Forums

Another idea / FFA+Solo

Indipendenza

Over the last 3 months there have been a lot of discussion.

Like many of you, I think FFA and Solo should be remerged. I won't repeat the arguments behind; but many of high level players believe that high rated games should all be Solo (like it used to be 3 years ago: if all 4 players are above 1550 = 1850 today it was WTA automatically).

I also see that there are many reactions about teaming, etc. I am among those who is not opposed to teaming at all (as it is intrinsically due to the configuration of the board), but still believe that some particularly perverse forms of teaming deprive us from more interesting games, hence some proposals/ideas here for example: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa or here also: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-new-proposal-ffa-solo-ratings-points-system.

I also know that many are not comfortable with Solo as you lose 75% of time (in average) and prefer FFA where the 2nd place still gives you something, and where the 3rd place is not catastrophic. On the other hand, in FFA many nice games are totally ruined by idiots who play for 2nd.

But today I have had a different idea, a totally new one (inspired by the French municipal election system), trying to possess the good sides of both FFA and Solo.

What if we remerge FFA and Solo, and from now on give the rating points as follows: the winner gets X pts (depending on his rating vs. the average of the sides and of his opp' rating, because it's not the same to win when you play with 2800 in front and 2 sides 2300, and when your opp is 2300 and the sides are 2800 and 2300, whereas currently the outcome is the same and it's not fair), PLUS all players get/lose points as per points that they got in the game. In this case, if the 1st finishes with 57 and the 2nd has 56, he will still get for instance 4 or 5 pts (vs. 15 for the leader for instance), whereas the 3rd and 4th will lose, but not equally contrary to the current Solo.

If I reformulate it, we would simply give/deduct points to/from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th as per the points that they got, BUT the 1st player will get a considerable premium.

Advantages: 

- the players are pushed to play for win,

- less teaming as the 2nd place and the 3rd place are close, and the 1st place is so much better than 2nd,

- if the 4th player gets a very close amount in points to the 3rd, he won't be discriminated as much as today, which should reduce the perverse effect of people playing nonsense just to avoid being 4th.

The only drawback I see, that's the fact that in some cases people could differ checkmates just in order to get more points first, so sometimes it could give slightly longer games...

What do you think?

luckyDminor

Sounds interesting to me. I would give it a try.

Chestnut924

The problem is that any system that rewards for how many points you got in game will not work.

icystun

The greatness that you have demonstrated in your recent matches vs the 1500s have impressed me enough that I won't read your post.

Radon
icystun wrote:

The greatness that you have demonstrated in your recent matches vs the 1500s have impressed me enough that I won't read your post.

 

Lars smh

Indipendenza

Icy, I'm not a champion contrary to you, but it doesn't allow you really to be impolite. It doesn't happen to me a lot to play even with <2200, so 1500s... I don't really see what you're speaking about. I usually play 2300/2400+ games.

spacebar

We are planning to merge FFA and Solo.

FFA current 3 1 -1 -3 => 3 0 0 -3 the higher the avg. rating

FFA future (after we move to variants). 3 1 -1 -3 => 4 -1 -1 -1. 

 

TheChessDude991

lmao so basically it'll be just solo now

Indipendenza
spacebar a écrit :

We are planning to merge FFA and Solo.

FFA current 3 1 -1 -3 => 3 0 0 -3 the higher the avg. rating

FFA future (after we move to variants). 3 1 -1 -3 => 4 -1 -1 -1. 

 

 

a) for me it would be Ok; but from marketing point of view, we can easily see now that the players (=the customers) find Solo less attractive and play (=buy) less it than FFA. There are reasons for that. And I'm afraid that such a drastic change would simply REDUCE the number of games and participants (whereas we have to INCREASE these).

b) my side I believe that both current and planned formulas are too simplistic as they don't take into account the configuration of the board (opp rating, sides' ratings) but simply the average of the board; and I think that depending on the situations and average ratings, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th places shouldn't be exactly the same. FFA is popular for some reason at lower ratings... And the solution proposed above fixes this. 

Indipendenza

Visibly I misunderstood the change above; one Admin has just explained it to me. What Spacebar meant, that the game format will in fact depend on level of the players involved (that's GOOD) and would progressively move from FFA to Solo (that's GOOD) within the same merged invididual format (and that's GOOD also).

icystun

Smile grin.png

rupkayak

Just stick with the current system. progressively moving from FFA to Solo is a horrible idea. Nobody plays solo for a reason, it's not because we don't know it exists, it's because it sucks. Please do not contaminate any other modes. Thank you.

spacebar

the key being that 2nd 3rd don't lose rating, but in solo they lose some?

benefit being, solo is less like 100% teams 4way? current ffa is =teams. and strategy 3 way is identical.

spacebar

> marketing point of view

the number of player 2400+ where ffa=teams is very small. the bulk of player play 'for themselves', frown upon teaming or don't get it. for them, nothing changes

spacebar

the other reason people don't play solo is cause it's longer wait, and well just not "the main option". doesn't seems as cool/important/relevant

spacebar

on the other hand, you could say that FFA is the principle 4player discipline, as it require both being strong at teams (4way), but also strong at the difficult 3way game.  The problem is that the bulk of players feel "if you want team, there is a teams mode for that, go away you cheater"

Indipendenza
spacebar a écrit :

> marketing point of view

the number of player 2400+ where ffa=teams is very small. the bulk of player play 'for themselves', frown upon teaming or don't get it. for them, nothing changes

 

Yes, that's true.

neoserbian

Thanks Spacebar  and others admins who decide to merge ffa and solo! Finally, there will be an end to this failed experiment with the FFA. Going back to what was more than 2 years ago is the only right move, which I have advocated from the beginning. Yes, we lose 2 years making players with " error in the code " who are fighting for second and third place and make the whole game meaningless but better ever than never.

I predict that, soon after the merger, there will be real good players in the top 20, and that players with the thinking "I'm fighting for the second place" will very soon be where they belong!

A couple of questions: when will this happen and what will you do with the ratings?

( FFA + SOLO ) \ 2        or...?

Indipendenza

100%, Neo, but it's no surprise happy.png, I almost always agree with you. 

Playing for 2nd ruins games.

rupkayak

What failed experiment? It is the most popular game mode by far lol

Solo is the failed experiment