whats the point of continuing to play when 75 percent of all ffa games ive played today are "team games look up my history today if you dont believe me
But is it teaming?
Sort:
@wheres85 please provide links / gameid to 3 games where your opponents were teaming by your standards and links to 3 games where you lost, but you considered your opponents played fairly by your standards. I don’t think I can be helpful here without understanding what your expectation of fair play looks like.
do you play FFA frequently Gustav?
fairly frequently lately, I think I've played over 200 games now
im pretty positive you have been teamed upon at least 50
@wheres85
So you still haven't clarified what you consider teaming...provide some example games of what you view of teaming and some examples of games where you lost where you didn't consider your opponents to team (unfair winning play vs. fair winning play by opponents). Is any kind of double attack on the same player unacceptable? I just watched one of your games live in which your opposite hung their queen, but instead of taking it you sacrificed a queen and a rook to trade for your left's queen. However, your opposite saved your rook; I asked you after the game if you considered it a teaming game and you said no, then you reconsidered and changed your answer to (copy and pasted) wheres85: "i actually teamed with green when i seen he was being ganged up on", your opposite, who was the only one on the board with an extra queen by the way, blundered their knight and allowed himself to be checked (when they had actual ways to defend). So I take it in these cases you consider it acceptable to team up for the rest of the game, because your opposite made a mistake in the early game and blundered one piece? And you implying there is an advantage to your cause in teaming with your opposite? If I'm misrepresenting your views of how you see the game please correct me; I was trying to have a discussion with you to understand your perspective, but you abruptly left 
I think it is fair to say that when you see obvious teaming from those either side of you, the only way you possibly stand a chance is to fight fire with fire.
If you don't, the team will take out 1 of you then the other to claim 1st and 2nd.
I would say 90%+ of games that I play are a fair fight. There are times where I know I am getting ganged up on as I am 200+ points higher rated than anyone else in the game which I can live with (these are the games where even your opposite is out to get you).
Having played a large number of games, it is easy to see where the line is drawn, and the game I posted in this thread clearly crosses it.
Ok, but are you going to provide 3 "ok" examples and 3 examples of "obviously crossing the line" so I have something to gauge your perspective?
@VAOhlman: Teaming Chat. It is forbidden to request or accept a request to team in four player FFA or solo chess.
This is from the Rules & Reporting locked topic. (#2) I am a bit confused by the «FFA or solo» part. Are FFA and Solo two different game modes, or are just different names for the same game mode?
Skeftomilos a écrit :
@VAOhlman: Teaming Chat. It is forbidden to request or accept a request to team in four player FFA or solo chess.
This is from the Rules & Reporting locked topic. (#2) I am a bit confused by the «FFA or solo» part. Are FFA and Solo two different game modes, or are just different names for the same game mode?
I'm not sure all of the vocabulary has fully propagated. FFA is where the end of the game produces ranked players (first, second, etc.). Solo, or WTA, is where the player that comes in first basically 'wins' and everyone else basically 'loses', as far as their rankings are concerned.
By the way that rules and reporting locked topic also has a parallel topic where you can ask questions etc.
The term Solo had a different meaning when it was initially proposed three months earlier. It meant that teaming is not allowed. Currently teaming is allowed in FFA-WTA, as long as it's not arranged through the chat or before the game, so I don't think that the term is an appropriate synonym for WTA. Having two players combining their armies and playing like Teams doesn't sound very solo to me!
About the parallel topic, I searched for it but I couldn't find it, so I assumed it was deleted. Link?
Are you thinking of this topic?
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/lets-rename-ffa-to-eliminate-ambiguity-2018-11-03
And this is the parallel thread:
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/chatting-reports
@VAOhlman thanks for the link. Unfortunately that topic suffers from too much duplication, a non-descriptive title, and a missing link to the locked topic that refers to. A better title could be "Rules & Reporting (Feedback)" IMHO.
Skeftomilos a écrit :
@VAOhlman thanks for the link. Unfortunately that topic suffers from too much duplication, a non-descriptive title, and a missing link to the locked topic that refers to. A better title could be "Rules & Reporting (Feedback)" IMHO.
Except for the 'duplication', and the fact that I wasn't soliciting feedback on the whole thing but only my second post on 'chatting', I fixed this. Let me know what you think.
It's much better now @VAOhlman. 
my personal opinion is since not enough is being done to fix this particular problem and people like me still enjoy playing its up to the good players to police it themselves by basically if you come across a player that you know is cheating even if their teammate isnt playing in said game make life miserable for them whenever you come across them.
>>my personal opinion is since not enough is being done to fix this particular problem
Speaking for the administrators, you are welcome to tell us what you think should be done to 'fix this particular problem'. Keeping in mind:
1) There are few administrators, many of them volunteers.
2) There are many reports each day
3) Many of them are simply 'I lost and don't like it'... ie the reporter did not actually review the game from the other players perspective
3) They thus simply do not have time to review entire games on a routine basis...
4) In order to weed out the diffrences between 'I missed it', "I thought something else was a better move from me" vs 'I teamed up with this guy'
5) Thus we, especially I, am always looking for ways we can change the game play to eliminate this problem. Thus my solution of OPx3.5.
I personally think that a strong OPx (I like 3.5) and then totally freeing up the chat and other rules against teaming is the way to go. The natural teaming is Op, so removing that will make any teaming much more ad hoc and much more awkward... making players that do it well actually having to play really good chess to do so.