> Why not add a non-confrontation FFA mode instead? All the players are separated by walls, because it would be a great tragedy if one of these snowflakes gets checked by his left, and then his queen attacked by bad bad cheater team multicuentos 2v1 on his right.
Maybe add a mode where checks from left are prohibited? 
Rating Crisis: I personally don't know; that could be a problem, but I don't think anti-teaming players would care that much.
Ultra: There are good non-teaming players too!
Neo/Lucas/Pugs: if the players who play this mode don't like teaming, which is the point, then their wont be teaming...This is my basic idea. Kind of like when high rated ffa players don't mate their opposite even when it benefits them. All players in this mode should be opposed to teaming, and their shouldn't be any, to their satisfaction.
Neo:I still think solo should be merged, but other topic!
look at the leaderboard... i dont believe that one of them does not cooperate.
> Why not add a non-confrontation FFA mode instead? All the players are separated by walls, because it would be a great tragedy if one of these snowflakes gets checked by his left, and then his queen attacked by bad bad cheater team multicuentos 2v1 on his right.
Maybe add a mode where checks from left are prohibited?
100% 
look at the leaderboard... i dont believe that one of them does not cooperate.
To be very good at ffa you need to cooperate, but there are plenty of 2100s, who I think are good players, who don't. My point is, not all non-teamers are bad players. But anyway.
look at the leaderboard... i dont believe that one of them does not cooperate.
To be very good at ffa you need to cooperate, but there are plenty of 2100s, who I think are good players, who don't. My point is, not all non-teamers are bad players. But anyway.
that is true. but... when i played against one of those (even though i am lower rated) i won and he got 3rd
Something that everybody is forgetting is that there's only one winner in Solo, so even if you only have a slight advantage, such as an extra queen, the other 3 players can immediately start acting like 1500s and take whatever they can to even out the game.
Something that everybody is forgetting is that there's only one winner in Solo, so even if you only have a slight advantage, such as an extra queen, the other 3 players can immediately start acting like 1500s and take whatever they can to even out the game.
That's literally how balance in 3 player stage FFA/Solo works. Unless you think 2500 = 1500.
#bancheckmates It's still today confuses me why people are against a long term winning strategy, proven to be correct, in advancing your rating into higher stages where yes, teaming is expected from opposites, but also, rational thinking once a mate has been delivered.
It's the lack of understanding of the true ffa end game politics that many are awful at and believe it's due to earlier stage of the game that is to blame why they struggle to win games.
So anyone who is against all this, can you please explain what you find so terrible about this proven winning strategy, I'm bewildered by it???
#bancheckmates It's still today confuses me why people are against a long term winning strategy, proven to be correct, in advancing your rating into higher stages where yes, teaming is expected from opposites, but also, rational thinking once a mate has been delivered.
It's the lack of understanding of the true ffa end game politics that many are awful at and believe it's due to earlier stage of the game that is to blame why they struggle to win games.
So anyone who is against all this, can you please explain what you find so terrible about this proven winning strategy, I'm bewildered by it???
#bancheckmates It's still today confuses me why people are against a long term winning strategy, proven to be correct, in advancing your rating into higher stages where yes, teaming is expected from opposites, but also, rational thinking once a mate has been delivered.
It's the lack of understanding of the true ffa end game politics that many are awful at and believe it's due to earlier stage of the game that is to blame why they struggle to win games.
So anyone who is against all this, can you please explain what you find so terrible about this proven winning strategy, I'm bewildered by it???
It is actually a serious question though, amid some of my sarcasm, I am truly interested in how they see this as bad for the game.
#bancheckmates It's still today confuses me why people are against a long term winning strategy, proven to be correct, in advancing your rating into higher stages where yes, teaming is expected from opposites, but also, rational thinking once a mate has been delivered.
It's the lack of understanding of the true ffa end game politics that many are awful at and believe it's due to earlier stage of the game that is to blame why they struggle to win games.
So anyone who is against all this, can you please explain what you find so terrible about this proven winning strategy, I'm bewildered by it???
It is actually a serious question though, amid some of my sarcasm, I am truly interested in how they see this as bad for the game.
I'm confused: Teaming in the four player stage, or solo in the three player stage?
Guys, maybe I wasn't clear enough :in the foundations of 4 players chess is cooperation or teaming - more or less obvious!!!
Question for all: have you ever played this game by first attacking and defeating one opponent and then waiting for the outcome of the fight of the other two and then resolving the issue of the winner with the remaining player? Without interfering in the fight of the other two players?
NEVER! I don’t think anyone has ever played a game like that!
What is the conclusion?
At the core of this game is team play, more or less pronounced, from the start or from the middle of the game!
Question number 2: how will you determine at what point teaming is ok and when is not allowed? If player on my right side is on check, if I attack his Q then is teaming - if I attack bishop then isn't?!?
Essence of 3 players stage is balance - it is achieved only by constantly changing partners - how will you avoid team play here?
Guys, maybe I wasn't clear enough :in the foundations of 4 players chess is cooperation or teaming - more or less obvious!!!
Question for all: have you ever played this game by first attacking and defeating one opponent and then waiting for the outcome of the fight of the other two and then resolving the issue of the winner with the remaining player? Without interfering in the fight of the other two players?
NEVER! I don’t think anyone has ever played a game like that!
What is the conclusion?
At the core of this game is team play, more or less pronounced, from the start or from the middle of the game!
Question number 2: how will you determine at what point teaming is ok and when is not allowed? If player on my right side is on check, if I attack his Q then is teaming - if I attack bishop then isn't?!?
Essence of 3 players stage is balance - it is achieved only by constantly changing partners - how will you avoid team play here?
I think I understand (But I could be wrong!)
My position is this: "Players who hate teaming" trumps "game mechanics". I may be wrong.
As for teaming in 3 stage, I think its a non issue. As for queen vs bishop, in theory it should work out to what the average player who hates teaming desires. In practice, I think that is a huge stumbling block. To be fair, I'm pessimistic it will work, but I personally think the idea is worth the shot; And things such as points can be altered.
You will never be able to define what is "bad teaming" and what is "acceptable cooperation". There will be plenty marginal cases and endless discussions.
My side, I think it should be kept as is; BUT some corrections could be given in order to limit the phenomenon (playing on points, coefficients, etc., as proposed above) or in order to at least eliminate the most shocking form of teaming in the 1st FFA stage with blitzkrieg assisted checkmates.
Why do they work? Because CURRENTLY it's the best strategy. To eliminate one side is the best strategy, even if you're sure to lose your queen.
So how can we eliminate that? But making it economically irrelevant. Like I proposed in https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa, that can easily be achieved via several approaches, for instance:
- the checkmate points are divided between the players who checked (two or three players...), so it makes it much less interesting;
- if the mating piece (usually the Q) may be eaten and is not, it's punished by -20 for instance. So one would be much less inclined to checkmate if he knows for sure that his queen will be eaten. (Well, in 95% of high-level games it is anyway, and we just don't care),
- a totally different (and new?) idea that would be to modify totally the value of the checkmate depending on the material still in game, that would normally reduce dramatically the 1st stage cooperation, as proposed here:
#bancheckmates It's still today confuses me why people are against a long term winning strategy, proven to be correct, in advancing your rating into higher stages where yes, teaming is expected from opposites, but also, rational thinking once a mate has been delivered.
It's the lack of understanding of the true ffa end game politics that many are awful at and believe it's due to earlier stage of the game that is to blame why they struggle to win games.
So anyone who is against all this, can you please explain what you find so terrible about this proven winning strategy, I'm bewildered by it???
It is actually a serious question though, amid some of my sarcasm, I am truly interested in how they see this as bad for the game.
I'm confused: Teaming in the four player stage, or solo in the three player stage?
People are against the teaming aspect I ffa and solo at only the 4 stage as 3 left is dependent on politics etc. I'm confused why some are against this as explained I'm my comment?
#bancheckmates It's still today confuses me why people are against a long term winning strategy, proven to be correct, in advancing your rating into higher stages where yes, teaming is expected from opposites, but also, rational thinking once a mate has been delivered.
It's the lack of understanding of the true ffa end game politics that many are awful at and believe it's due to earlier stage of the game that is to blame why they struggle to win games.
So anyone who is against all this, can you please explain what you find so terrible about this proven winning strategy, I'm bewildered by it???
It is actually a serious question though, amid some of my sarcasm, I am truly interested in how they see this as bad for the game.
I'm confused: Teaming in the four player stage, or solo in the three player stage?
People are against the teaming aspect I ffa and solo at only the 4 stage as 3 left is dependent on politics etc. I'm confused why some are against this as explained I'm my comment?
To my understanding
Many people, when they play ffa, think ffa means every player is playing for themselves; 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1. Technically, that is what happens, but when you look at two players attacking you, its not perceived as a strategy, but 2 vs 1 (or 2), not one vs one vs one vs one. it appears to violate the spirit of every man for himself
> Why not add a non-confrontation FFA mode instead? All the players are separated by walls, because it would be a great tragedy if one of these snowflakes gets checked by his left, and then his queen attacked by bad bad cheater team multicuentos 2v1 on his right.
Maybe add a mode where checks from left are prohibited?
Players could technically then team with their left/right
> Why not add a non-confrontation FFA mode instead? All the players are separated by walls, because it would be a great tragedy if one of these snowflakes gets checked by his left, and then his queen attacked by bad bad cheater team multicuentos 2v1 on his right.
Maybe add a mode where checks from left are prohibited?
Players could technically then team with their left/right
alternate cooperation wtf
Why not add a non-confrontation FFA mode instead? All the players are separated by walls, because it would be a great tragedy if one of these snowflakes gets checked by his left, and then his queen attacked by bad bad cheater team multicuentos 2v1 on his right. It would fundamentally be what you're suggesting, no teaming possible, loads of shuffling, etc., but it is impossible to break the rules.