Excessive Teaming by Blue and Green

Yes, 9>5, but 20 (for whomever gets his king) is >20. So mathematically, as far as the overall picture is concerned, yes, this is better. In the position, all of Green's other pieces are too far away to make an impact any time soon (his earliest check is 3 moves away, and involves putting his rook en prise on h8). Green leaving his Q hanging is okay, since he understands Blue is smart enough to not sign his own death warrant.

> Yes, 9>5, but 20 (for whomever gets his king) ...

Yes, and "whomever" is a critical word here. Blue cannot be sure he will get those +20! He cannot even say: "the probability is 50% that I will checkmate Red". While taking green Q is a guaranteed profit.

And once you accept that we talk about probabilities and they do matter, then you understand that teamers just spoil the Spirit of the Solo Play Game. They play as a team in FFA. In a real Solo Play game there is a very high probability that your hanging Queen will be taken by any other player. But teamers remove this parameter from the game equation. They replace "high probability" with 0 for 2 of them. They form an alliance and get an unfair advantage over 2 other players.

So, other 2 players have the only way to win: also form a team in a Solo Play game. And we will see another Teams mode, just with points earned for capturing pieces.

This is not what FFA mode supposed to be.

Let me repeat what I said in other thread:

"There is an opinion that some 4PC Players (including some Top players) try to win at all costs and care about their rating too much. They forget about the Spirit of the Game and about getting fun from the game process, not from the win only."

Blue is definitely not the one who is getting the K in this scenario, as it is his king that will soon be killed by the 5-6 pieces eyeing it from both sides. So when I say "whoever", I mean Red or Yellow.

Regarding the spirit, I think it's a bad argument. Like someone said in this thread, it was once a matter of honour to accept any opening gambit. Sure, it led to some pretty entertaining games, but, objectively, it was bad chess. So yeah, I think there's something fundamentally wrong with a situation where the "spirit of the game" dictates foregoing the best strategy.

I can't say I'm too thrilled about it, but this is exactly what FFA mode should be, given the current rules/scoring system. At least until one player is eliminated (which is what separates it from teams). The way to prevent it is to overhaul the playing rules to make teaming inefficient, rather than by trying to come up with ways to force players who are playing well to play less well.

There are different ways actually. We now discuss it, look at feedback from the community and then will decide how exactly it is going to be fixed.

Why do I mention the Spirit of the Game here and in other threads? To get feedback from the community!

We can change the rules, but we should change them in the right direction. If the Spirit is: "Everything is allowed! Team up with you opposite in FFA like in Teams! Hang your queen and if your opposite takes it he is a moron and 4PC community will laugh at him. This is what we enjoy!" we can legalize it in the Rules (except calling someone a moron and public shaming).

But I hope the spirit is different.

I think this has somehow gotten away from my original point, which was that the only way to prevent this type of play is change the game mechanics rather than split hairs over what constitutes too much teaming.

I don't know why you guys have such a big problem with cooperative play with your opposite; in the majority of cases in doesn't look as "teamy" as this, but once in a while there might be a outlier game that goes a little far like this, I don't think that's a big deal. FFA is still completely different from Teams, that a comparison is absurd. To me it is just basic game theoretical stuff, anytime you have four people in a situation where one is trying to win, one of the obvious strategies is a temporary alliance of sorts. But that alliance is frail and can change at any time; the other day I happened to get a FFA game with someone who is a friend and frequent teams partner! I pitched a bishop on the person to my right hoping the opposite would make a strong continuation that would weaken the player. He played along for a few moves and we took out that player's kingside but then my opposite captured my bishop instead of allowing me to play another combination on the player that would result in mate or them losing their queen. So the alliance can change at any time, and the opposite recognized the player was close to getting mated already and decided it was more important to weaken me at that point. Once one person is out of the picture (or maybe not even completely), things can change very quickly and you may be the next target. 

I also don't think most people understand fully how positional the game becomes because of the double threats and how THERE ARE WAYS TO PLAY AGAINST IT positionally. There are a lot of ways to set up your pawn structure and position to discourage initiations of double threat combinations by your side players, and it is frankly annoying that people complain so much about teaming when they are failing to play good moves and setups. Sometimes there is a lot you can do on the defensive end even if all you get from your opposite is the occasional loss of a tempo from one of your side players from a small threat. I find this positional maneuvering and extreme need for prophylaxis very enjoyable.

Out of 60 games or so I've played in the last couple of weeks in FFA I can only think of maybe 1 or 2 where I can't trace the fact that I got busted by my side players to a terrible positional decision I made in the early part of the game.

@GustavKlimtPaints

>There are a lot of ways to set up your pawn structure and position to discourage initiations of double threat combinations by your side players, and it is frankly annoying that people complain so much about teaming when they are failing to play good moves and setups.

You are 100% correct, but if the only way to learn those positions is by losing to players that trust each other and know to continue the attack only encourages more of the same don't you think?  Hence more players become "teammates" with their opposites, which just isn't the spirit of the game right?

I am a mathematician. But in this game I don't look for the mathematically best, I rather enjoy the interplay between speed, objective complexity and psychology.

A humble suggestion: At the moment good players (above 1600, I am not one of them) seem know each other's style. Whoever is very annoyed by teaming might consider not playing against the 'culprits'.

Another remark to the administrators: There seems to be a connection between teaming and rating, because in the team version of the game the ratings are much more extreme than in FFA. I do not fully understand this phenomenon. If you do you might find out which rating system is the most adverse to teaming. 

@GustavKlimtPaints

"the other day I happened to get a FFA game with someone who is a friend and frequent teams partner! I pitched a bishop on the person to my right hoping the opposite would make a strong continuation that would weaken the player. He played along for a few moves and we took out that player's kingside but then my opposite captured my bishop instead of allowing me to play another combination on the player that would result in mate or them losing their queen. So the alliance can change at any time, and the opposite recognized the player was close to getting mated already and decided it was more important to weaken me at that point."

Although I tilted in the game I did learn some valuable things to stop it from happening to me again, so for that I thank-you.  But for 14 total player's moves after attacking me, you and liquid-sun had bishops staring at each other.  At some point I said 'great team mode lives'.  Then you finally went into mate mode against me and put your bishop where, if he wanted, could finally take without losing his.  More importantly I blundered and he was able to mate me the next time around.  But had I not made the comment would he have continued on with your plan?  Did he really weaken you? Or was it as he said in the chat  " i had to man to be fair".

Either way I wasn't upset and take these situations as learning curves.  But that is what is needed until the rules change.  More high rated players playing fair.

The game is #400814 if anyone remotely cares.