we are going round in circles skeft. i guess we must just agree that we don't agree.
"What constitutes teaming is clearly defined in the rules"
either it's not clear at all. or it's defined as teaming through chat in-game, or pre-game. there is no mention that i have to take free stuff or can't offer free stuff.
that will be all from me for today.
OK. I will also skip reviewing the game #220221 for today if you don't mind. 
As soon as you are playing 1600+ players where they know each other well, they appear to be automatically teaming, to the point that after I pointed out a mate in 1 by the player leading against the player running in 2nd they ignored it stating "you are my target, not them", just because they were on the opposite side of the board. The 4th player was already taken out and there was no disadvantage in not taking out the player in 2nd with a mate in 1, except they were clearly their friend and they had a prearranged agreement to take me out first. If you want to play teams, play teams, dont bring that shit into FFA.
I should add, I had dropped some rating points and was really enjoying playing against 1400s and 1500s, lots of fun games, no collusion, as soon as all players are 1600+ it starts happening.
I found the name. It`s FFT, not FFA. FFT= Free For Teams! lol
"If rules does not exist, everything is permitted".
I don`t remember the author. It may be Dostoievski, it may be one of the admins...
So," if there is no rules, then everything is my will and I must express my will"?
Blue and Green's play in this game was, in my opinion, strategically sound, and does not break any written rules. I do not see any good argument for reporting or punishing these players for this play. That said, I do see reasons for discussing the rules or game mechanics which make this style successful. If we are opposed to this sort of play as players, then we must either come up with clear and well-motivated rules which restrict it, or change the game mechanics in order to render it obsolete.
As far as I can tell, there are four basic solutions:
I think (1) is completely out of the question; we should not force players to avoid certain strategies over the board. That is to say, any legal move should be admissible. Otherwise, it would be comparable to making certain openings in standard chess illegal merely because they lead to positions which we find detestable. Personally, I prefer (4) and (3), although I'm not sure that the variant yet has the player base to support a variety of modes.
I found the name. It`s FFT, not FFA. FFT= Free For Teams! lol
Nahh. Even if teaming was allowed, even encouraged, in a different variant called FFT, possibly with no chat restrictions and even allowing private communication, people would still come to FFA and team like there is no tomorrow, because teaming is so much fun when there is only one team on the board! When reported, the teamers would raise various valid excuses like this:
«I put my bishop on a square where it could be taken, five times in a row. It's not my fault that the opposite player didn't take it! He also left unprotected a queen that I could take for free, five times, but I didn't want to, because of a million legit reasons. I was so concerned about him not taking my unprotected bishop, that the fact I had four different ways to capture his unprotected queen passed simply unnoticed.»
It's not that chess.com had to deal with cheaters (engine-assisted users/sandbaggers) for years, and its personnel has accumulated rich experience about how to handle these situations. The mods will be completely powerless when faced with valid and robust arguments like the one presented above.
I think I came up with a solution, guys; if your pieces are attacking your opposite's on your turn, there should be a 10% random chance that the computer will play a move that captures your opposite's pieces! What do you think?
PS: -_--, you gave the wrong game id# for the game where Oleg and Progredior aren't playing as opposites. The id you provided is just the original subject of this thread. The id # of their playing side by side is #270852, and indeed it appears 100% legit. After looking over the game more I've decided that indeed we cannot punish Oleg for this game. While it seems a bit ridiculous to me still, I think given the rules and the how gray they are (which in my opinion is not a problem, but more a reflection of how the game functions; I don't think you could ever come up with a sound definition of what constitutes teaming as there will always be disagreement among people as this thread evidences), the only way to really punish players is if they are looking for games together repeatedly and doing this on an ongoing basis. I just don't think a single game is really enough to go on here.
I think what we sometimes fail to appreciate is the way FFA is fundamentally different from regular chess. In regular chess, if you play strong move after strong move without fail, you are guaranteed a draw at least. However in FFA, there is no "objectively" strongest way to play because the combined decision making of the other players is always enough to override anything you can try if they so happen to decide collectively. The only way to be a good FFA player is much more like a poker player than a chess player. You play well enough that the averaged results over time are reflective of your abilities, but there will always be games where you simply get wrecked because you happened to arbitrarily be the chosen target; I think as chess players who are used to being able to have the fate of a game entirely in our hands, it gets us riled up that we can be playing objectively the best moves and still come out last! I think you just have to remind yourself this is just the nature of the game and at times not because of how you play, all you can do in FFA is try your best and navigate the psychology, which is a large part of the game.
I don't think you could ever come up with a sound definition of what constitutes teaming as there will always be disagreement among people as this thread evidences.
Not really. There are not that many competing definitions of "teaming" presented in this thread. Actually there is only one (#36). People claim that "teaming" cannot be defined unambiguously, when proven wrong claim that banning teaming is not enforcible, when proven wrong again claim that teaming should be allowed because banning it is against the laws of nature or something. The fact is that the current rules explicitly disallow teaming, and disrespecting the rules means disrespecting the people that respect the rules.
Not really. There are not that many competing definitions of "teaming" presented in this thread. Actually there is only one (#36). People claim that "teaming" cannot be defined unambiguously, when proven wrong claim that banning teaming is not enforcible, when proven wrong again claim that teaming should be allowed because banning it is against the laws of nature or something. The fact is that the current rules explicitly disallow teaming, and disrespecting the rules means disrespecting the people that respect the rules.
"Teaming", as you define it, is not explicitly against the rules. Additionally, I would argue that that style encompasses so many valid strategies that it would be ridiculous to consider it illegal or unfair play.
The top level meta of this game is changing, and has been changing for months. Temporary alliances and collaborations are becoming more common simply because that's what produces better results; this should not be particularly surprising if we recognize game theory.
reasons
Little by little, FFA becomes teams play. FFT as I said earlier. What will be when all of us will play teams on FFA? What will become FFA? Think about it! FFA was by definition NOT TEAM PLAY. Not anymore it seems. So, I will have to apologize Oleg, it seems. And maybe he is a victim of ambiguity of the rules. In fact we can`t have the absolute truth. Maybe we`re right and Oleg is right.
"Little by little, FFA becomes teams play." yes, and i think many of us don't like it. The question is, what to do?
give more points for checkmate?
@reasons lets try to clarify the rules. Lets avoid for now to discuss if the rules are good or bad, smart or ridiculous. Even if the rules are terrible, they should be obeyed by everyone. Breaking the rules is the definition of cheating. Being tolerant to cheaters is unfair for the players that don't cheat. Enforcing the rules is the cornerstone of a game worth playing. I don't think there is any question about that.
Now lets try to understand the rule in question:
«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.»
What do you think this rule forbids? What kind of behavior is not allowed? If not coordinating with opponents and supporting their undefended pieces, then what else? Can you think of an alternative explanation of this rule, even remotely plausible?
give more points for checkmating your opposite than a player to the side?? give more points for captureing opposites pieces??
Now lets try to understand the rule in question:
«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.»
What do you think this rule forbids? If not coordinating with opponents and supporting their undefended pieces, then what else?
I think the rules forbid precisely what is made explicit: you cannot employ prearranged teaming, nor teaming via chat during play. For more clarity, we might want to ask Martin0 what else, if anything, is covered under those rules.
I'd like to clarify something: supporting (or simply not capturing) an opposite's pieces is strategically viable not just to help this other player, but to help yourself. In other words, you can benefit more from your opposite surviving longer than from capturing their pieces. Often, it can be prudent to even avoid mating your opposite for precisely the same reason. Stronger players recognize this fact, and play moves (e.g., hanging pieces) which might appear risky without this consideration in mind. This sort of collaboration might appear to be collusion, but is actually the product of strong self-serving strategy.
As far as I can tell, players who want to ban this sort of style either fail to understand the self-serving motives behind it, or simply dislike the sort of games it produces. On the former, I believe I have given some insight into the style. On the latter, I refer back to my earlier post in this thread (#50).
give more points for checkmating your opposite than a player to the side?? give more points for captureing opposites pieces??
I would like to see that as a variant option, but not as a replacement for the existing FFA mode.
It`s all about the Favorite Toy. Because 4PC FFA was our Favorite Toy. Only an addicted player can understand that. And it`s about a slicker boy who just steal our favorite toy. That was our feeling. That explain our reaction. But it`s the end of the world as we know it (FFA world). And we will adapt to this change. I don`t think changing the rules will help. I spent all the day thinking about and I strongly believe the rules are clear and good. But always will be clever guys who will evade the rules. But that clever guys will make the game more interesting. Maybe L_O_N did the same. So, I must agree with your initial attitude on this "scandal". But we must understand what made us outraged. And it`s not that simple. And I must thank you for your mature attitude.
I think every legal move should be allowed by definition. If you want to minimise collusion, you should make such moves illegal where possible or change the game mechanics such that collusion is discouraged.
Some possible measures:
Balca,
In case it isn't clear: I am speaking entirely as a player. I am not an admin because I was chosen as a trusted member of the community like Martin0, rather I was made admin because I am a 4pc developer. I speak as an admin only for tech stuff, in the bug thread for example. Or providing stats in the stats thread. I would actually prefer to not be an "admin" so that's it's clear i am speaking as a player, just as any other player. So perhaps I should be de-adminized.
many 1600+ FFA players express their disapproval of many players in many games! To me this isn't about Oleg, or anyone else for that matter. It's about the freedom for everyone to make whatever move they want.
I can't think of a more promising strategy to gain rating than to cooperate with your opposite and eliminate a side player (see https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/stupid-accusations-of-teaming?page=8 #152). I don't understand why the arguably best strat should not be allowed. And i am not alone, see for example sidewinders post #22 in this thread.
As i wrote earlier, i'm not a big fan of "Teams". But the problem can't be solved by forbidding "teaming", that's just never going to work imo. maybe 9th rank promotion, or +40 for a checkmate, or some other solution will help. I'd be very happy if a rule change that disincentivezes "teaming" is found.
#220221 I watched that game. You can read me comments on it in the chat. Now that i've looked again i see that i used another account, @Ziwaawa. (It should be of little surprise that I have 4 accounts. and 4 browsers. I play many test games on /4pc-test all by myself).