Excessive Teaming by Blue and Green

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=399006

I don't usually complain about teaming, there's not much consensus as to what it constitutes. But I think this game goes past the line. Some blatant moves are

move 8

where Blue suicide sacks his bishop presumably thinking Green will pick up my unprotected queen. When that attempt fails, green moves his own bishop to protect Blue's so I can't recapture. 

move 14

another bishop sack by green allowing blue to take my bishop, he then promotes allowing blue to take my rook in succession even though his promoted queen is captured by Yellow. In other words, the sole purpose of green sacking his bishop was not to strengthen his own position, but to give an avenue for blue to continue picking up my pieces unopposed and weaken my position.

move 16

this is where the straw breaks the camels back for me. Green moves his queen to defend Blue's bishop yet again and blue does not take the free piece yet again. Green's queen is hanging for several moves and unsurprisingly blue does not take the free queen. 

move 20

Just another team attack on me by Blue and green, and yet again a free queen for Blue which he does not take. 

move 28

team mate, I can't remember the last time I wasn't team mated by two opponents. 

So in summary, I've already reported these two players, CrazyHouse and Alcohoiics, I don't anticipate the mods making any concrete action to prevent this action in the future, but I needed to get this off my chest. This exceeds the boundaries I believe and requires the community to take a hard stand against these types of occurrences to stop them from repeating. 

I think before people post these teaming accusations they should at least take the time to use the wonderful archive tool and check any games two players might have played together in the past. Put in one players name, click the little + icon on the right for advanced search options, then it will give you another field to add a second person. Great, now you've got a list of all the games two people have played together. These guys actually happened to have played a few games together in the last couple of days, both as opposites and not being opposites. I'll let you be the judge

Move 16 when Blue takes red knight (+3) instead of green Queen (+9) is a pure indication of teaming. They are 1670 and 1690, it is not a blunder of a 1200 player. And the situation on the board is clear, there is no reason to not take that queen.

Now look at Blue's move 19 (don't know why @rook6431 does not mention it). He does not take green queen again.

Then Green's 20th move proving they both are guilty, not just Blue. Green 100% trusts Blue, so they are a team, not "frienemies".

No need to spend time and look at the rest of the game. It is a good example of blatant teaming up in FFA.

I disagree BabYagun, these players are just playing knowing that if they eliminate one of their side opponents they will likely get 1st \ 2nd; I'm quite certain there is no prearrangement here and there are plenty of games that go in the vein of this where opposites go into all out mode on one of the other players, and given the nature of the game as it stands it's frankly just a good strategy so one that players will naturally arrive at. There are also examples of games where people go into all out attacks together like this and one of the opposites turns and starts playing against their opposite at the right time to assure themselves 1st place; because of the backstab that player may end up losing a lot of pieces at once unexpectedly and maybe not even get second. I agree that Qx pawn is a somewhat ridiculous move but I think that "all-in mentality" to the player on the side is just something that's inherent in the game right now. I think it's been discussed plenty of times how problematic is to decide something that is a legal and strategically sound way to play is "teaming" simply because it isn't how you would personally play.

I didn't say there is prearrangement. I said they play as a team.

>  I think that "all-in mentality" to the player on the side is just something that's inherent in the game right now.

It is a mentality used by some players and hated by majority of our community. And it will be fixed one way or another. Most likely some rules will be changed to make teaming up not profitable and/or some definitions in the rules making the gray area (of what is allowed) not that huge as it is now.

> simply because it isn't how you would personally play.

It is not related to my wishes. We get feedback from the community and react accordingly.

I think the focus should just be on making sure players aren't doing this over the course of multiple games (which indicates pre-agreement), including in situations where they are not opposites (2/3 of the time even if they did manage to get a game together). I'm personally doubtful of any rule change that can change this aspect of the game (and I have been following the recent discussions), I think it's going to be an inherent part of the 1v1v1v1, but kudos if you can find something that won't be a complete overhaul. 

The whole problem with pre-teaming/not-pre-teaming is that it becomes moot at 1600+ levels. There are too few players, so it is easy to simply remember who plays how. So, consequentially, you know if your opposite will" team" with you as soon as you see who it is.

It is a clear case of teaming that violates the game rules (according to my interpretation of the rules, although a different interpretation exists, see this topic #81 for details).

@GustavKlimtPaints «I think before people post these teaming accusations they should at least take the time to use the wonderful archive tool and check any games two players might have played together in the past.»

I don't think it is necessary in this case. It may be necessary in other cases, but this one is crystal clear. You don't even need to go past the move 16 to come to a verdict.

Compare teaming with cheating in normal chess. In most cases you need to examine multiple games before coming to a conclusion, but sometimes one game is enough, and even a couple of moves can be sufficient in some cases to prove assistance by a computer. This information comes from Gerard Le-Marechal, the head of fair play and cheat detection of Chess.com.

@skeftomilos

My point exactly is that interpretation varies from person to person, there is not even a consensus among the admins; this is very gray, and the comparison with cheating using a computer in regular chess is absurd as that is a very crystal clear and tangible form of cheating. Why is playing a legal sequence of moves that is beneficial for two of the players (by eliminating one other) cheating? Where do you draw the line? Taking advantage of a check given by a player before you is commonly cited as an example of "acceptable" play, even though what is going on here is simply a combination of several moves using the exact same principle of forcing a player to divide his attention two ways. Ok, so it's ok to take advantage of a check to take a piece because that gives you points; is it ok to sacrifice a piece so that your opposite can create a threat and then you can play something strong on your next move? Now it becomes a two move combination rather than immediate. Is this still acceptable? What about hanging your own piece on your opposite to achieve a three move combination that is to your advantage? Can you see how any line you draw will be completely artificial? Any way to restrict what can be played despite being a legal move would be akin to saying during the 1800's that not accepting a gambit is "ungentlemanly." No, i disagree, I think any form of play that forces a player to divide his \ her attention is a completely intrinsic part of this game and any attempt to artificially restrict that is absurd. I think players are simply not accepting that this is the emergent stylistic evolution of four player chess. I've said it before, that because of the four player variable, you simply cannot expect to win every game: you have 1 tempo for each 3 that gets played before your next move. At most what an ambitious FFA player can achieve is an upward trend over many games over time. There will never be an undefeated streak of 100 games in FFA by anyone because this is not the nature of the game. If this is unacceptable to players, best to look somewhere else for whatever they want in a game...

Its rook6431 failure for allowing that check.

That's a basic tip in this forum for beginners. You should check it, no offense.

You are playing against 2 well known aggressive players (if you don't know it, now you know) even though green will not support using his bishop the next play for blue is the obvious Q check. Making green having opportunities to exploit.

I've seen some of your games that your allowing that check over and over again.

Green and blue have established a good relationship starting with that bishop's support and retreat of green. Resulting to a quick loss for R&Y. In my opinion, G&B are familiar with each others game.

I could understand that there were some team play variant happened. Those queen moves and free pieces. But 4 players are still on the board so better to attack the flanks than weakening your counterpart who also have helped you. Finishing one flank secures you positive mark at the end of this game.

But still its a risky play for green here because blue can just snapped. But that's the beauty of the game.

Oh I love the Dramas!

@GustavKlimtPaints the comparison with using engines in chess is maybe unsuitable for the opposite reason: it is easier to prove teaming in FFA 4PC that to prove engine assistance in normal chess. Let me explain why. The general definition of teaming is: the activity of working together as a team. Personally I recognize as teamwork in 4PC the mutual support of undefended pieces by two armies, that makes them function as a combined single army. It is an easy criterion to use. These things rarely happen by accident, and when I see two "accidents" happen one shortly after the other involving the same culprits, I need to see no further. It still leaves open a window for teamwork by synchronizing threats against the same opponent, but I can live with that because it doesn't create such an overwhelming advantage as the aforementioned method.

«Why is playing a legal sequence of moves that is beneficial for two of the players cheating?»

Because some legal sequences of moves violate the rules of the game. Whatever violates the rules is cheating. This is actually the definition of cheating. The game currently has more rules than these enforced by the user interface. We could call the later "game mechanics", to distinguish them from the ethical rules that are enforced by means of chat-bans and play-bans.

@Skeftomilos I simply disagree with your point of view that there is a clear difference between what you are calling "functioning as a single army" and "synchronizing threats." I stand by my statement that it is virtually impossible to create a clear delimitation and any such would be artificial.

The rules are stated my Martin do not go into any such discussion either.

@GustavKlimtPaints I think it would be more sincere to admit that you don't like the existence of anti-teaming rules in FFA, and you don't mind if the employment of teaming strategies becomes the norm. But there are still many people who enjoy playing FFA as it is now, with each player playing solo, and with teaming considered unfair and unsportsmanlike. What would you tell to these people? To sfu and go play normal chess?

@Skeftomilos

That's entirely inaccurate and I think you are failing to understand my point; and no I wouldn't say that, there is no need to put words in my mouth. What I do mind is playing a game with artificially imposed limitations that go against its own rules of play. I wouldn't have fun playing a game where it's deemed unacceptable to play what would be the best move the position calls for, due to a matter of arbitrary opinion. I wouldn't have fun playing 4 PC, regular chess, checkers, backgammon, or anything if a certain way to play was considered "ill-mannered" even if it was the best play possible. If it turns out that what are the best moved are psychologically unpleasant to people and game design didn't turn out to its original intention, then the design of the game is flawed and needs to be addressed. "as it is now" is a joke and maybe reflects the fact that you have played 6 games of FFA in the last few months, according to your archive on this username anyway...

@GustavKlimtPaints sorry for putting words in your mouth. But why you say that am I missing your point? I understand that you dislike the anti-teaming rules not because you like teaming, but because these artificial rules impose restrictions to the moves that can be played, moves that would be otherwise legit. You dislike this kind of rules, isn't that correct?

You consider the need for imposing these rules a design flaw that needs to be addressed. But what if this flaw cannot be fixed, because no one knows how to fix it, and there are still many people who enjoy playing this game with the flawed design? What would you tell to these people?

> I think players are simply not accepting that this is the emergent stylistic evolution of four player chess.

You are right. Based on feedback we get, I can tell that the majority of players considers excessive teaming in FFA as a cancer trying to kill FFA mode, not like a natural (and/or desired) evolution.

There is Teams mode for teamers. FFA is a Solo Play with a reasonable (healthy) cooperation.

I think it's less "emergent stylistic evolution" and more people figuring out the best way to play the game. Which brings up a problem: any rules against [not prearranged] teaming will essentially aim to prevent players from playing the mathematically best moves. And that, IMHO, is ridiculous. So the solution should be changing something about dynamics to make teaming less worthwhile (i.e. make a mate worth more, though I can see how this will increase the randomness factor) rather than playing verbal linguistics with the definitions of "cheating" and "teaming".

@JonasRath, I agree. There is one nuance, however:

> ... prevent players from playing the mathematically best moves

Can you prove that in this particular game https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=399006 Blue and Green made mathematically best moves? Look at moves 16, 19 and 20, at least.

And if they are not mathematically best moves (here we suppose that top players can find them) then their play is biased: maybe they cheat, maybe they hate Red. Anyway, there is some meta-level.

I can't say whether these are the absolute best moves in the position, but I do think they're logical.

Move 16: If Blue plays pxQ, he will lose the d1 bishop (so that's +9,-5), and leave his opposite crippled and unable to distract yellow/red when they go for his king.

Move 19: Same as above. QxQ leaves Green crippled and a bunch of pieces eyeing the blue king.

Move 20 is fairly obvious, I thought.

> Move 16: If Blue plays pxQ, he will lose the d1 bishop (so that's +9,-5), and leave his opposite crippled and unable to distract yellow/red when they go for his king.

Do we talk about mathematically best moves? Maths say that 9 > 5.

Does a player need a Q to distract other player(s), is it a must?! No, he can distract them even without a Q.

Moreover, Q is the most valuable piece, so he must care about it and not hang for 5 moves like it is nothing important at all.