First 10 Moves in FFA

The whole tentative or tacit agreement, and common knowledge, that because opposites will naturally gravitate toward acting as a team is not a good reason or excuse for not enforcing some basic fair play in FFA.

When two players work together to eliminate another one right at the start of a game, before having had a chance to develop, let alone defend, this isn't a Free for All, it is teaming.

I'd like to suggest that FFA's rules be updated with the following:

• A player may not be checkmated in the first 10 moves if it is the result of two or more players pieces.
• A player may not be checkmated in the first 10 moves if two or more players have accumulated 7 points worth of pieces individually, or 15 points combined from the player in question.

If either rule is found to have been violated, it constitutes teaming, and violates fair basic fair play tenets.

Game termination: The two players whose pieces are involved both lose points, and the game ends.

Repeatedly ending games like this should have some incremental threshold enforced, such that the person can play Teams, but not FFA for some period of time.

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

Interesting that the path for "Fair Play" includes "legal."

To quote from it:

"Do not get help from any other person, including parents, friends, coaches or another player"

... "if you intend to use assistance against your opponent, you must notify them beforehand" ...

Obviously with teams, players know they're working against multiple other opponents. In FFA, you're playing against 3 other players, but there is not an explicit or implicit 3-on-1 or 2-on-1. However, the FFA rules say not to report implicit teaming, and only provides for known, explicit reasons and rationale (concrete terms, such as begging for points, or coordination in chat). This is despite the acknowledgment that opposites will gravitate toward acting as a team.

The above rules give all 4 players of 4PC, playing FFA, the opportunity to develop and defend into or toward a mid-game, and puts the brakes on players who take advantage of the BS lame-duck, lackadaisical, lassiez-fair attitudes of admins and management.

Considering all of the changes made, on such a regular basis, implementing some basic rules to ensure fair play in FFA doesn't seem like it'll make much of a difference. It will upset those who like to take advantage of FFA to act as a team at the start, for a while. Those players will stop playing and be gone, or they'll adapt and get with the program.

But I'd wager there will be a great deal many more people who would be happy with improved rules that get rid of or discourage unfair play (implicit teaming, or team tactics) at the outset of an FFA game.

Pretend for a moment that instead of 4PC, we just call it 3PC. Or maybe just 2PC. Or maybe that's putting too fine a point on it. Why do we need 4PC or FFA if the objective is to assist each other in eliminating one player right away? So we just eliminate one. Thus, 3PC. And since two players in 3PC will naturally gravitate toward teaming, then we just eliminate another one, and call it 2PC. Or Chess on a larger board.

Editing (September 13, 2022) this since OP decided to block me (yeah, there's no way to shut me up, sorry)

"carry-on with kicking people who suggest unpopular changes"

(Quoted from @SJCVChess on this comment: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/first-10-moves-in-ffa?page=2#comment-72246877)

We looked at your points, and we refuted them. There's no such thing as an argument where only one side gets to speak. If you believe that your point is correct, then "bitter questioning" should not be a problem. 

What I think you're doing is taking criticism too seriously. I was spectating one of my friend's games a few days ago, and you happened to be in it; I suggested moves that you could've made that would've involved cooperation with your opposite, and this is what you messaged in chat:

I'm sure somebody looked at that report and was extremely confused

If you're unwilling to change your stance, which I can understand, you might be interested in bullet, specifically the time control 1|1. Not a lot of cooperation there, and you might enjoy it.

I've read it before. I just re-read it. It does not address some basic "fair play" observations on implicit teaming. Unless something is premeditated ... doesn't address other considerations or concerns.

These suggested rules won't stop players from teaming. But they'll put a stop to it happening right away at the outset of a game. It will give all 4 players an opportunity to develop and play against all 3 of the other players on the board, instead of facing the implicit circumstance of two may be coordinating or collaborating implicitly. The "LEGAL" fair play rules provide for this in the form of TEAMS, opposed to FFA.

Statements like this are inappropriate and disparaging.

Teaming in FFA is a known issue. Apparently it is so well known, that you feel the need to say something disparaging and inappropriate instead of suggest workable solutions.

If we're going there again, then, this known issue still needs to be properly and appropriately addressed. Not put-down with disparaging comments.

I'm well aware of at least some of the history behind this issue. I specifically acknowledged some of the history. Maybe you're just upset that I've articulated rules that would put a stop to individuals with bad attitudes, or who don't believe in "fair play" because the rules as they stand allow people some small, petty psychologically rewarding wins at the expense of others? At least, that is one implicit interpretation.

Then what's the point? I can just wait 11 moves, and then start playing like I'm in Teams with my opposite. If that's considered a loophole, I'll wait 20 moves. 

If you completely eliminate teaming, then high level games would never end. 

Look at this game for example:

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/26640247/0/4

I (Green) am playing a Teams opening with my opposite (Blue), however, my opposite makes a mistake and we are on the losing side, so I attack my opposite. My left flank (Red) tries to attack Blue, but my right flank (Yellow) does nothing. Thus, the game drags on for 102 moves (*4=408) with no sides making any major mistakes and only shuffling as they are all 2500+. I'm only mated as a result of Yellow and Blue "teaming up". Then the games goes on for 72 moves (*3-1 = 215)

This is the problem. There are loopholes, it undermines the best strategy in 4PC, and it makes the game extremely boring.

You'll notice the subject, and the proposed rules:

They only have to do with the first 10 moves. The latter part of your observation, completely eliminating teams and very long games at very high levels ... irrelevant to the subject, purpose and point.

The first part of your response, such that -- if 10, then you'll wait 11 moves to start teaming, and if 20, then you'll way until move 21 -- that is not just a bad attitude, but you make my point for me, the implicit part of: "We're not going to play, not interested in playing FFA, we're going to act as teams under the guise of FFA, because eliminating someone at the start is so much more fun than a good game."

And then there is the points consideration. Ratings points are assigned based on who earns the greatest amount of points. Two players, such as the common, implicit ... "I'll give you a 9-pt queen if you help me 20-point check-mate one of the other players" ... This unspoken exchange is no different than "begging for points" -- I'll help you if you help me (establish an unfair advantage over other players in the game). This violates basic "fair play" tenets.

And then it continues throughout the game.

I've thought about rules like: "If player repeatedly ignores higher-value hanging pieces from opposite to attacking corner with a sacrifice that benefits opposites ..."

But even if you could implement a rule like that, I've had 3x blunders in a row when I'm tired.

Rules for the start of the game that limit common team tactics; time-limited rules that allow a game to get started, but don't eliminate the possibility of issuing mate individually, or two players taking advantage of blunders or coordinated attacks to grab points. I don't see a problem with this.

The only people who seem to have a problem with rules that ensure fair play, are those who don't really want to play fair.

You think that this is self-explanatory. I disagree. If you want to suggest a rule like this, you need to counter loopholes, and you need to do the proper research before making these claims. 

he whole tentative or tacit agreement, and common knowledge, that because opposites will naturally gravitate toward acting as a team is not a good reason or excuse for not enforcing some basic fair play in FFA.

When two players work together to eliminate another one right at the start of a game, before having had a chance to develop, let alone defend, this isn't a Free for All, it is teaming.

I'd like to suggest that FFA's rules be updated with the following:

• A player may not be checkmated in the first 10 moves if it is the result of two or more players pieces.
• A player may not be checkmated in the first 10 moves if two or more players have accumulated 7 points worth of pieces individually, or 15 points combined from the player in question.

If either rule is found to have been violated, it constitutes teaming, and violates fair basic fair play tenets.

Game termination: The two players whose pieces are involved both lose points, and the game ends.

In what world?

How are these suggestions just not inherently inhibitive towards the freedom of the game itself? Your best solution is to limit every player's options for the first 10 moves? Force them to passively develop without capturing regardless of circumstances or else risk punishment by your so called rules? Explain this better at least, cause the way I read it this makes no sense. 

What makes people like FFA is how dynamic and unpredictable it is. People's sporadic decisions can swing the outcome of the game. For many that is exciting, and the collusion of certain decisions will result in teaming/temporary alliances, that is in the game itself, and it can and will often happen in the first 10 moves of the game too. Why take that away from players? What is the rationale behind it that you believe the game needs so desperately to be played in the way you described that actual rule changes have to be implemented for it?

I also just simply don't know what type of games you've been watching or been playing in that you believe these rules actually solve anything. Like come on, it's the first 10 moves, not even valger and icystun, the two strongest teams players ever, as a team can within the first ten moves force an inescapable mating net. I'd hazard a guess that the cases where you saw players being so "unfairly" not even given a chance were cases where they couldn't even anticipate a mate coming when they had two queens and maybe more staring at the pawns around their king, probably like 1800 level. Like come on, your solution to those edge cases of shortsightedness is to limit every player's freedom of moves? Just don't blunder when you have 2 queens staring at your king, but apparently its such an insurmountable task that rule changes have to be implemented to counteract that? I don't know how many actually good games you watch but a good amount of decent players actually make it past the first 10 moves! It's really more the middle game where passive opposites can lead to a player being "unfairly" taken out of the game, if we're taking your definition of "unfair" that is, so these "first 10 moves" rule actually solves nothing!

Which also brings up the point, what in your definition defines as unfair teaming? There's nothing in your post that says the contradictory, but you can't seriously believe all implicit teaming should now be regarded as unfair play, right? Cause hate to break it to you, but there's 4 players, and only one can win, so it's not supposed to be fair! So are you claiming that just implicit teaming within the first 10 moves is considered unfair? This sentence that you wrote 

Why do we need 4PC or FFA if the objective is to assist each other in eliminating one player right away?

seems to imply that as ridiculous as this sounds, you believe that implicit teaming is for the sole purpose of eliminating a player just to get rid of one... like you do realize that it's a developed strategy agreed upon by the strongest players on the server that eliminating a side player would give you better chances down the line since flanks can much more easily attack you... right? Players implicitly team for their own advantage, not to intentionally screw things over for someone else, and if it happens in the first 10 moves it happens, what about that is hard to come to terms with? By this definition implicit teaming is in the spirit of Free for All as we make our decisions in-game based upon increasing our own chances. Yes, that means someone's chances will be decreased, but we all start with the same chess pieces... What about that is so hard to handle that makes it so unfair and difficult to accept?

It's been a long time since I wrote something this incoherent. I was just so confused at what you are trying to achieve by doing this? Like is this just a forum post to throw around impractical ideas to provoke reactions? Propose a nonsense idea(unless I misunderstood somehow) just to see where it can go? If you genuinely think that there is something wrong with the so called "implicit teaming" flair that exists in FFA there are tons of players in 4pc discords with decent knowledge of the game who could help you formulate better arguments I'm sure. This entire post just fails to address anything to the point that I don't even know what I could say besides state what I already consider to be extremely obvious.

Also that in the haste to formulate a solution to one problem you saw, you failed to see that it would create like 20 more problems. This should be put somewhere up there instead of as the last sentence, but oh well.

To tackle this issue, I’ll start with the biggest, if that makes sense, perspective on this issue. The problem is not teaming per se, rather, 4pc’s problem is that there are two camps with two distinct visions for 4pc. And to be clear, this is an oversimplification, but my points will stand. Also, part of what I say may be redundant, but it will hopefully be helpful.

Camp A is made up of primarily lower and intermediate players who believe that teaming should be illegal. I think it should be important to note two things. First, this is where I would think the vast majority of new players fall. Second, how much people in this camp are opposed to teaming varies.

Camp B are the players who are fine with teaming. Almost all the very strong or influential players, admins, and forum and discord people are in this camp. 

My point is most influential players are in Camp B, while many non-influential players are in Camp A. This is why your view is unpopular here, and why generally the discussions around teaming, especially “Camp A ideas” (things that reduce teaming), go the way they do. It is not a conspiracy, or a bunch of selfish or stupid people, but rather a difference in visions somewhat along “party lines.” 

But this way of thinking about the issue, framing it in two camps, while (I think) explaining interactions, is not the most helpful in explaining the core problem.

This is the core problem: People are opposed to teaming while there is teaming in FFA
And the core solutions: Do Nothing, Reduce Teaming, or Reduce People’s Opposition to Teaming

So about the solutions. Option one is bad because I think this is a major problem, and is part of the reason I would think FFA underperforms, even before the merge, in retaining players. This is subjective in the absence of data, but I think, judging by the amount of retained players who are concerned by this issue, that we probably lose a sizable amount of players to this general issue of getting attacked by more than one person

Solution two is the umbrella solution for your position. The reason I and the others who have responded to this disagree is because we think that teaming is inherently part of FFA. See: https://www.chess.com/blog/GustavKlimtPaints/free-for-all-in-4pc-ideas-in-the-early-four-player-phase Even if we could remove it, I think that would be cost(player loss) prohibitive. Moreover, as said before, pretty much all the influential players are in camp B, so even if this is the right decision, I don’t think it will be adopted. 

Players reading this who belong to this camp should continue to be active in these discussions (with strong arguments) and try to show that there is a large community consensus for this view. 

There have been viable solutions that might work, to some extent (or they might drive players away, which is a concern), but until there is a push for solution two among the community/admins, I don’t see how these solutions are going to be adopted.

I think if you made sub 2300 players unable to checkmate for the first ten moves, that might be useful. On the other hand, that limits moves (and violates the Free in FFA)

Solution three
This is where I think 4pc should head towards, trying to get people accustomed to the fact that there is teaming in FFA, rather than reducing it. I think the current view is that we should try to convince current players that teaming is OK. This isn’t bad, but it won't work very well because people rarely change their minds. Rather, I think 4pc needs to put effort into making it clear to new players that teaming is part of the game. This is why, for example, I don’t think it should be called FFA.

Caleb

I'm just going to move my king to the middle of the board and get everyone banned.

👎

The bullet kids are gonna have a fine whooping 

ukraine and a poland

oh wait I forgot I changed my profile lol

1: Stop players from teaming.

sooooo... actually teaming is allowed, and, yes, you can accuse people of targeting you, and get upset about it, blablabla been there done that, but as long as it isn't coordinated (pre-arranged, using chat, etc.) it is perfectly legal to team up. It used to be that as you got higher rated it was easier to got opposites who understood how beneficial it is for opposite-cooperation, but then they changed it to solo. But that's another topic

2: sooooo there's this thing called defending while developing at the same time. Don't know what else to say it's a part of the game.

I'm going to be transparent here, Tom. 

Go to SJCV's archive. In almost every game, they push their Queen's pawn 6 squares to promote a 1 point queen. This type of opening is essentially asking to be attacked.

This suggestion only inhibits teaming and two players coordinating to eliminate another player for the first 10 moves. And that's the only limitation.

No need to be passive. If you think you can execute mate in the first 10 moves, and you do so all on your own without the assistance of another player ... go for it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Why do you need another player's assistance? There's nothing passive about attacking and issuing mate in the first 10 moves.

But there is something petty and sad about two players immediately eliminating one player. And then likely doing the same against another player.

Perhaps another rule:

If two opposites eliminate an adjacent within the first 10-moves, the other adjacent cannot be touched until one of the remaining opposites is removed. Allow the player left at a disadvantage to develop and take the other players pieces completely uninhibited.

Unless 2 players are prearranging or one player is purposefully trying to gift the win, why in the world would opposites checkmate their 2nd flank?

I agree with "dynamic and unpredictable," and sporadic decisions, outcomes, etc.

If only "teaming" and "temporary alliances" were actually temporary.

I agree that the first 10 moves are part of the game. But in an undeveloped state, it is too easy for two players, especially opposites, to leverage team tactics -- tactics and strategy used in 4PC TEAM games -- to eliminate another player. This is not "dynamic and unpredictable." Rather, it usually leads to a predictable outcome where two opposite players take the top 2 spots. Sometimes this disparity is extended to going after the other adjacent player, too.

Chess.com Management, and the 4PC Admins (1) don't have the time, and (2) don't care to -- police games where it is obvious that two opposites are acting as a team.

And when I say "obvious," I mean OBVIOUS. One player sac's a 3-point Knight, or 5-point piece taking a pawn, completely ignoring a hanging 9-point queen.

In a game about points, this doesn't make sense. There might be some strategy behind this. I've seen situations where this decision makes sense. I'm not complaining about these situations where there is strategy or tactics.

I'm saying that the playing field needs to be leveled.

"Why take that away from players?"

I'm suggesting that team tactics that end games prematurely be taken away from players who don't want to play FFA. There are other options to play games like this -- go play teams. Hey, imagine that!!! Dynamic, eh?

I can do the cursory wave-of-the-hand thing, too.

Like the magic wave-of-the-hand thing, I can also do the twist-words thing.

I didn't say that I seriously believe all implicit teaming should be regarded as unfair play.

Team tactics in the first 10 moves, eliminating one of 4 players almost immediately isn't fair play.

Yes, only one can win. That's usually how games end.

Thanks for twisting my words? I appreciate your reasoning and rationale to this point, even though I'm already familiar with all of this logic, having read this stuff before.

A minor point.

I came here, started this forum post, after a game where the player opposite me was eliminated immediately by the two players to my left and right. These games, trying to fight two players after watching them eliminate another -- they're no fun. I've done this a few times myself, and it's not really very fun. Trying to defend against two players attacking you, while ignoring each other's hanging pieces, in a game about points ... this isn't a game, its not fun or interesting or entertaining.

On the other hand, I can at least try and make the point that it just feels wrong. It violates some basic fair play tenets. And there is an opportunity to improve everyone's 4PC experience.

Perhaps there should be a box that high-level players can check to eliminate some first 10-move rules that limit team tactics and strategy ... call it "Cuthroat FFA" -- And you can only join these games if you know and understand the rules.