BASIC FFA aspects

I still see a lot of poor understanding of how FFA should be played. I decided to write down here some things that I consider as merely basic, but I still see players even sometimes rated 2100-2200 who play against some principles. And maybe some 1800-2100 players will learn from that as well and spare a lot of time and games; I would've been happy to read something like that 3 years ago! And it cost me 2000, 5000, 7000+ games to understand some things progressively (yes I know many brilliant players have been much faster in that).

Some postulates first.

I. Yes FFA means Free For All. But it doesn't mean "You should play bullsh$t just to get fun" and doesn't mean "you should attack any player at any moment because you're against 3 enemies".

II. There are 3 stages in a FFA game (1st: 4 players, 2nd: 3 players, 3rd: 2 players). Every stage is clearly very distinct and who will eventually win will depend on how you play at every stage. I do not say that necessarily my way to apprehend it is the only correct (and my rating in FFA being still between 2300 and 2500 usually, is clearly certainly far too low in order to think that I am necessarily right), but I still believe that to play against some principles reduces your chances to win.

Basically, the 1st stage is more or less Teams, the 2nd is more or less Solo, the 3rd is more or less classical chess.

III. Everyone should play to win, and not play for 2nd (which is petty, cheap, mediocre) and not to play "to avoid being 4th" (unless really it becomes totally impossible to win, when for example you have an inexperienced player or a total imbecile in front who ruins the game).

IV. One should play rationally and not emotionally, i.e. to be able to help an attack on R from G even if G ate your queen 2 moves earlier, etc.

This being said, I think that it is important in the 1st stage of FFA not to attack the player in front, not to weaken him, not to eat anything from him, not even kill him, as all this is merely stupid and counterproductive. Even if you don't like him a lot for any reason.

(Yes there are a few exceptions: for example if the next move is necessarily checkmate on your opposite, and you can do nothing to save him, so to get +20 yourself at least deprives your neighbour from taking it, and I am never ever angry against someone who kills me in such situation as it's rational and normal).

One doesn't need necessarily to team up with the opposite player (but currently I see that it is clearly perceived as being the best strategy and therefore becomes such, as to play separately from your opp whereas the (common) neighbours cooperate 100%, means automatically 3rd and 4th place for you and your opp), but at least one can't weaken the opp and should do ALL to protect him, to save him, to release pressure from him sometimes, and even at cost of a bishop, a rook, a queen sometimes. (I know that's already obvious for any 2500+ player, but I see that many 2000-2200 players don't get it, hence these sentences).

Cf. among other https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/to-betray-too-early-means-3rd-place-in-95-of-cases

In the same time, one doesn't have to be naive, and even if cooperating fully and effectively with the opp in order to eliminate one flank, you still have to keep in mind the big picture and to avoid helping him too much: always think about "and what's afterwards?". To checkmate a player for example is not always the best move; sometimes you do and the situation just afterwards becomes very unfavourable for you if you take into account the material and the points and the time involved. If you help your opp too much, he takes the 1st place and you are 2nd or 3rd: silly.

Also, in this 1st stage to trade is usually stupid: you simply help the other 2 players... Sometimes you have to, though. But in the long run, doing that, you clearly reduce your chances to win later. 

Some words about the tempo: if you play too passively, and only think about your defense, you won't win eventually, you'll finish usually 3rd or 2nd. But in the same time, if you bet everything on the attack, it makes your position very vulnerable and you could finish 1st (like many good blitzkriegers here) or 4th (like it happens to me quite often lol, as I take unfortunately too many risks and that's how I recently dropped again from 2500 to 2250/2350, but this thread is not about me and my personal flows that are numerous). This constant choice and quest of balance between attack and defense, between active and passive play, is extremely subtle and makes the game difficult.

In the 2nd stage then, to continue necessarily in the same team, and even simply to team up with someone on a stable basis is low level, it only means 3rd place or 2nd at the best. I suggest you read the brilliant post from Sigma: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/1-15-ffa-2000-tutorial-balance-in-the-3-player-stage (and also https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/elaboration-on-ffa-tutorial-detailed-but-crucial-factors-to-take-into-consideration). The alliances here are (very) short-term and unstable. 

The 2nd stage (which is the most interesting I think) requires you continuously assess the (dynamically changing!) parameters: material, time, points, style of play of the 3 players still in game and the current position. That's the stage where the mistakes cost most. If you are 2nd, that usually means that you screwed up something in the 2nd stage precisely, not before, not after (whereas being 3rd or 4th is usually because you played the 1st stage incorrectly AND/OR had an idiot in front).

To help too much is here silly; to remain married to another player is silly; to play emotionally is silly; to aim at punishing another player is silly; to play under influence of the previous situations is silly. That's where brilliant players are better than other ones. They have no complexes and help a player who attacked them 3 moves earlier, and attack a very close partner at some moment, etc. It's not about morality here but about the victory in a game (that one shouldn't take too seriously).

To trade here is sometimes good when you have one player who is too strong in material and if you have significantly less points than the 3rd player. Also when you're low on time it simplifies the game as there are 2 pieces leaving the board and less to control mentally, and sometimes it helps you not to flag.

But more generally, this 2nd stage is all about balance, and I thank again Sigma for his point quoted above. Read it.

Well, as for the 3rd stage, there is nothing to say about actually, it's pretty obvious. One important point though is to try not to rush (especially when you are winning and are low on time), so many games finishing with stupid stalemates or even because you neglected some secondary pawn that suddenly becomes a queen, etc.

To finish with, I believe that here psychology is extremely important, much more important than in 2p chess (and for some aspects 4p chess is closer to poker for example). Once you reach some level, you understand that a) you can't win alone in a 4p chess game, b) other players are very good as well, and c) the final outcome will depend on how you'll be (un)able to use them and to manipulate them, and to be used/manipulated too much yourself. It happened even to me (not a very strong player yet) to win sometimes just because I managed to push 2 (strong) players to fight between them (whereas I could develop calmly for some time, making another queen or building a better defense). That includes sometimes such things as to break a defense (sacrificing a piece) (something that Sigma also spoke about recently, cf. https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/elaboration-on-ffa-tutorial-detailed-but-crucial-factors-to-take-into-consideration, but I realised this my side and was applying this principle a lot for months before reading his article) or just to give an IDEA to another player (so many times I signalled thus to an opp something that he didn't see and that I can't say in the chat as it's against the chat rules) or simply to launch a signal of a joint attack (that you progressively stop your side 2-3 moves later, whereas the 2 protagonists continue to combat sometimes to death... and at least weaken each other) or just to make a diversion in order to hope to be safe from attacks for some time, etc.

I shall maybe add some other ideas later, sorry for having certainly said many obvious things or for having expressed myself badly, English is not my mother tongue.

Great! Despite boring but really helpful

technical part of 4 pс is definitely more difficult than 2 pс and its mastering requires a lot of effort. but mastering the basic principles gives a good boost to the rating, as well as an understanding of where your game is giving weakness. Thanks for the good post Indipendenza

what a great post thank you

Very informative ty :>

It's impressive how much the inflation in 3-4 years made that even some 2250 players now ignore such basics. I've just lost a game where the opp player let my queen die instead of taking the mate (to eliminate the side), and later in the game (still in the stage 1!) betrayed, attacking and weakening me, which of course made the 3rd place for me and 2nd for him, as to betray in the 1st stage is totally counterproductive.

He even wrote many things showing his total lack of understanding of what the opposite cooperation is (I replaced of course the name of the player as it's just to illustrate how some players think):

Indipendenza:  pffff, low level, red
Indipendenza:  very low level
Indipendenza:  mate missed
XYZ:  I don t want to make this coordinating game, that is for team mode.. I know that we should assume that, as if green come to help blue and so on ...
Indipendenza:  red, that's why your rating is that low
Indipendenza:  you'll never be beyond 2400 before you understand some basics about FFA
XYZ:  I don t care about rating, I care about rules of the came, no teaming..
Indipendenza:  idiot
Indipendenza:  it's 100% conform to the rules
Indipendenza:  whatever, I've just taken note: not reliable
XYZ:  I know that with this we lose if blue and green do so but that is not point of the game anyway
Indipendenza:  man, to eliminate a side in the stage 1 is critical
Indipendenza:  https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects
Indipendenza:  to betray the opp is absolutely counterproductive
Indipendenza:  it's basic
Indipendenza:  basically, you threw the game to them
Indipendenza:  because it was YOUR INTEREST to have my Q alive
Indipendenza:  and to eliminate one side
Indipendenza:  it's abs. basic
XYZ:  Everybody know what you said above, but I make friendly assumption that they are following rules too..
Indipendenza:  and before you get it, you'll never progress and never join interesting games
Indipendenza:  IT IS CONFORM TO RULES
Indipendenza:  pf
Indipendenza:  in addition, more you'll play with serious players, more ppl will know that you're not reliable and ignore the basics
Indipendenza:  that will lead to something simple:
Indipendenza:  you will continuously be alone against 2 sides
XYZ:  It seems that you dont listen so well, I said that try my best inside of rules, not outside them.. why have different team mode and this if they are one and same
Indipendenza:  that is NOT outside of the rules
Indipendenza:  it has been discussed 551561 times on the forum
Indipendenza:  by no means
Indipendenza:  tell me WHAT in the rules forbid the opposite cooperation
XYZ:  It s different to make some coordination than mate someone just in the beginning
Indipendenza:  I don't agree but who cares
Indipendenza:  you'll understand later
Indipendenza:  when in 90% of the games the sides will do whatever they want and kill you, and your opp won't move a finger
XYZ:  Are you nostredamus or what ..?
Indipendenza:  nope
Indipendenza:  just experienced
XYZ:  Mate please, what that means, this is frienldy game..
Indipendenza:  pure incompetence
Indipendenza:  to attack the opp in the stage 1 is just silly
Indipendenza:  counterproductive
XYZ:  Don t underestimate yourself, you are good player!!!
Indipendenza:  you're just incompetent
Indipendenza:  many 2500+ players would've banned you immediately, just FYI
Indipendenza:  (I never do)
XYZ:  Well, I don t think that you are that good that you can say that, it s non analycal statement...
Indipendenza:  I can
Indipendenza:  https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/to-betray-too-early-means-3rd-place-in-95-of-cases
Indipendenza:  a lot of experience
Indipendenza:  you betrayed in the 1st stage, and that's low level
Indipendenza:  you let your opp's Q die and that's low level
Indipendenza:  you missed a mate, and that's low level
XYZ:  Well be my guest and bann me... betrayed you, we are not in same side, I gues we can agreed on that at least.
Indipendenza:  95% of 2400+ players won't agree, you DID betray 100%
XYZ:  So be it, are you now happy gid god??
XYZ:  People wants power and have right opinion.. certain kind of people are happy if they got them.. so lets say that I agree with you, I want you to be happy!!!
Indipendenza checkmated!
Indipendenza:  I can't be happy, wasting my time in boring games because of incompetent opps
like in this one
30 min. lost for nothing
no ONE brilliant move
at whatever side
XYZ:  Well mate, I hope rest of your day is better!!
Indipendenza:  everybody played LL
thx
and read the RULES
as visibly you don't know them well
to betray is not against the rules, it's just counterproductive
whereas to cooperate with the opp IS conform to the rules
and is the best strategy (in the 1st stage FFA only, of course)
 

I suggest you read this article and stop being what you're accusing others of.

https://bit.ly/3cyDE7S

omg you're not funny that was in 2009 now its 2022

The link doesn't work, because you have an extra bracket in the link, don't include the bracket in the link its in blue not white

whats really ironic is yall voluntarily wasting all of your time talking about a random online guy who decides to waste HIS time talking about why its "morally obligated" to cooperate. who actually gives a fk? didnt think I'd be saying this in a "professional" forum-- but this is a game. chill out. LMAO

uh oh the chess dude is angry im scared