But is it teaming?

@jotahernandezv has written up a translation of this post for the 4PC Spanish club, you can find it here. You will need to join the club the first time you click the link if you are not yet a member.

Hi four player chess enthusiasts; this post applies to FFA players who are concerned about playing against a pre-arranged team, and I hope you read it before reporting players for "prearranged teaming," because probably 98%+ of the reports we get are complete bogus.

If you suspect after a game that two players in your FFA game were teaming, you can do one simple thing to help yourself send an actually helpful report: CHECK HOW OFTEN THESE TWO PLAYERS HAVE PLAYED TOGETHER. I can't tell you how many hundreds of reports of players "teaming" we've received where it turns out that one game was the single game the two accused had ever played together! Maybe the accuser could have spent 20 seconds looking at this available information themselves before sending the report! I will walk you step by step on how to use the archive for this purpose:

The Magicks of the Archive

(1. First of all, click the archive button at the top of the screen while you aren't playing a game)

(2. Suppose one of the players suspected of teaming is gustavklimtpaints; type their name into the search field)

(3. click the arrow with bar button on the bottom right of the panel to bring up the extra search features)

(4. type the name of the second player into the second name field, right below the first; it might show you suggestions of matching usernames)

(5. Let's also make sure we are searching farther back than 2 weeks: select "All" from the date list - to the right of the name field)

(6. Since we are concerned about teaming in FFA, let's select FFA from the game type list)

(7. Let's also select "Rated" or "WTA" in case these players might have played many casual games together, which would confuse our results)

(8. Looks like in this case these players have only ever played a single rated FFA game together, in which they both lost; they probably aren't very good, and they probably aren't teaming! Good to know!)

So does this conclusively show that two players haven't entered in some sort of prearranged agreement? Not exactly, they could be for example playing on many various usernames to avoid anyone else noticing two users are playing many games together; this is one reason we don't allow players to play on multiple accounts (and we monitor this by IP address). It is very hard at this point for players to actually team effectively, especially in the higher rated FFA games, as they are very easily caught. Let's talk about what most reports about "teaming" refer but which are not actually teaming. This is all likely all news if you've played FFA for a while, but this post is directed to players at all levels.

Oftentimes in FFA most threats on your position will be made by the players to your left and your right, especially in the early to middle part of the game; you can think of how difficult it is for the player across from you to threaten your position: their Knights are very far away, their Bishops would have to zig zag through dangerous enemy territory to threaten a square across the board, their Rooks are likely stuck behind other pawns \ pieces for a while; and it is unlikely they will move their queen near you where you can threaten it, while the other two players will create other threats against them. THEREFORE IT IS A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE GEOMETRY OF THE BOARD THAT MOST THREATS WILL COME FROM THE SIDE PLAYERS. Anytime your left player can check you, capture a piece, create a threat on one of your pieces, or even create the threat of a threat, it gives an opportunity to the right player to create a threat of their own. You must be aware at all times of the opportunities the other players have to capture your pieces on convenient terms, check you, or threaten your pieces, and do your best to stay one step ahead of them. For this reason, FFA can be very positional, but of course you cannot avoid all unpleasant situations forever; you must accept losing material at times and try to find similar opportunities on your opponents and come out ahead in the scramble, but please do not play expecting the privilege that two players are not supposed to double attack you and then report them for teaming, because in this case, it is only your own failure to understand the game! Thanks for reading my spiel.

PS: you can use the archive for other cool things like searching "All" your games and checking how many "1st," "2nd," "3rd," "4th" you have received in all your games; hest1805 has a ridiculous 1st place finish percentage! I'll let you discover other cool ways to use the archive.

This is correct, I hate teaming in FFA, it is so stupid, if you wanna team with someone, that is WHY THERE IS A TEAM MODE that allows you to team without any penalty. You are correct but, it is quite annoying when another player checks you and another player takes one of your pieces for free because you are in check.

@ChessN00b51306

In this case, you need to anticipate that check; the fact that player#1 can check you should be a big red flag in your mind so you can 1) make a move to prevent that check or 2) make sure player #2 does not have a capture or effective move against you when you are checked; if you cannot 100% defend, you need to decide on a damage control move that will allow your king to stay as safe as possible and that loses the least material; my argument is exactly that this type of thinking is the bread and butter of the game.

Thank you for posting this. While it is frustrating when 2 or even 3 other players both attack you at the same time, that is part of the game and everyone involved benefits from it. They are still free to abandon the attack if something better comes up for them. It is even more annoying to get falsely accused of teaming. If I see an opportunity to take a piece due to another persons attack, I'm not going to just ignore it because I didn't cause the attack that results in my taking a piece. That is completely ridiculous.

@GustavKlimtPaints 

Yes, of course I do that, but I am just thinking out loud because it used to happen to me until I fixed it.

I would add that if you wish your report to be acted upon, it would be REALLY helpful if you were to list another game or two where the two have played together and did the same kind of thing.

An easier way to get to a player's games might be to click on their name and then click on thei archive icon on the bottom left:

That should get you only that players games.

Also, Now I mostly get either 1st or 2nd place in every FFA. I rarely get 3rd or 4th.

its gotten awful it has got worse not better your about to lose another player. I can understand why so many ffa people have quit. its a great game unfortunately their seems to be a lack of motivation to effectively combat cheating. saying i dont know what cheating  is BS ive played 2000 plus games. I know what the difference between teaming and strategy.

Just saw this post, had just reported 2 players for obvious teaming within a game. It doesn't need to be demonstrated that 2 specific players always team. All that should need to be done is show crazy play with 2 players hanging pieces throughout a game, knowing for sure the other will never take them. It is nearly impossible for 2 other players that play FFA in a genuine way to beat 2 opponents that are clearly playing as a team throughout. Have a look at this game as an example. https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=872915

See move 20, free Q for no disadvantage for yellow, who instead moves their N away.

Move 23 yellow could take reds N for free but does another move that is not necessary instead.

Move 25 red returns the favor of the N and Q not being taken by sacrificing their B for a P so that yellow can take the 9 point Q.

This kind of crap is what drives players away from FFA.

If they want to play teams, there is a format for it. FFA isn't where this can be tolerated.

"Loyal Opposite" in every game I have seen him play, always partners with their opposite player, which clearly disadvantages the other 2 players who are actually playing FFA, not teams.

Time to start banning those that don't play FFA, but instead play teams.

>>Just saw this post, had just reported 2 players for obvious teaming within a game. It doesn't need to be demonstrated that 2 specific players always team. All that should need to be done is show crazy play with 2 players hanging pieces throughout a game, knowing for sure the other will never take them.
And exactly what army of administrators do you propose for this analysis? And how do you propose to guarantee that:
1) The player involved didn't actually fail to see the move that you thought was so obvious? Saw an 1800 player yesterday who had an absolute, clear, one move win, in teams... missed it. His teammate even texted him, but he didn't understand the text!
2) That the player doesn't have something else they want to do, or are worried about, that didn't happen to occur to you? That you missed?
3) Or a combination of these two? That they were focusing on their strategy and so missed the move or moves you were worried about? I did that myself. Was working so hard on not winning that (as people pointed out to me after the game) I passed up literally a dozen chances to win?

The rules say that in order for teaming to be enforced, it has to be consistent across games with the same two players.

The 2 players involved must have "missed" every clear opportunity to take the others pieces throughout the game then, and at the same time sacrificed their own pieces for the benefit of their opposite. The odds on this happening multiple times in the same game are astronomical.

@mattedmonds

You are pretty much never going to get a group of players larger 1 to agree 100%, in every instance, which LEGAL moves according to game rules "should or should not" be allowed in a given position. FFA is pretty rich in game theory ideas of temporary cooperation to become the final winner (especially in non-WTA where there is a greater winner and lesser winner); there have been enough posts on this debate to fill a book, and everything you are writing has been written dozens of times, so rather than rehashing, I suggest you read what was a large part of this forum's content for the past year ; the current consensus is that as long as the cooperation is not based on communication, before or during the game (other than what is expressed through moves on the board) we are not going to consider it teaming, period. I'd say there is a pretty large group of people who view non-WTA games as broken, myself included (I didn't really enjoy playing FFA until WTA was introduced), so I suggest you play WTA, anonymous, DKW, OppX and the various other experiments at fixing this issue, because the incentive not to team necessarily has to come through the game rules, not through artificial restriction of legal moves, in my opinion.

so basically Gustav your saying its ok to cheat as long as you dont communicate about in chat. thats like saying its ok to committ a crime as long as you dont get caught. do you see the problem with that logic?

Just watch the game I provided and tell me if yellow and red are acting as a team throughout.

Loyal Opposite (note the name to make sure you don't miss it when playing opposite him), ALWAYS teams with his opposite. I'm not talking about normal play where yes it can be to your advantage to play with them, but to actually team with them like in my example above. 

Anyone that wants to play teams like this can play teams, there is no place for blatant teaming in FFA.

the point is cheaters are ruining game. and the people that are supposed to police the activity are keeping their head in the sand.  their is a bunch of stuff they could do they refuse to do so. some of the rules actually make it easier to do so. the whole being able to resign at beginning with minimal rating loss is the worst yet. they only take a nominal hit now if their partner is not playing in game. gives them multiple opportunities to play with their partner

No, that's not what I'm saying at all...I'll try to explain some more the way I see it...people WANT FFA to look a certain way, but over time people have figured out that a natural tendency to cooperative (to various degrees) is in their interest.

NOBODY WANTS TEAMING TO OCCUR IN FFA; but I think there are two ways you can see it, to simplify: 

1) you view the idea of a player taking advantage of another player's threats as "cooperation," you consider it cheating, and you wish people wouldn't be allowed to do it and all the cases reviewed one by one; in other words, you have a particular expectation of how the gameplay should look. To decide something like this case by case seems to me exasperating at best and hopeless at worst. 

2) you recognize that taking advantage of another player being "busy" is an inherent part of any game with more than two players. But hopefully it doesn't look like full on teaming. If the style of the game becomes such that it is very team-like (again, without communication) you draw the conclusion that the incentives offered by the game rules don't promote the style of play that you wanted to begin with and the incentives need adjustment (WTA, OppX, ?? new ideas ??). 

Again, I will stress NOBODY WANTS TEAMING. But to take viewpoint 1 with an expectation to police the game artificially is absurd; meanwhile people have come up with all sorts of creative solutions like WTA that a lot of players think is a huge improvement. The problem here is that the mainstream under 1550 rating game is what is largely viewed as the broken opposite-teamy kind of FFA. It is to be expected this will change in the future.@mattedmonds, why don't you try playing some WTA games? There are rated WTA games you can join in the list, or set your rating range to 1550+ to play one using the regular match finder.

Also, @mattedmonds, I'd like to hear from you what a "fair" FFA game looks like. If I'm playing yellow and the red player sacrifices to open up the green king, am I not allowed to attack a green piece? Are all the players supposed to sit there, quietly building up their position and making sure that when a player is attacked we don't attack them also? I'd just like to be clear on what players' expectations of "what the game should look like" actually are...

why not have all games wta? why allow a king to kill another resigned player? why promote teaming to allow people to resigning in the first few moves with minimal rating loss? why not try to limit players playing multiple games together? why not make all games anonymous? I could go on

1) the rating loss isn't so minimal...it is -3 for a first abandoned game but -6 for subsequent games within 48 hours, and becomes larger (in fact larger than losing a game) if the player keeps abandoning games; they are also automatically banned from playing for a period of time if they abandon too many games.

2) we do in fact monitor and limit players playing too many games together by joining the same game on purpose; there have been quite a number of players who have been banned \ had their rating reset etc. The admins don't announce every time this happens, but I don't know why you assume that it doesn't happen.

3) If you think all games should be anonymous, you aren't the first who has posted this suggestion on the forum; rather than putting this idea forth as a question to which you are implying there is a singular and obvious answer in the back corner of some other thread, I suggest you make a post about it in which you bring forth clear arguments for it, imagine differing points of view and responses to these, generate discussion and interest etc.

4) It seems that as of the next update there will be a WTA format more inclusive of all rating ranges; you can think of WTA as having been in a sort of beta-testing for the last month or two, with seemingly favorable results, at least among the top players. There is still some back and forth between developer and chess.com staff on how exactly it will be implemented, but I assure you spacebar is working passionately on the next update! Why haven't all games been made into non-WTA? I think one simple reason is that the developer could not predict if it would be successful or not. Maybe if certain people would actually try to play anonymous, WTA, OppX etc. games which ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AS RATED GAMES in the list, and provide important feedback instead of playing the same format and writing the same complaints that have been posted innumberable times over and over again, that would help?