An actual case of collusion in FFA?

Neither player should have been named.

@sidewinder

I would never put as much trust in my opposite as what was done in the game I posted. I just cant understand many of the moves in the game.   If my opposite gives me a bishop, I dont respond with hanging a rook.  I always make sure my back is covered.  Unless I'm on the verge of losing and and am forced to take greater risks.  And as soon as one player is eliminated,  if your my opposite,  watch your back, because I am trying to win.

Besides,   there is an interogation mark in my title,  so I'm not making accusations,  I'm asking  a question... 

@Skeftmilos

You don't acknowledge that it was possibly just strategy? That nothing was prearranged at all? Isn't it possible, or more rather likely, that they both figured that if they may pay a much higher price for taking the other's bishop, than not taking it? Do I want 5 points, or do I prefer if that bishop continues to harass the dangerous player to my right? If i'm sitting between those two players, I'd be hoping to god i have a cooperative opposite, because if I don't, my chances of getting 2nd or better will be near zero.

What about all the games where someone was hoping for cooperation, and turned out to just blunder the game? happens quite often too, but never gets reported. It's like the hero call, you look like a genious, or a fool.

Of the 4 games the accused have played together, here's the one where they were not opposites: #270852.

You seem to have it all worked out, you say it's crystal clear, an exact science. I have to ask again: which rule was broken?

I actually have more fun playing with <1600s, precicely because it's less teamy. But I can't fault good players for doing whatever it takes to win.

I agree the players should not have been named. But I do think these discussions are important. I suggest posting the pgn (without the names of course) instead of the link to the game in the future.

hmm i think i'll add the url tech i built for helloboard back in, so we don't have to copy, paste and load pgn (see https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/hello-board post #8)

I copy the current rules about teaming:

«In free for all, the game should be played as free for all. You may not "team up" with another player to gain an unfair advantage. Neither prearranged teaming or teaming up through chat during the game is allowed. If you want to play as a team, then you should play the teams variant. All this said, you don't need to be afraid of taking advantage of a player checking another player or similar things. That is not teaming and just part of the game.»

It seems pretty clear to me, although the phrase "to gain an unfair advantage" has created some confusion. Some people could think that it's OK to team up, provided that the advantage you gain is "fair". This unfortunate addition reduces the clarity of the rule. About the meaning of "teaming up", it becomes clear from the sentence «If you want to play as a team, then play the teams variant». In other words if you are playing FFA like Teams, you are doing it wrong. Strategy or not, prearranged or not, you are not allowed to play this way. Stop it, or you will be stopped.

There is a difference between playing as a team and playing like a team.

The only clear part of those rules is "Neither prearranged teaming or teaming up through chat during the game is allowed", and the way it's written, i'd say that is the definition provided for "teaming up" and "unfair advantage". Concerning the game under consideration here, they didn't team up through chat, so you are claiming that green and blue prearranged their cooperation.

"If you want to play as a team.." is unfortunate to have included there imo. it's not about wanting to, it's about having to, unless you like losing. Is that why you have stopped playing?

"Strategy or not, prearranged or not, you are not allowed to play this way" just doesn't translate to the reality of the game at all. It's like telling people they are not allowed to defend themselves, they should just accept their fate, be martyrs, and lose. report the teamers, and the teamers will get banned. If the moderators ban all players that ever cooperated in a game, there will be noone left to play with (again it's not realistic because they'd just create new accounts).

fwiw, taking advantage of a check sounds like teaming to me. and it's explicitly allowed.

@TheSidewinder i totally understand the desire to be anonymous, i've felt it myself in many a game. But I'm not that serious a player that I'd want to trade the social/fun aspect of getting to know players and building a history with them for it. (As stated elsewhere, I don't make the rules).

"i don't think this would have happened in an anonymous game" I think you're wrong here. While it would probably be a bit less likely, it's the moves a player makes that indicate his intentions, not his name.

@GDII we may need @Martin0 to come up and clarify the rules then.

@_-__-__-___- are you making a case for abolishing this and every other anti-teaming rule in FFA? Aren't you afraid that legalizing teaming will make teaming-with-the-opposite the de facto standard strategy employed by every FFA player above beginners level? Do you think it will still be fun when everyone starts doing it?

very well put!

what is "teaming" skeft? Why is taking advantage of a check not considered teaming?

I don't see much sense in attempting to forbid the arguably best FFA strategy. I don't see any benefit in having rules that are not clear by any means, and much less enforceable.

And no, I don't think it's fun at all! It was much more fun a year ago, when ppl had no idea about Teams and how to coordinate and mate in a few moves.

We want our good old FFA back. Most of us would like that it seems. But how??

You havent played for quite a while, and i don't see you observing games. With all due respect, it doesn't seem like you are aware of what games are like. I played a game yesterday where a 1400 didn't hesitate half a second to sack his queen for a mate (securing him 2nd at least). Things have changed.

My definition of teaming is pretty narrow and straightforward: What constitutes teaming is for the teamed players to coordinate their pieces, and form a combined army. They support each other's pieces, without capturing them.

Lets make it clear that this is not chess.com's official definition of teaming, it's just my own.

Taking advantage of a check is not teaming up, it is ganging up. Ganging up is allowed, actually advised. Teaming up is forbidden by the current rules. Disallowing the best strategy is not something special to FFA 4PC. For example the best strategy for normal chess is to fire-up your Stockfish engine and replay its moves. Your whole argument against banning teaming (#30) could be easily modified to become an argument against banning cheating. Just replace the word "teamers" with "cheaters" and you are ready to go.

About being inactive as a player for a while, it is true. I am unaware if the playing ethics have changed drastically the last couple of months. Have they?

firing up stockfish is not a strategy. very poor argument. an example would be disallowing playing  the berlin defence as black.

so you want the rules to say: "You are not allowed to coordinate your pieces with another player. ever. under no circumstances. period." in that case half the players and pretty much all good players should get banned? i'm exagerating, but you get the point.

The reality is also: since we enabled the reporting feature 50 days ago, there have been near 1000 reports for "cheating / prearranged teaming".

just for fun, a pop quiz:

1. j2-j3 .. b7-d7 .. e13-e12 .. Nn5-l6
2. Nj1-i3 .. d7-e7 .. Bf14-e13 .. m9-l9
3. e2-e3 .. e7-f7 .. h13-h11 .. Qn8-l10
4. Bf1-e2 .. b8-c8 .. Nj14-i12 .. Ql10-h6
5. f2-f4 .. f7-g7 .. h11-h10 .. Qh6-e6
6. Ne1-f3 .. g7-h7=Q .. Bi14xc8 .. Qe6-d5+
7. Nf3-g5 .. Qh7-b7 .. Bc8xQb7+ .. Qd5-d8+
8. Be2xb5 .. Ka8xBb7 .. Qh14-h13+ .. Qd8-d5+
9. Bb5xRa4 .. Kb7-b8 .. Be13-f12+ .. Qd5-d8+#
10. Ba4-c6 .. h10-h9 .. Qd8-l8
11. Bc6-f3 .. h9-h8 .. m7-l7
12. d2-d4 .. k13-k12 .. l9-k9
13. Bi1-j2 .. Bf12-e13 .. k9-j9
14. Ng5-h7 .. Rk14-j14 .. Nn10-l9
15. O-O .. Ne14-f12 .. Nl9-j10
16. Ri1-h1 .. Ni12xNj10 .. Ql8xNj10
17. g2-g4 .. O-O .. Qj10-m7
18. g4-g5 .. Rf14-g14 .. m11-l11
19. g5-g6 .. k12xl11 .. Rn11xl11
20. f4-f5 .. g13-g11 .. Rl11-l9
21. f5-f6 .. g11-g10 .. j9-i9
22. f6-f7 .. g10-g9 .. i9xh8
23. h2-h4 .. g9xh8 .. m8-k8
24. f7-f8=Q .. j13-j11 .. m4-l4
25. k2-k4 .. j11-j10 .. m5-k5
26. h4-h5 .. i13-i11 .. Bn9-m8
27. h5-h6 .. Qh13-h11 .. Rl9-l11
28. g6-g7 .. h8xg7=Q .. Bm8xRg14
29. h6xQg7 .. Rj14xBg14 .. Qm7-m8
30. Nh7-g9 .. Qh11-g12 .. Rl11xi11
31. g7-g8=Q .. Qg12-g13 .. Bn6xj10
32. Ng9-h7 .. Qg13-h14 .. Qm8xRg14+
33. Qf8xNf12 .. R .. Qg14xKe14
34. Qf12xNl6 .. R

who reported whom for cheating/preteaming?

Exactly. No coordination. Under no circumstances. Period. No gray lines. Black and white.

Actually I believe that the current FFA rules are stating exactly that. Just to be sure, we should probably ask @Martin0 to clarify what he had in mind when he wrote them.

Since I am not very active as a player the last couple of months, the fact that half the players and pretty much all good FFA players have become teamers is new information to me. Has this happened for real? If yes, then for starters I would appreciate if a good FFA teamer could spare some of his time to write a guide with advices about how to team successfully in FFA 4PC, so that me and everyone else who has been inactive for a while to catch up with the new developments!

"You are not allowed to coordinate your pieces with another player. ever. under no circumstances. period."

"I put my bishop on a square where it can be taken. i did it five times in a row. It's not my fault however that the guy didn't take it! I didn't chat with him ever, not now, not before the game."

"There's a bishop that i can take for free, but i don't want to, because [i'm smart. i'm dumb. i dont like bishops. a million reasons, all legit. the only non-legit reasons are: we agreed to do so in chat, or before the game, or my engine suggested not to take it (thank god we don't have that problem in 4pc!)]. I don't have to take that bishop if i don't want to! "

"I wasn't teaming up with Blue, that's not allowed anyway. We were just ganging up on Yellow, that is allowed, actually advised. If I had taken his bishop we couln't have ganged up Yellow"

_-__-__-___- 

For me is just a case of whitewashing, to be sincere. We all agree that Oleg is one of the best players in the world. I respect his career, his teams 4pc strategies. I don`t want a punishment for him. But when not just one, but many 1600+ FFA players express their disapproval regarding some of his games, you can`t just ignore that. What can you say about this game: #220221 ?

Possible answers by the mods:
1) Except from him not taking your unprotected bishop five times, you also avoided taking his unprotected queen four times, his unprotected rook three times, and his unprotected knight one time. Your behavior is indistinguishable from teaming, which is forbidden by the FFA rules, so as a first time offender you will receive just a warning, plus an one year team-block for playing FFA together with the other offender. Be warned that repeated offenders are punished with play-bans with increasingly longer durations.
2) Except from you not taking his unprotected bishop five times, he also avoided ... (the same as above)
3) Ganging up is allowed. Teaming up is not allowed. What constitutes teaming is clearly defined in the rules, that you have already read and acknowledged at [User.rules_acknowledgement_date]. The rules are also published in the forum, in a permanently pinned topic. As a first time offender you will receive ... (the same as above).
I will see later the game #220221