An actual case of collusion in FFA?

Why don't you provide a definition of teaming then? I have already asked you multiple times, and you seem to avoid it. How are we supposed to communicate, when we keep using a word with a disputed meaning?

«If we are to uncover prearranged teaming, it is because we discover those prearrangements, not merely the moves then played.»

As far as I know, this has never happened. People are routinely accused for prearranged teaming based on the moves they play, and never based on evidence revealing communication prior to a match. This just doesn't happen. Some examples I found by searching the forum:

(UNFAIR PLAY)
Team in FFA

> People are routinely accused for prearranged teaming based on the moves they play, and never based on evidence revealing communication prior to a match.

Our sheriffs judge (and will judge) based on the moves.

As you understand, it is not possible to check that players use some means of communication (Discord, SnapChat, Skype, phone, 3rd-party chat, ...)

1. One guy uses spray paint to paint a CCTV camera lens. 2. Another guy breaks a window near that CCTV with an axe and steals something from that shop. Detectives, judges and jury don't know if those guys pre-arranged 1. + 2., but their coordinated action is a proof.

It's very difficult and time-consuming to enforce rules that prohibit players from playing certain moves in certain situations. There will always be a large grey area and pretty much every case will be open to debate (regardless of your definition of collusion). I think that's not the way to go. The rules should be clear and simple. Any legal move should be allowed by definition. Rather than trying to define which acts of teaming are and are not allowed, I think it is much more productive to try and come up with changes to the game mechanics that inherently discourage collusion. (See my earlier post, #62.)

@GDII teaming is such an overpowered strategy that if allowed will quickly become the dominant FFA 4PC strategy, no matter what artificial rules we add to the game mechanics, or what changes we make to the user interface. The only change that would naturally and effectively prevent teaming once and for all would be reducing the number of players from 4 to 2. So we can either allow teaming and accept that from now on FFA will be played like Teams, or preserve the distinct character of FFA by prohibiting teaming, and endure the pain of enforcing the prohibition.

If we follow the first path, my opinion is that we should go all the way and remove all chat restrictions, implement private chatting, and even allow drawing arrows. People playing with two accounts should not have an advantage over a team of two people, due to difficulties of communication.

A precise definition of teaming" is not relevant, since the rules cited make explicit the sort of activities which are disallowed (prearranged teaming and teaming in chat). That said, I do not think that there is a single unambiguous way to define the concept. I could say more on this issue, but leave that aside for another time. 

I'm not concerned with how people might come to believe that prearranged teaming has occurred; if it has not in fact occurred, then this rule has not been broken. 

@reasons well, now I understand why the sentence #2 «You may not "team up" with another player to gain an unfair advantage» means nothing to you. Because you don't know what teaming means. If you knew you could also define it, like I can (#36). So you ignore this sentence and you go straight to the next sentence that is more meaningful to you. Fair enough. I don't think it's your fault. The rule's wording should be improved, to reduce the chance of conflicting interpretations.

I'm not ignoring the sentence per se, but understanding the following sentence to be a clarification of it. If it is not intended in this way, then any additional meaning intended by #2 is unclear and not actionable. 

@reasons after reading the sentence #2 is not reasonable to deduce that teaming is generally allowed, with exceptions. There is nothing in the rule that indicates that teaming could be allowed in any form. The sentence #5 provides an example of play that is not teaming, not an example of teaming that is allowed. If the intention of the author was to allow some form of teaming, I would expect him to include an example like this:
#7 All this said, you don't need to be afraid of coordinating your pieces with another player's pieces to take advantage of a player's weak defenses or similar things.
#8 That is an acceptable form of teaming and is part of the game.

I think a problem with the current game mechanics is that it is usually more rewarding to cooperate than to betray. Teaming often rewards both players at no cost and there is generally not enough incentive to betray one another. I believe teaming would become a much less viable strategy if cooperation would come at a significant cost and if betrayal would be rewarded in some way.

> if betrayal would be rewarded in some way.
There cannot be betrayal in a Solo Play game without diplomacy/contracts.

#2 does suggest that teaming is generally allowed unless it confers an unfair advantage. I would argue that no teaming except by three players against a fourth confers any unfair advantage at all, but that's beside the point. The only acts explicitly restricted by these rules are prearranged teaming and teaming in chat. #3 specifies the sorts of disallowed activities. If anything else is implied, it is not done so obviously or explicitly and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

@reasons  

But this is advocacy for teaming! What do you think about no prearranged teaming, no teaming in chat, but coordinate in Whatsapp for exemple?

How about: the material of the player opposite you is worth double the points?

@_-__-__-___- 

So, you don`t have a solution for this unpredicted development! But it`s definitely a recognition of a crisis situation. And this is a development from your first attitude. Keep it up!

Players can naturally form temporary alliances without explicit diplomacy. Rewarding betrayal is an attempt to ensure any such alliances are short-lived. The goal is to discourage collusion (long-term cooperation), not to eliminate all forms of cooperation. "Implicit diplomacy" is an essential part of the game. What I mean by "betrayal" is choosing not to cooperate in a situation where it would normally be beneficial or not disadvantageous to do so. I don't mean betrayal of an explicit agreement.

To give an example, suppose one player gives another player the opportunity to deliver a checkmate and there is no reason not to checkmate that player. Obviously, any player in that situation will go for the checkmate. However, suppose that we now provide some incentive to not deliver the checkmate and betray your "ally" instead. Let's say, for example, that if a player does not go for the checkmate, the player who supported the potential checkmate loses 10 points. Then there is an interesting trade-off to be made and the choice to cooperate is not so obvious anymore.

Offering someone an opportunity to cooperate would be riskier (as it would be potentially more costly) and it might be more appealing to punish someone for trying to cooperate with you rather than to go along with it.

An example of adding a cost to cooperation could be that if players support each other's pieces without capturing and while leaving them undefended by own pieces, they lose a number of points (e.g. 5) per turn as long as they leave their pieces hanging.

I don`t kow if you realise that, but it`s the end of FFA! Maybe we should come back to the origins of FFA, 

unpredicted? I believe I was one of the first to predict it, see https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/4-player-tactics?page=2 post #40.

If I had a solution I would have long presented it. All I was saying is that writing "it is forbidden to team" in big letters in the rules or at the top of the chat, then calling it cheating and banning them all, isn't the way to go. Rather we need logical rules that disincentivize it.

I wrote somewhere "we desperatly need [logical] rules..", so it's pretty clear I think it's a crisis

Let's continue itt

It's true that I'd still rather end up with opposite. It will be easier for both to overtake an eliminated player, than if remaining with a side player.

how about double points until only 2 players remain?

taking opp's free queen would give almost as much as a checkmate. it's probably still not enough. Checkmating opposite is not worth the points in many cases. Checkmate should give more points. 25-40. Checkmating opposite gives double that. Probably it should be scaled when there are 3 players, same as for promoted queens being worth 9/5/1 depending on how many players left.

Underpromotion would be nice, with the same point scheme: N: 3/2/1 B/R: 5/3/1

And I'd like back to +20 (or whatever checkmate is) for stalemating yourself. It just too much fun to try, i miss it. In most practical cases in 2pc chess, stalemating your opp is a blunder, and i'd like to have that element in FFA/Solo. Its just so satisfying when it works . It should also mean there will be fewer resigned kings and less randomness of who get's them.

I support returning the old rule "+20 for self-stalemate" back.

When I offered 9/5/1 queen price I got feedback that it is over-complicated and that Rules must be simple enough. Progressive scale is complex. Personally I think 9/5/1 is simple, but ...

FFA was just ok until team players emerged.