Are we all traitors?

I've recently complained about the "team like" style that is being used in 1600+ FFA games. Many people said that this was the right way to play - first eliminate one of the side players.

It seems that the continuation is "then eliminate the other side player". The excuse seems to be ... "otherwise I risk to be third and lose rating". I find this a bit of a coward behavior since top players should not be afraid of losing rating. That's just a value. It should not ruin the games and instead the players should have fun.

Anyway, I got another surprise. In some games (not only mine) there was a scenario where at some point an attack on the opposite player happens. This is usually shortly before the remaining side player is to be eliminated. And suddenly the attacked opposite player calls the other one "Traitor". I would understand this if they were an official team. But no teaming is allowed in FFA. And this is just a game theory for people that target the first place and not just being either first or second. I find it a normal strategy if I see that once I am 1:1 against the opposite player, if they have stronger pieces I am doomed to be second. And if the opposite players calls me a traitor so should the side players do. I see double standard here.

You thoughts?

I think the hardest issue is that we need to define "teaming". I think we can all agree that one clear form of "teaming" is two players helping each other the entire way through a game ensuring first and second place. But at the same time, can you ensure that it was intent? 

I'll be honest and say I have never intentionally started a match with a plan to team. But I will admit in FFA I have helped out other people with the purpose of winning 1st place. 4 player chess involves 4 players and the predicament that there can only be one winner creates a competition for survival of the fittest. Like in life, those whom can charm their way past the predators will end out on top (sorry for the bad analogy). So do we call this teaming? In life, is it possible to call a person like this a cheater? Not exactly, because even though they may not have had the brawling power to survive, they certainly outskilled their opponents. I think the issue is that the atmosphere that has been created in 4pc is that people will team each other, but they think its some sort of permanent thing, that ends only when the game ends. In a game that involves several variable factors, only those with the wit and skill can survive.

It's kind of like if you were playing poker. Do you declare all your cards at the beginning? Do you wait til the end? Will they call your bluff? Will someone unexpectedly backout? 

Unfortunately we can't prove people are habitual team players in FFA/solo unless they have a history with the same person. But it's going to be a risk we must take. (If you look at my game history you'll see it looks like all my games I was teaming but turned on my opponents and some of them turned on me) but I won first every time. (referring to past 3-4 games or so as I am pretty inactive)

@chessweiqi Thank you. I get your point. This is a tricky topic in general.

We often talk about the alleged teaming but this time it is more about that "traitor" stuff. Should somebody be called a "traitor" if they just play the way they think it would be best for them?

@kapitancho Yup  Exactly, I couldn't put it a better way myself, and I'm actually glad you brought this up. I know in my heart I wasn't ever teaming, but rather playing a game of who is my next biggest threat and how can I undermine that? In most cases, it was saving the person who was being bullied. 

This being said, I wonder: Is Teaming considered existent once 1 person is taken out? or 2 people? Is there a requirement that they don't touch each other's pieces? And if there are only 4 people that means 2 others aren't in that team (hopefully). What is the 3rd player doing? Is he farming pieces off of players 1 and 2? In this case, can it be considered a temporary alliance between 1+2 and 3+4? Or is the fact that 3 is benefiting and not having to trade the marker that it's really an obsolete square (i.e. triangle).

I think there isn't ever going to be a way to tackle this without trying to make a spectrum a set of square boxes.

I find it fair if one stops "teaming" once a side player is out. The other side player is anyway in a bad position. In reality I see that many players keep teaming until both are destroyed.

I remember more and more the times when 1550+ players were forced to play in WTA mode. Now I see that everybody avoids solo (yes, it is way too punishing) but WTM/WTA are also being avoided.

FFA should be removed, its a different variant of teams

My observations are also valid today.
So my thought is:
1. if I help somebody (at some point) it is because I have interest in doing so and not because I want to team up until the end of the game.
2. if somebody helps me (or saves me) I can be thankful but the reason is that they have interest in doing so and not because I am supposed to team up.

This is my philosophy:
I want to win. How do I do that the most effective way? Well, I wanna make sure I'm not taken out by my neighbors. So the easiest way from there is to "team up" or help out the player on the other side to take out one to the right or one to the left. If one of the side players are eliminated, there will also be a free side I can advance with my pawns. At the same time I want to make sure the player sitting on the other side is NOT taken out, because then I will be in the middle, and it will be harder to advance with my pawns.

Now, when one of the side players are taken out, I will have to see what the points are at, and also the board state. My goal is the same = I want to win! Meaning I will probably "team up" with the guy losing, and start to attack the leading player, making sure they will not be victorious.

I will always follow this philosophy, but I do understand why people don't and expect someone that helped them to continue doing so after one side player is out. The problem is the rating system! For a time there was a "the winner takes it all", but only if all four players had a rating above 1550 or something. Without this system people are fighting for second because it gives them something, a small rating boost. Why it's like this, I dunno. As far as I know this is the only four player game that salutes you for not winning. It messes everything up. If players know they will not gain anything for coming second, they will have to change they'r playing style. If two players are teaming up all the way through, one of them will gain nothing from that.

Change the rating system and make sure only one player will "win". I promise you, all this talk about traitors and teaming will end.

Peace out

Err, we already have such a game. It's called Solo, and no one wants to play it sadly.

it's about building a reputation, as an opposite you can trust till the end, or not (aka being a "traitor"). It's just about what strategy players consider best. Personally I think being a non-traitor is the best strategy, because it pretty much guarantees you'll never get 3rd if a side player is out, and I don't blame anyone for playing like that. 'teaming is not allowed' is a misconception. it's prearranged teaming that is not allowed. teaming with opposite from start to end is just good ffa stategy. but of course everyone is free to play as they wish, and getting called a traitor or a teamer are just common lingo, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with either. 

that said, do i like it? do i think it makes for good games? not really. 3way games where it's 100% clear who gets third don't make things very interesting. Still, i find FFA a fun game, even if it's a lot like teams.

what I don't understand is: why are people not playing more Solo?!? instead they come and whine here in the forum, and try to blame variants or bullet or the leaderboards, but those are not the reasons people don't want to play Solo. They confuse the new options available with something else: that Solo/WTA is no longer mandatory.

i posted in another topic (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/wta-solo?page=2) that 

- i think solo is not interesting at all for the bulk of say <1450 rated games/players.

- i think the fact that 1|15D solo games tend to take 1-2 hours (!) is very off-putting to many if not most. most solo games are played blitz, i think this is very understandable and would suggest default time controls of 1|5, or 4|5 (which is rapid), which gives players time for a few big thinks, while keeping the game flowing. 

- i think marketing/advertising Solo (for example as a third option outside the custom settings, on the front door so to say), to players that are say 1400+ FFA is a good idea.

- many good FFA players do not have a solo rating (or a low one). i created 1|15D solo games without a rating range and got to play 5 games in a row without waiting too long, and quite a few strong ffa players (1600+) leaped to the opportunity to play.  I see people creating 1600+ Solo seeks which excludes like 98% of the players. create unrestricted games and give the players a chance to play! Yes top players are bound to drop some rating when strong players with a 1200 rating join, but just get over it! it's the same for everyone, and it all evens out over time. 

short term, maybe the admins could update the announcement, something like "Tired of teaming with opp? Play Solo!" might help  

I didn't actually know that. Maybe it's because people just do as I do, press "play game" when they log in. I don't see why this can't be the default option?

@haroldspo

for a few months (jan-july or so) it was the default (well it was mandatory) for all 1550+ rated games. it was called WTA (winner takes all)

according to BabYagun it got negative feedback (seehttps://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/wta-solo pos #3)

yes i think it should be placed more prominently. that said, it's not impossible to spot it either:

the real problem here is that players dont like SOLO, but why?, well, the chances of winning a SOLO games is something like 25% while the chances to lose is 75%, and people dont enjoy losing a game, that simple!, what i suggest is that there is only 1 winner, only 1 loser, and 2 neutral players who wont gain or lose rating, what do you think?

Thank you guys! What you say is pretty much consistent with my observations.

Just a few more comments:

@Haroldspo I pretty much try to do the same when 2+1 players are on the board. I find it fair against the other two.

@Ziwaawa  it seems that you are happy if you end up second. Do you really enjoy the game if you are not the winner? Are the rating points more important than the fun? Also, don't forget that there is a chance that the opposite player might attack you (aka Traitor) at some point before the remaining side player is out so you don't guarantee your second place but the second place of your opponent P.S. I don't say it with any bad feeling.

I think the Solo game point distribution is too bad (+4 -1.3 -1.3 -1.3). The current WTM is also not optimal (+3 0 -1 -2) but still the best one. It is another story that nobody plays WTM. What I remember from the times when WTA was forced to the 1550+ games is that it was something like (+4 -1 -1 -2) or similar. So the most important thing was not to get eliminated first. But still 2nd place was not good enough. I think this could be a reasonable solution of the teaming problems.

yes, i am happy with 2nd, it's a good result. and it often involves a kind of guarantee not to get 3rd. 

I take notes (you can do that in the player-popup) on all players (also while observing games), so i have a pretty good idea what i can expect. apart from 'loyal till the end' or 'traitor' types, i think it's good to take note which players just generally prefer to play alone (soloist) and only cooperate if their is a clear mutual benefit, but don't honor say if you helped them earlier in the game, and which ones prefer to side with someone, and will reward help earlier in the game. I am of the latter, 'i prefer to have a buddy' type  

only if there are two soloists left do i play solo style (not much choice here XD), but it's kinda rare these days (obviously i'm talking high rated games). if my opp is a 'traitor' (I don't really like that word) then i will offer the side player cooperation. because yes i'll gladly take 2nd (with chances for 1st) if i'm guaranteed not to get 3rd (which is what the traitor deserves XD)

yes i think it's fun, but I also like solo, which is the way to go if you don't want people playing for 2nd, (which will always happen at some point, unless 2nd=3rd)

WTA used to be -2 for 4th, but i find that kind of defeats the purpouse. especially given the teaming of opposites, i think it's good that 4th=2nd

The problem with Solo is that's it's just really difficult, and many games get 'ruined' because people aren't good at it and blunder the win to someone by attacking the wrong player, or by not cooperating when they need to. 

That's why I find the 'anonymous' option handy because it hides some important information - not only about the player's rating but also about their style.

And I completely disagree that a "traitor" would deserve the 3rd place. Actually this is the player that is playing for a win and I am happy when such a player gets it.

I find 2 vs 1 (irrelevant of their strength, position and pieces) unfair. It is a bit like two guys beating another guy on the street for no good reason.

On the other topic - I think the -2 for the last player made all the players more careful. Because if you are way too attacking you might get punished due to the weakened deffence. That was bringing some extra strategy in the games.

if you help opposite by giving him free mates, or say you sacrifice lots of material to save him from getting mated, don't you expect that he at least give you 2nd place, if he is only winning because your help?

yes i also like anonymous games, they make for good games without history, notes, and grudges from previous expierience.