Is it a game without morals?

Is this a game where players play without having morals?

It is easy to say: it is a game! Yes sure it is a game but do the players play it with morals and they are ready to forget everything to win?

win + morals, does it work?

Important here is: it is not about Teaming per se!

I would like to get as much answers as possible, please give me your opinion, thanks.

I had a game where I teamed (without the chat just against one powerful opponent) and instead of claim win I gave him material so he could win.

Did you have games where you "saved" your opponent and then he/she killed you to win first? or such actions? If yes, how do you think about it please?

Is it ok to kill someone in a game who helped me before, to win? do Games have a Morals' Standards?

Not sure what the point of bringing "morals" into it, you are playing a game where you try to win and also have to accept the other players are also trying to win. However, none of the players can win playing alone in a 3v1 and therefore you need to know how to make use of the other players while also being aware that they are trying to make use of you. It's a complex dynamic and I think that's what makes things interesting. I would say the - ESSENTIAL CORE- of 4PC FFA is that the power dynamics between the players is just that: dynamic, and therefore 'allegiances' need to change based on not allowing one player to get too strong and run away with the game. In some of the best and highest level FFA games I've seen, players might change dozens of times who they are trying to pressure during the 3 player phase to keep things even. No offense to you, but if you are attached to the idea that once you cooperate with another player then the cooperation lasts for the rest of the game, then you are completely misunderstanding the game and playing it at a somewhat low level (probably 2300 or less).

If you play with the idea that your opposite should keep helping you through the whole game because the cooperation is necessary in the beginning phase, why not just play 2v2 teams?

GustavKlimtPaints, thanks for your answer it is somehow interesting point of view.

"Not sure what the point of bringing "morals" into it"

This is a part of the question: do games have Morals' Standards?

and YES my best Rating was arround 2350. but is 2300 a low Level?!

And no, it is not about the oppo should help me the whole game, it is about: is it ok that he/she kill me after saving him/her from being last?

And since it is a Forum i thought, we can discuss  here or am i wrong too? But i think with this one at least i am sure that i am not wrong, this the right place to exchange Ideas about the game, right?

Of course it is ok, as long as a player in the game they have a right to play for a win, it's as simple as that, why wouldn't they? Psychology is of course a big factor in this game and keeps things interesting; if you somehow help out your opposite in a tough situation (if they even notice, maybe they are so clueless about the position they did not even realize the threat on them or what you did to save them, you never know) they will probably be grateful to you. I find they might be less likely to put minor pressure on you if they don't see an immediate benefit as they might also be thinking "This guy probably thinks I owe them because they saved me earlier, he would probably react badly and blow up  if I start positioning my pieces against him." However, if you offer up a checkmate in one that gives them an instant win situation on a silver platter, you can hardly expect them not to play it. So my take:

- Don't expect 4PC player dynamics to work like day to day social situations where if you do something nice to someone they are going to be your friend also 20 moves later.
- If you wish to become a better 4PC player, learn to focus on the power dynamics in the present position and not get too attached to thinking of players as allies or enemies. You have to be able to cooperate with someone who might have been trying to attack you a few moves ago, then go back to play against them a few moves later, back and forth over and over  if the situation calls for it (I'm mostly talking about the 3 player phase, the 4 player phase is significantly less dynamic as has been discussed in detail other places already). I think hest is a great example of a player who has a very good ability to do this and by the way is one of the nicest guys you will meet on 4PC, but has no qualms about checkmating his opposite if the situation calls for it. In my opinion, seeing players as immoral for applying certain game strategies is more of a reflection of our own emotional reaction to losing than having anything to do with their morals, I don't think 4PC FFA will offer you any glimpse into anyone's soul : )

In my opinion, there is no universal moral standard for games, as being played (not referring to sportsmanship, such as attacking for spite, which in my opinion is a more moral issue). In 4pc, there is a "meta-standard" for playing, which varies on the person. ex. some people hate teaming; some people love teaming. But strategies are not moral/immoral in of themselves, just how they are interpreted.

Interesting question!

I stopped player 4 player chess when the other players would gang up on me. I guess I didn't have a good enough name whenever it was first developing. I would watch as other players would ignore or even help a player with a "name". I suppose there are some potential benefits in not allowing a "no body" from making a name for themselves at everyone else's expense in 4 player chess or buddying up to a "some body". 

When it's Free For All, it's exactly that. NO TEAMS ARE ALLOWED. The number of people playing teams in FFA are staggering. Mostly when you call them on it, they respond with a " big deal, if you don't like it, that's too bad " attitude. These people are a cancer that needs to be removed from the game 2 at a time. I'd like to know where anyone gets the word " teams " out of " free for all " . At the least , it's illiterate, at the most it's arrogant, or even both. 

Cooperation ≠ Prearranged Teaming lol, people are, and should be allowed to work together if they wish as long as it isn't breaking the rules like say agreeing to give a win or eliminate a player first.

3 vs 1 is a team effort, regardless of the variant title, there is also nothing from stopping friends from using an outside chat service to collude. This game in theory great, since no engine exists to cheat that I am aware of, but the corruptible human heart can't be combated.

After more thinking, technically yes? Are there strategies that

1. Violate the spirit of game? No, because ffa is defined by admins as do whatever you want, including teaming. 

2. Do not show respect for players? Yes; bad sportsmanship; attacking a player out of spite, for example.

3. strategies interpreted by some to be immoral? Yes, In my opinion, it would be immoral to betray 2300s, not because it is immoral, but because it is interpreted as. That's my opinion anyway, it depends on your definition of morality.

In my mind, this game is only viable as two vs two in any venue, or 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1, in OTB with random draws. Will friends help friends thereafter, yes?  However, you don't have to worry about them on the phone or a separate chat app, telling each other what they are thinking. 

Allowing the teaming in a non-team variant basically ensures the titled players claim their place with each other at the top, regardless of how good the no name player actually is. It is like the rich colluding against the poor in life, to ensure that they stay rich. 

It has happened to me plenty of times.

I think everything which is allowed by rules is acceptable. 

Then, I make my conclusions. There are definitely some players whom I'll not assist anymore for some reasons (in non-anon games of course).

Yes absolutely. 
Currently the high ratings begin somewhere from 2700.

(3 years ago even 2100-2200 used to be a high rating; but there has been a big inflation since).

Thanks to all who participated untill now, but it is not only about teaming or not. I am talking in generally about Morals in games and in this game.

thanks Indipendenza,

i didnt mean that 2300 is high Level, but i think it is not low level too, it is a mid-level, but even 2300 could have an openion and it could be right :-)

NO WAY, sincerely.

FFA means precisely what it means. To cooperate with the opp in the 1st stage FFA a) is perfectly allowed by the rules and b) is basically the best strategy. Cf. maybe https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects

Moreover, even if many players under 2000-2100 will think like you (by lack of experience mainly), they simply fail to formulate any enforceable rule to address the issue. Because it's absolutely impossible to word and implement one that wouldn't be ambiguous and could be applied by the computer. (Just because quite often you profit from another player's move with no idea of teaming AT ALL behind; sometimes you do cooperate for 1-2 moves occasionally but without real teaming with the other person, etc. and no rule can put the cursor clearly enough).

The most shocking aspect of the 1st stage FFA teaming are the assisted mates. I formulated already many proposals how to address it effectively, none of them was found interesting/good by the community, and probably no other idea in this direction would pass neither.

Cf. for instance:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-new-proposal-ffa-solo-ratings-points-system?page=1

I do interpret free for all as play at your own peril. It can be 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs, 2 vs 2, or 1 vs 3

What is lost here though is the beauty of chess. It is a fair competition of the mind of one player, vs the mind of another.