Chaturaji Fair Play Discussion

I see a lot of chaturaji players talk about people not playing fair against them, and I'm curious what everyone thinks about what fair play is. For example, are some of the common opening traps for red and yellow against green not fair?? I think they are completely fair, but some people don't agree. And take this position.

Is it fair for green to check red? I think this is completely fair, and this is where I have a problem. I see people share games where others "cheated" or "played unfairly" but almost every time, the players literally just did stuff like this. Imo I feel like we need to stop calling stuff like this unfair, as it is honestly useful strategy that is perfectly fair. Look at this game: https://www.chess.com/variants/chaturaji/game/29652291/48/2, I was completely losing, but got incredibly lucky. Even though yellow and red kind of ganged up on me, and green did nothing to stop it, I would say that this is still completely fair play on their part. I might not like what they are doing or I might think the reason behind doing it is a bad one, but regardless they are perfectly allowed to do that. I don't think that from the start, it was everyone else's goal to destroy me. And I don't come from a 4pc background but how I understand it, things like this and much more happen and everyone is completely fine with it. I'm curious to hear everyone else's opinions on what you consider fair play though.

 I would say taking advantage of another's check or attack is for your own advantage (points) is fair because you get something for yourself, even if it does benefit another player. However, green checking red may be considered teaming but it also may be to stop blue from gifting red. It also will probably gain a bishop for knight trade for green which will be advantageous for him.  It probably will be considered teaming if another 2 colours are about to or in a swap and you check one so that it loses some material. (In this case red's rook is protected)

Green checking is fair and square, players should be able to spot and prevent these moves just like forks in regular chess. I would be skeptical with the green opening traps tho, I don't really like hem and I think we should find a way to get rid of them, but for now they are completely fair as well as they benefit both players. For me, what I think is unfair is playing for 2nd. It concerns me a lot more than any of these

What are the point totals?  What happened to Yellow?

In most cases, I would say it's totally fair for Green to check Red here.  So long as Green can reasonably think "my best change to improve my standing in this game is to stop Red from taking Blue's ship," it's fair for him to do so.  It only becomes unfair if Green makes moves that clearly cannot help them improve their final result (1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th).

I see no reason why it's unfair to play for 2nd.  Sometimes you're just too far behind to get 1st - often through no fault of your own - and the most logical action is to play for 2nd.

I don't like how Green can be forced out of the game if Red & Yellow cooperate (and Blue doesn't help stop them).  I personally make sure I never threaten these moves as either Red or Yellow, and I wouldn't fault anyone for aborting a game as Green when Red & Yellow both move their King's pawns.  Better to lose 2-3 points for aborting than 50 for being forced into 4th place.

You're looking at this the wrong way. The concept of "fair" is pretty meaningless here unless people literally cheat, but people tend to misuse the word. By "unfair", they mean that it's not fun or interesting to lose a game to cooperation after not playing any wrong moves. Just to clear up confusion: this ONLY applies to the 4-player stage. In the 3-player stage like the one you showed, cooperation is expected as it is frequently the only way to play for 1st. However, it can be somewhat upsetting when opposites cooperate to kill someone in the 4-player stage to make sure they don't get 4th, and the player who got killed would not be able to do anything if their opposite was incompetent or trolling. Personally, I actively avoid cooperation in 4-player stage (including opening traps) because I think it makes the game unfun. That being said, there's nothing unfair about going for cooperation in 4-player stage, but don't be surprised if some people target you or intentionally lower your placing at the end of the game as a result (hi, I'm some people).

I agree with Box and XCMorley here. The only thing I don't like is when someone plays a spite check which makes their position worse, and they only do it because they want u last (playing for third)

green checking is never unfair. Green is allowed to misunderstand the position/make bad moves. Imagine that you can be banned for playing badly. Well apparently you can't play chess because you are cheating if you play perfectly by using an engine and you are also cheating for making mistakes

Yeah, I am not going to lie that I sometimes get frustrated when players uselessly check me, but like Ultratrap said, players are allowed to make stupid moves and there isn't really all that much you can do about that. On the topic of opening traps though, ik many people don't like them or support them (for those who don't know, there are certain traps initiated by red and yellow that green can fall into which would make them lose very early in the game), but I don't have a problem with them. It isn't like green is 100% guaranteed to lose and there is a way to not get checkmated. Aren't opening traps that you do with your opposite very common in normal 4pc??

In high level sure.

The thing is ngl in chaturaji no one has actually achieved high level. We can't trust the opposite too much because most people are just beginners. Chaturaji players are all bad, including me, Suneth, and VEPOS, just that these are actually good but have to play in a sub-optimal way because of people just unnecessarily and disadvantageously playing against them. They aren't too bad and aren't even an objective disadvantage in my opinion, but one in practicality and flexibility...

Yeah that's true.  There are game states where I would say Green definitely should not check red here, but it's hard to imagine one that is so obvious that I wouldn't give Green the benefit of the doubt if he did check.

The issue is that, as trap said, we don't have nearly enough players to make this a regular thing. Also, there is much less agency in chaturaji teams than in regular teams (I would know, I actually did play chaturaji teams): if both sides play well, red and yellow have a sizeable advantage, so much so that they had to change the old chaturaji teams to RG BY. If we started every game with red and yellow against blue and green, I would have to say that it's unfair, since two players would have a substantial advantage before the game even started.

Also, as a variants tester and an ex-CGA, I feel compelled to point out that standard 4PC is a trash variant which would not be accepted if it was a variant submission (new setup is worse, btw), something the team has discussed more than once. Do not use it as a standard for comparing other variants, even if it is a default.

I do not consider that people do not play fair. At least, most of the players on the circuit are honest people and good players and very sporty when it comes to competition.

What really happens in Chaturaji, is the format because of how it is designed, for all of us who have analyzed this, we have verified that it is a totally different world from what is lived in 4pc, on the other hand I also say that being a highly materialistic game , the strategy changes many times.

I want to give you my most recent example, from a game today, where I am completely lost in the 3-player stage, but since I managed to get a lot of points in the 4-player stage, it was enough to win.



Link del game: https://www.chess.com/variants/chaturaji/game/29889316/84/3


In variants new administrators have been added to the team, therefore nowadays, it is very difficult to see cheats in chaturaji, it is the second most popular game this year, all eyes are on there.

see you in another battle!

Ok I believe this is an altered position from a game of mine

I was playing red here and had been having very bad luck in previous games...

I completely agree that Green should check here and it wouldn't be completely unfair. However: What annoyed me in the actual game was not so much your check (was with a pawn in the game) but the fact Blue the move earlier had played RxP (Rxa4) saccing a rook for a pawn completely dependent upon an opponent responding with a check...

I think if one's play is ultimately dependent on other players teaming with "one" then I would consider it unfair...

Anyway, yeah, there is a ton of discussion and controversy surrounding teaming and cooperation in chaturaji probably more so than any other variant?  

Don't worry I wasn't trying to criticize you or anyone in particular, and the example position I used wasn't intended to be like one of your games. I've seen this rook sac idea a few times and it seemed like the perfect example for my topic. I would also like to clarify that this isn't supposed to be a personal attack on anyone. On the topic of moves that rely on other people though, I would disagree with you. https://www.chess.com/variants/chaturaji/game/29740639/43/3. This game there was a crazy move by green played on move 11. I wouldn't call what green played unfair, simply an incredibly risky move that might or might not pay off. Now I would argue that red made a mistake by not checking blue, but regardless, it is an interesting move. What is blue supposed to do? just let green die? Assuming red doesn't check blue, green's move could possibly save green from losing. Without that move their position would quite possibly be lost. 

Like imagine a game where I'm red and yellow hangs their king to green. Allowing green to capture red's king would be disadvantageous to me, so if given the choice would I keep yellow alive by checking green? Almost certainly. Is this type of play unfair? I don't think so, and arguing that a move that is desperate and risky by a player is unfair seems, well, unfair to me. 

"see you in another battle"