First 10 Moves in FFA

Thanks for this, I certainly didn't have the energy to refute the idea but it's one that certainly needs to be refuted. A lot of ideas might have good intentions, but either aren't practical, or wouldn't have the intended outcomes. The more layers of technical abstraction, the more prohibitive/unintuitive rules that get adde, just make the game worse. Ideally, the rules should be as close as possible to "move your pieces on your turn" + "try to have fun"/"win".

I think the solution to a very large number of these problems is to play games within a community, league, or even better, within a group of friends who have a level of mutual respect the extends past the board, beyond the time controls, and outside of the ruleset.

Combat ignorance and stupidity -- people who have selective attention to detail -- with absurdity. See if they're paying attention.

Glad you're paying attention.

This "proposal" was absurdist on my part. [The whole sarcasm doesn't come across well online.] I'm glad you got the point that a limiting teaming in the first 10 moves is a whole lot better than any number of potential alternatives.

I love it when people take a suggestion or proposal that has to do only with imparting some balance at the start of a game, the first 10 moves, and then turn it into the rest of the game. Like it is the end of the world.

Paging Tom Smykowski to the games aisle. Another complaint about "Jump to Conclusions" being out of stock, again.

Shows where people's head are at; how they think about things; how little attention is paid to detail; how they react when it is pointed out.

Versus acknowledging how things are, why they are the way they are, and seeing things from different perspectives.

Nay, thou shalt fight unto death -- because, it is as it always has been and can be no other way. Thou shalt not change.

* Disclaimer: Never be sarcastic with serious people. Its offensive to their sense of sensibility. And never point out the obvious, that's even more offensive.

(1) I feel it goes against the essence of the game. I understand and acknowledge that at some point two players are going to collaborate.

I think two opposites (or even adjacent) players acting in concert, like playing teams, at the outset of a game (the first few moves), is unfair to the other players who are not prepared to attack or sac material or cooperate to benefit an opposite, often at their own detriment. -- Two of Four players may be thinking FFA, while the other Two may be thinking of Teams.

It is not really very much fun to see one player eliminated almost immediately. And it is never any fun if after two players collaborate to eliminate one, the same two turn their eyes on another. This is blatant teaming. Even if not pre-arranged, the implicit understanding of how this is beneficial is not "fair play" when the players being eliminated in such a fashion are not so informed. That goes against SITE-WIDE FAIR PLAY RULES.

SITE-WIDE FAIR PLAY RULES

Scroll to the bottom of the page, click the "Fair Play" link.

https://www.chess.com/legal/fair-play

(2) Is it a "free for all" if one or two players are eliminated out the gate? Then it's just 3PC, or 2PC. Then it is just for the benefit of ratings points for two players. There's also this thing called ratings manipulation, which is against the rules.

(3) More often than not, I observe, my observation is -- that when two players across from each other eliminate one player immediately with team tactics and strategy, they then turn their eye to the other adjacent before battling it out across the board.

Simply put, this 3rd point, I'm refuting your feeling or observation that this behavior is limited in scope. My feeling and observation is quiet the opposite.

Though sometimes I've had some interesting and good 3-player games when my opposite has been immediately eliminated ... these games are rare. Usually after I watch my opposite eliminated, or I'm eliminated ... the opposite of the eliminated falls next. A few more moves due to more advanced development.

When you say "blatant teaming" "if not pre-arranged" "is not fair play"; and "when players being eliminated in such a fashion" "goes against SITE-WIDE FAIR PLAY RULES", I don't think you're correct.

I followed the link you provided, but I can't find anything at all that backs up what you've just said. Could you point it out to me in case I've missed something? 

• All of your moves must be your own
• Do not cheat in any way
• Do not get help from any other person, including parents, friends, coaches or another player
• Do not use chess engines, software of any kind, bots, plugins or any tools that analyze positions during play
• Do not use tablebases or any other resources that show the best move (in both Online and Daily chess)
• You may use Opening Explorer or other books without engine evaluations in Daily chess only (not in Online / Live play)
• Do not perform any automated analysis or “blunder checking” of your games in progress
• Do not allow anyone else to use your account
• Do not use anyone else's account
• Do not artificially manipulate ratings, matches, or game outcomes
• Do not interfere with the gameplay of other members
• Suspecting your opponent of using outside help is not an excuse to do the same. If you suspect someone is cheating, report the player to Chess.com.

EXCEPTION: These rules do not apply to unrated games or tactics. However, if you intend to use assistance against your opponent, you must notify them beforehand. We may expand or narrow any applicable exceptions to the Fair Play Policy at any time without notice to you.

WARNING: If we determine that you have violated our Fair Play Policy, then we will close your account and label it closed for a Fair Play violation. All account status changes are made in our sole discretion. For a full listing of the measures we will take to both monitor your play on Chess.com and enforce our Fair Play Policy, see the Termination and Account Limitations sections of our User Agreement.

On a separate note, it really sounds like there's far too many unenforceable guidelines or "house rules" to expect every random participant to follow them.

There's no way in hell I'd join a game with anyone in this thread. They'd probably start screaming at me, and I'd have absolutely no idea why. Some of this stuff sounds positively unhinged.

I think folks really need to play with friends, and stop whining about what random strangers do in games. This site wasn't designed for 4-player chess, it was made for 2-player chess. If you can't find friends to play with, and it's not working out with randoms, then maybe it's not a good way to spend your time. Just my 2 centipawns.

I think this thread can be summed up by the following sentence: "I'm not good enough at this, please make the better players play worse so I can compete".

OP's basic claim that teaming goes against the essence of FFA is valid.

Losing is part of the reason people don't like it, but this claim should not be used to shut down this side of the conversation

I'm not sure who decided what the "essence of FFA is", and why there even is one.

My point was, OP's points should not be written off, which is an action I felt was implied by your statement.

A better word is vision, or what 4pc should be. 

OP's points haven't been written off. But OP's suggestions which would change the course of the game completely and make it illegal for players to play optimal moves have been written off.

I'm open to suggestions that will make opposite cooperation a less effective strategy. Unfortunately, OP's point seeks to prevent players from making the best available moves by artificial means.

I know. It's possible that I misinterpreted things. I could explain my reasoning for commenting further but I don't think this mini-conversation is useful?

In my opinion, 4pc needs to better market itself rather than aim for game changes.

I think this issue is probably about as old as time; if you have any sort of "FFA" arrangement in gaming, then you're necessarily leaning on an honor system. If you can't trust everyone to make it a Free-For-All, then you can't really play FFA.

I really think there needs to be better organization, groups, accountability, such that folks can play with people whose style matches their own. It doesn't sound like playing randoms all day is really going to work here, barring some kind of magical rule or scoring change.

Perhaps you should get more points for delivering checks/checkmate against adjacent players? I really don't have any good ideas, every idea just seems like garbage, and the real problem seems to be random internet strangers doing random internet stranger things.