new-proposal-ffa-solo-ratings-points-system?page=1

and many other threads.