But is it teaming?

I am not sure that pointing to outcomes of games provides evidence for a definition of teaming because such definitions do not specifically refer to the choices that individuals make.

I think you have assumed that opting to attack a player while leaving pieces en prise defines teaming. Yet, I do not see any evidence or logic for this claim.

I think that, contrary to your definition of teaming, we define teaming in terms of a desired point outcome, as opposed to in-game decisions. This is because, ultimately, the purpose of FFA was assumed to get 1st place and avoid 4th (especially given the point system before the merger).

The logic we have provided is roughly as follows:
1. Statistically, the best FFA strategy (before the recent merger) is to not get 4th and to try to get 1st.

2. Given that it is easier to attack than to defend, the most reliable strategy to avoid 4th is to put someone else in 4th first.
2. If the goal is to put somebody in 4th, then temporary coalitions are best coordinated between opposites to attack neighbors (for a multitude of reasons).
3. Temporary coalitions (although they may manifest in in-game "teams") to put a player in 4th therefore generally provide a superior strategy to seeking pieces en prise when this may disrupt the teamwork in such coalitions.

In other words, given the base premises that the purpose of FFA was primarily defined by an assumed goal to get 1st place and avoid 4th, and that there should be no unfair advantages for any players in attaining this goal (as is the case in prearranged teams), temporary coalitions do not violate these assumed definitions, and therefore do not constitute teaming.

If you're going to ignore the logic behind our rationale and not offer any logic for yours, then we cannot take your argument seriously. So either offer some logic, or please stop wasting our time.

Sun, Gustav and everyone else on here with their heads, not in the sand, but elsewhere, You ignore everyone's evidence because it doesn't suit you, and you claim your time is being wasted. I'll help you with your time being wasted, this is my last post on this subject. Sun, keep it up, you are contributing to the stereotype most people have about Americans and their " If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you "  Attitude. You're pushing a narrative that smacks of being something you're being paid to do, all of you seem to be admins are someone who supports them. You'll never have a decent site if your admins harass anyone who dares to buck the status quo, old or new. LISTEN TO YOUR PLAYERS. Don't treat them like village idiots for having the courage to speak up against something they don't like. CHEATERS go into FFA to play teams. Pre arranged or " spur of the moment " These people need help if they need to go into a game to cheat at it to feel better about themselves. There are seperate areas for teams. I, and those like me, want to just enjoy the unique rush that comes from 4 player chess. Stop wasting our time by not only ruining it, but being proud to ruin it at the expense of your players. I've made my point, I've backed it up. So now you will stop wasting my time, because I won't be back here to read what you've posted. 

Which rule do the "CHEATERS" violate?

Who is being harassed by the admins?

If you can't tell the difference between explaining why someone is wrong and harassing them, that would explain why you think you're being oppressed in whatever way.

It's interesting how you are describing your own posts, as opposed to mine. I carefully laid out objective logic to reach conclusions via premises, whereas you make assumptions. You insult me in your posts, yet I have yet to insult you. I said you should not waste out time because you literally are wasting our time if you do not provide logic. Not that it matters, but I was the top student in my formal logic class (which is used to prevent bias in arguments). And I can tell you that your "argument" has zero application of formal logic. Not once have you provided a deductive line of reasoning.

Sorry, but I will not discuss this topic with you further because you have lost that privilege.

I think he's claiming to be harassed more as a power play than a genuine expression of what he objectively believes.

There is a fascinating concept in psychology referred to as the externalization of shame. It's pretty common and occurs when one tries to "attack" (often verbally) the social status of those who he or she believes (or claims to believe) attacked his or her social status. This tendency is theoretically ancient, having evolved in our ancestors millions of years ago, and thus likely reflects the tendencies of our relatively weaker brains at that point in time (as it probably has not evolved further since then, given various inferences).

Ah yes, classic Ad Hominem logical fallacies, being displayed perfectly by @DoubleSpeedRocks. 

lol i came in the forum to write on that teaming topic, and this thread directly called my attention.

I think many people don't look there because they simply go on their own profile, see the 4PC games are not listed there and assume you can't find the recent games of the other players that easily. I guess changing that a bit would help a lot, by maybe including 4PC on the regular profile and include the search/make it reachable from there so people can easily find out without needing to look in the forums ( how many do that after all.. ).

Thanks for the "guide" and keep up the nice game mode :-)

I've played a lot of games and seldom run into what I believe was illegal teaming. The fact is that working with your opposite in the early and often middle game gives you the best chances of winning. So there's almost always some cooperation, and sometimes people take it further than is beneficial to themselves, which is a mistake. Sometimes my opposite is very generous and I try to be generous back. As long as I feel I can defeat him later, I don't mind letting the flank players get obliterated.

In longer games it's common for any two players to work together against a third player with a very strong position.

FFA is politics. If you want to end up in the upper tier (1st, 2nd), you will often need to team up against a bigger fish at some point. This involves not taking the weaker player's queen but instead harassing the top player's king, for instance. 

I can't believe these guys have played 2000+ games and still didn't get that. 

Please do not publicly report a player. Read the whole Rules & Reporting thread if you need assistance in doing that.

If it's good for you to eliminate one opponent, then why not do it?

_

yeah

i think lost by design for anothers to checkmate or making he claim win in 2-player board should be listed into teams

and rules should make victims of teams get the best score

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/israel-11?newCommentCount=1&page=1#first_new_comment

what does this have to do with 4 player chess may I ask? 🤦‍♂️