My 2 cents is pretty much as you define above. I don't weaken Opposite until one side is done. That said I can give 2 recent examples. About 2 weeks ago my opposite fairly early had a check mate on me and choose to do it. My initial thought was he was strong and good luck but he kind of sealed his fate at being #3. To my surprise he took out the two sides and won. So to me he made the right call and accomplished the goal. A week ago I had a chance to mate my opposite early in game sides were weaker players so I decided to try it and mated my opposite. I got crushed and came in 3rd 
So in hindsight I made a very poor decision.
I guess the point I'm tryin to make is unspoken partnering is part of 4 player and the choices are never black and white. So even though I too would like some guidelines I'm not sure that's what the game is about? *I truly don't know
Development of playing style in FFA
The games are certainly more intense now. Lose a few (3-4th place) and you have to really focus to get your rating back up.
I really can't answer specifically because it would "show my hand" as to what I do in a game.
But your points are very clear. I felt the same way. Are we starting to be like teams in the beginning etc.? Like you, I no longer experiment because the opposite player would let loose in the chat (if it was on). It's a great part of the game though, trying to figure out what the other players are thinking.
Nice post.
The problem is when the douche bag opposite does not follow the same strategy, or know it and you end up coming last from trying to help him.
Often I will check the player to my right, even at the expense of a piece so that the person opposite can have a free shot at him, however often player opposite is one of those ultra cautious types who attacks no one and it all backfires.
Checkmating is almost always good. One time I think it's a good idea is if you both queen early, and then somehow your opponent falls for a trap mate, then even if you are in between two players you have a 20-25 point lead and the early queen. Otherwise I would be hesitant, but still take the mate. If it truly is free for all, then you are only slightly disadvantaged being in the middle, but if both players aim at you, then it's more like a team game. This is out of your control to some extent at that point.
If your opposite player fell for a trap mate, it's likely going to be a checkmate by either sideplayer quickly anyways. If a sideplayer sacrifices something for you to mate, then I would hold back and let the sideplayer be left without the material.
I’m on board with what you say, icystun. I know exactly what you are talking about. A person who mates his opposite early when his opposite has that second queen and has a 25 point lead up a queen will likely be teamed by his left and right when it is 3-way. Saving his opposite there would almost guarantee him second whereas mating his opposite would almost guarantee him 3rd.
interesting post I do find this happens however I don't see an simple solution. you could alter the way you score the game for example make the opposite checkmate cost 30 pts while the 4 kings are in play 25 pts while 3 kings are in play this I think would create an incentive to go after the opposite player while not punishing going after the sides. any who just a thought.
I will do anything it takes to win a game or if not possible to become first ill be second. I will not team up with someone beforehand. But in certain situations it might be better to help someone out. Keep balance in the game. If blue has 3 queens and all others have 1. Then its a benifit for 3 players to deal with blue first. Since if blue starts attacking he will crush with 3 queens. To defend your chance to become first you will not win vs 3 queens on your own. Therefor in my head its very logical that players who all know this and want to become first they will team up to deal with blue first.
So I've been playing FFA for almost a month or two now. I mostly hover around 1650 - 1750.
As the time has passed, playing styles of most players above 1500 has progressively changed, all in one direction.
A controversial theory popular in higher rated games now is this : Do not attack opposite player because weakening opposite player weakens you.
I hesitated to follow this theory a month back (FREE FOR ALL), but I got no success as I would not coordinate with my opposite and would get crushed by synchronous plans from right and left. So, I adopted the idea. Now like most players above 1600, I do not attack or even touch my opposite, unless really necessary.
This bothers me a little bit. I understand that it is important to help opposite, because that way you are making yourself stronger.
But, my question is this: Where do we draw a line? Because the idea of keeping opposite safe is vague as far as limits is concerned:
Some players do not attack opposites
Some players do not attack opposites + they defend opposites
Some opposites sync mating patterns against right and left
Im not against the theory. I'm just trying to find a way to quantify the "amount of help" we can provide to the opposite. Any suggestions as to how we solve the problem of vagueness in this theory? How would a player know that he is keeping the spirit of FFA, while at the same time preventing not trading or killing opposite side.
Note: I'm bad at summarizing things, apologies if anything is unclear.