Let's Compromise: Conversations with dogmanstar7, Yalin, hest1805, Oleg, and Claudius

The meta of FFA is evolving. With or without the admins’ and the developer’s guidance it is turning into something that some players are embracing while others may feel repulsed by and leave.

“I don't really care too much about ffa anymore, it's a joke now,” Yalin Tala said (rated in the high 1700s, a recent number 2 player on the leader board, and a former number 1 under the previous rating system). Yalin's comments come in response to this game:

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=404066

I am posting this game without making any sort of accusations. If you click on the link to the game, please consider the conversation that follows between Hest1805, Yalin Tala, Oleg and Claudius. We have to move the discussion past heroes versus villains, honorable FFA players versus “teamers.” Oleg himself writes, “I am ready for new rules.”

Please try to limit your comments to THIS GAME. It is difficult for us to have productive conversations about this topic when thread after thread spirals into “Well, what about this scenario?” and “What about this board position?” Addressing the evolving FFA meta is a process that might begin with minor adjustments. Figuring out what measures could have helped in this particular game makes for a more meaningful discussion rather than trying to cite example after example in order come up with some “magic bullet” to address teaming in every conceivable situation. So, let’s talk.

1) GustavKlimtPaints’ Proposal

GustavKlimtPaints has a great idea:

“The idea is simple: when a person gets checkmated, the attacker gets first place and the person who got checkmated gets last place. Both of their pieces become grayed out and the remaining two people remain to fight for second place.”

It appears to me, if the two remaining players still have a chance to gain a positive score, then they will continue fighting. However, if it is a true “winner takes all” system, and second place gives a score of zero, then the remaining players will likely quit and simply join a new game.

GustavKlimtPaints wrote:

“checkmating your opposite doesn't put you at a disadvantage as you win the game on the spot, so it wouldn't be discouraged.”

This really seems in harmony with the spirit of a FFA (free for all) game. Everyone would be going for it! Everyone would be playing for the win. Gustav, it must be acknowledged, that once a player become seriously weakened (in the game link provided, the first weakened player was Yellow) then that person’s opposite might be at a disadvantage in terms of reaching the weakened king (in the game link provided, Red was opposite of the first seriously weakened player). Do you follow me so far? So, assuming your system was in place, Red would have been at a disadvantage on move 8 (a disadvantage in terms of reaching the staggering Yellow King about to be checkmated). However, if Red still has a chance of being rewarded with a positive score for second place, then Red can choose to try and dive in and finish off the Yellow King or now position his pieces for the 1 v 1 battle for second place. Does this make sense? That is about as clear as I can type it.

2) Anonymous play at the 1600 or higher level

This has already been discussed and it seems unlikely that it will be implemented at this point. But it may sort of round out our discussion by adding dogmanstar7’s comments

dogmanstar7 wrote:

“i dont like this move by crazyhouse queen takes f13. this is the problem for me” (Blue’s move 7, Qxf13+).

“the problem is crazy [CrazyhouseChess2] knows oleg will not take his queen because he knows his style. 90% of playerrs will take 9 point queen but not the highest rated ones”

One could argue (the developer, Dashes, has) that, over a long period of time, everything balances out. In some games, you will have your side opponents who are very familiar and they will coordinate their attacks (as you saw in the game) and in other games, you and your opposite will quickly harmonize your attacks and maybe get the advantage. My position is: if a few of the variables could be addressed and if a few tweaks could be made, then things might “balance out” even sooner and not require as many games in which one player is basically being Molly-hopped/gangbanged. If CrazyhouseChess2 does not know that his opposite is Oleg, how likely is it that he would hang his queen on move 7?

While having a little bit of randomness in a FFA game can add some interesting complexity, the proposal to have player’s ratings and identities anonymous when all four players are above 1600 might promote an outcome based on player’s skill rather than having the game’s outcome so heavily influenced by the randomness of the matchmaker.  

3) Temporary Alliance. This is going to be a wild one!

BabYagun wrote “Let's rename FFA to eliminate ambiguity” in this thread:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/lets-rename-ffa-to-eliminate-ambiguity-2018-11-03

Well, here is a new name and a proposal for a new FFA game mode: Temporary Alliance

It is a 4 Player Game in which all players can capture each other’s pieces (just like FFA). However, at the start of the game, opposite players can see each other’s arrows and read each other’s chat (just like in Teams mode). However, the difference is: once one player becomes eliminated, all chat is muted and all arrows are disabled. So, once one player has been checkmated, then now you’re on your own.

Now, let’s look at this specific game, Game #404066. On move 6 (or maybe move 5) Hest1805 could draw an arrow showing his opposite, Yellow, “Hey son, you’re about to get checkmated …”

No longer does teaming imbalance the game. Whether “prearranged” teaming or the result of the matchmaker positioning very familiar players as opposites (resulting in “over trusting” which mattedmonds discusses in posts #12 and #13, here https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/lets-rename-ffa-to-eliminate-ambiguity-2018-11-03).    

If players want to team, then they team.

Please listen. The fundamental question lurking at the heart of many recent threads is: outside of obvious cheating (a player joining a single FFA game using two accounts, two players agreeing beforehand to not attack each other or always support each other regardless of whether they are sides or opposites, using chat to communicate moves or asking for points or asking for support), besides these clearly stated improper things, should the rules further restrict players from playing any sort of legal sequence of moves which gives them (or gives them and their opposite) the maximum advantage?

In Temporary Alliance, if players want to team, then let them team. It gives them no advantage. If players want to simply ignore the arrows and ignore the chat for the first phase of the game when it is enabled, then they are free to do that, too. The highest rated players would likely use the arrows and the chat during the first phase. Temporary Alliance does not fight against the meta, it embraces it. If players want to make any legal sequence of moves that gives them the maximum advantage, then Temporary Alliance raises the skill level by effectively saying, “Let’s all communicate and find out what the best openings and the best attacking combinations are! But, unlike Teams games, in the second phase, we find out what you can do, individually.”

Closing Thought:

4) Winner-Takes-All or Zero Points for Second

I did not discuss in detail the proposal of giving the second place player zero points. Although, this was mentioned by players in the discussion of Game #404066.

Post #3 in this thread

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/proposal-for-automatic-points-for-2nd-place-2018-11-03

discusses how if a player has an awesome streak of high rated games in which they secure many second place finishes, that player would receive zero points for their effort and their overall rating in all likelihood would go down.

While giving zero points to the second place player would have most likely dramatically changed Oleg’s choice of moves and strategy in Game #404066, ratings in general would become less meaningful because they would grow even further removed from the player’s ability/performance. I concluded that in order for such a rating scheme to actually work (winner-takes-all. Second gets zero. Third and fourth get negative scores), the third and fourth place negative scores would have to be significantly reduced. If you do not reduce the third and fourth place negative scores, then over the course of many games not only would the rating streaks become highly volatile, but a player could expect their rating to grow further and further apart from their actual performance.

Anyway, all of the ideas and proposals (1 – 4) are worth your consideration. Let me know what you guys think about the proposed FFA game mode. Please look at the posted game. Is it an uphill battle for rule adjustments to attempt to fight against the meta?

My apologies in advance if I make a typo on any player's remarks or if MS Word auto-correct changes the meaning of any player's statements.

Game #404066 started!

A player has disabled chat communication.

ReportAllTeamers:  Thank you Caludius!

claudiusalunescu: 

dogmanstar7:  yea thx

dogmanstar7:  bad move blue in my opinion

dogmanstar7:  but he knows oleg is a good opposite

Shawamra checkmated!

dogmanstar7:  buut its stupid

claudiusalunescu:  hest vs teamers

claudiusalunescu:  he will lose?

dogmanstar7:  yrs

dogmanstar7:  yes

dogmanstar7:  the problem is crazy knows oleg will not take his queen because he knows his style. 90% of playerrs will take 9 point queen but not the highest rated ones

dogmanstar7:  thats why its stupid

claudiusalunescu:  we know the teamers

claudiusalunescu:  but they`re afraid of the KING

claudiusalunescu:  hahahah

dogmanstar7:  nothing wrong with teaming, but it should be based on position. not because u know u can trust oleg the great team player

dogmanstar7:  does he sac 9 point queen opposite a 1400?

claudiusalunescu:  but this is FFA dog!!!

claudiusalunescu:  not teams

dogmanstar7:  he would not

claudiusalunescu:  what?

claudiusalunescu:  how honorable! hyenas hounds !the lion

dogmanstar7:  this is just a stupid game

claudiusalunescu:  attacking the lion

dogmanstar7:  this is not ches

dogmanstar7:  chrss

dogmanstar7:  chess

claudiusalunescu:  yes

claudiusalunescu:  this is just 2 vs 1, not FFA

dogmanstar7:  idiots

dogmanstar7:  doesnt take the queen

rook6431:  the best move for blue is to take green's quene

empty_K3:  he vould have just taken te queen and would have been 1st...

rook6431:  two to 1 queen advantage

dogmanstar7:  pathetic

rook6431:  red is essentially out of the game

rook6431:  He could easily defeat green straight up

hest1805 forfeits on time.

ReportAllTeamers:  hest1805

Oleg_Barantsev resigned.

Game over. (Blue +20)

claudiusalunescu:  really sumat?

dogmanstar7:  problem is one idiot is a bych and settles for 2^nd

dogmanstar7:  great game

ReportAllTeamers:  Hest1805, I have just 1 question

dogmanstar7:  bravo

ReportAllTeamers:  Would blue have trusted his opposite with the 9 point queen, if the game was anonymous?

ReportAllTeamers:  if blue did not know it was Oleg

dogmanstar7:  thats how u get 1700 boys

dogmanstar7:  watch n learn

ReportAllTeamers:  would he have made that move? Thats all I want to know

claudiusalunescu:  but how many accounts one player can have?

hest1805:  ask crazy, not me

MikfailTal:  right why asking hest what blue would do? Lol

ReportAllTeamers:  because here is why. Some players are requesting anonymous games at the highest levels and many here see this game

ReportAllTeamers:  but do not post on the fourm

claudiusalunescu:  It was not a fair game hest

dogmanstar7:  yes that is the question. does blue make that move opposite 1400 player. of course he doesn’t

ReportAllTeamers:  dogmanstar has interesting comments, but does not post on the forum

ReportAllTeamers:  Yalin Tala is repsected, but where is Yalin's posts?

ReportAllTeamers:  and hest?

ReportAllTeamers:  a lot of players respect you

YalinTala:  My post ?

ReportAllTeamers:  but where are your comments on this subject

YalinTala:  I already commented on moby's post

ReportAllTeamers:  i do not believe the best players won this game. It seemed like the best "team" won this game.

ReportAllTeamers:  and a lot of players are getting tired of this, in a FFA game

claudiusalunescu:  hahaha

dogmanstar7:  yes its blues queen sac. its a bad move

YalinTala:  They should make our names and ratings anonymous

YalinTala:  But oh well

dogmanstar7:  its a terrible move

dogmanstar7:  9 point queen

claudiusalunescu:  that`s what I said for a long time ago!

ReportAllTeamers:  over a year ago, strong players were asking to play anonymous at the highest levels. How does blue make this move, unless he knows its Oleg who is his opposite?

dogmanstar7:  90% of players on chess.com will take this queen but not 1700+

claudiusalunescu:  nothing to say Oleg?

dogmanstar7:  its not oleg, its 1700+

dogmanstar7:  and he knows olegs style

claudiusalunescu:  but Oleg is here, with us

Oleg_Barantsev:  I dont know what do you want... I am ready to play anonymous

YalinTala:  I don't really care too much about ffa anymore, it's a joke now, all they do is team instead of going to team settings they do it in ffa

ReportAllTeamers:  it is a joke

dogmanstar7:  its not olegs problem. more crazy houses

ReportAllTeamers:  a lots of good players have moved on to Teams

Oleg_Barantsev:  almost all opposite players playing like a team

claudiusalunescu:  hahaha

YalinTala:  Who would sacrifice a strong material like that in ffa?

claudiusalunescu:  teamers destroyed FFA!

claudiusalunescu:  this is the truth!

Oleg_Barantsev:  change the rules...

hest1805:  The only thing I don't understand is why they're both so happy with second place

claudiusalunescu:  because they r teamers

Oleg_Barantsev:  I am not happy, but it's better than be 3th or 4^th

claudiusalunescu:  see?

claudiusalunescu:  they fight for team not for 1^st

YalinTala:  If you sacrifice a queen like that against me, I will take your queen mark my words

hest1805:  you could've played for first without risking anything when I was reduced to nothing

dogmanstar7:  yes oleg had most material

Oleg_Barantsev:  when?

dogmanstar7:  then sacrifice all for 2^nd

dogmanstar7:  bizarre

claudiusalunescu:  that`s true

claudiusalunescu:  he is not a true FFA player

Oleg_Barantsev:  As you wish

hest1805:  move 38, for instance

claudiusalunescu:  he is just a team player here

ReportAllTeamers:  Green, Oleg, on move 14. You had the promoted queen and could have taken Blue's b11 pawn. It would have injured blue and given red a free atacking move

YalinTala:  That approach to the game is absurd, I can understand cooperation but that is just taking too far, hanging material all over the board

Oleg_Barantsev:  I am not good in English, I can writing a simple words.

ReportAllTeamers:  Green, please look at move 14. You basically win a free rook and it really injures blue

dogmanstar7:  maybe anonymous option, and not getting + rating for 2nd would have made this a better game

claudiusalunescu:  yes, the winner takes it all

Oleg_Barantsev:  I understand almost all you writing, but its hard to answer all to you. Soorry/

claudiusalunescu:  you can say it in russian

Oleg_Barantsev:  anonymous is great idea

claudiusalunescu:  we have google translate

Oleg_Barantsev:  ok

ReportAllTeamers:  Oleg, would you have played this same moves, if second place got zero points? answer me this one please

ReportAllTeamers:  Oleg, pelase tell me

dogmanstar7:  i dont like this move by crazyhouse queen takes f13. this is the problem for me

ReportAllTeamers:  If second place got zero points, and third and foruth got minus score, would you have played the same moves, Oleg?

claudiusalunescu:  but where is Kyamites and Balca? Hahahahaha

YalinTala:  He did it because he knew that Oleg wouldn't take it, that's that support your opposite crap that has been going on lately

dogmanstar7:  kyamites would take 9 point blue queen for sure

YalinTala:  I really like kyamites now, because he would take that queen for sure

Oleg_Barantsev:  Если про эту игру, то возможно я и мог играть на победу. Просто как уже говорил, игроки напротив как правило играют в парах.

(Google Translate: If about this game, then maybe I could play to win. Just as I said, the players on the contrary [the sides] tend to play in pairs.)

Oleg_Barantsev:  Поэтому я и стал играть с СС2 в "команде". Возможно, мог где-то сыграть сильнее, но сначала была задача обеспечить минимум 2-е место, а потом уже играть за 1. Потом добавился цейтнот, ну и hest отлично защищался.

(Google Translate: That's why I started playing with CC2 [CrazyhouseChess2) in the “team”. Maybe he could have played stronger somewhere, but first there was the task to ensure at least 2nd place, and then play for 1. Then time pressure was added, well, the hest [Hest1805] defended well.)

claudiusalunescu:  I appreciate him now, even if he was my enemy

claudiusalunescu:  Kyamites

claudiusalunescu:  fair player

Oleg_Barantsev:  Да, возможно это не совсем в духе игры, но правила не нарушаются. Если бы я взял ферзя СС2, то возможно был 3 или 4.

(Google Translate: Yes, perhaps this is not entirely in the spirit of the game, but the rules are not violated. If I took the CC2 [CrazyhouseChess2] Queen, then maybe it was 3 or 4.[3^rd or 4^th place])

YalinTala:  On the other hand I don't blame Oleg, if he took the queen Crazy would resign and leave him in the middle

ReportAllTeamers:  Если игрок второго места получает нулевой балл, вы бы сделали одни и те же шаги? Yesli igrok vtorogo mesta poluchayet nulevoy ball, vy by sdelali odni i te zhe shagi?

(Google Translate: If a second place player gets a zero point, would you take the same steps? [“the same moves,” is what I was trying to say])

ReportAllTeamers:  Oleg?

dogmanstar7:  anyway hopefully the people who make the rules will change a few things. something not quite right

Oleg_Barantsev:  Я не знаю. Будут такие правила, буду решать. Тогда бы СС2 не играл бы так ферзём.

(Google Translate: I dont know. There will be such rules, I will decide. Then CC2 [CrazyhouseChess2] would not play like that by the queen.)(Move 7, Blue Qxf13+)

Oleg_Barantsev:  Я предпочитаю исходить из текущих правил. Будет правило 0 очков за второе место, будет совсем другая игра и другие споры)

(Google Translate: I prefer to proceed from current rules. There will be a rule of 0 points for second place, there will be a completely different game and other disputes)

claudiusalunescu:  "If about this game, then maybe I could play to win. Just as I said, the players on the contrary tend to play in pairs.

claudiusalunescu:  "

YalinTala:  С другой стороны, я не виню Олега, если он возьмет королеву, Сумасшедший уйдет в отставку и оставит его в середине

(Google Translate: On the other hand, I do not blame Oleg, if he takes the queen, the Madman [CrazyhouseChess2?] will retire [resign?] and leave him in the middle)

claudiusalunescu:  Oleg_Barantsev: That's why I began to play with CC2 in the “team”. Maybe he could have played stronger somewhere, but first there was the task to ensure at least 2nd place, and then play for 1. Then time pressure was added, well, the hest defended well.

Oleg_Barantsev:  yes

ReportAllTeamers:  Please lets all discuss this more on the forum. I will paste this comments thre, unless someone objects

ReportAllTeamers:  is this okay, if I paste your comments? hest? Yalin? Oleg?

hest1805:  ok

ReportAllTeamers:  ok, thank you

Oleg_Barantsev:  ok

YalinTala:  I don't mind :D

ReportAllTeamers:  thank you

ReportAllTeamers:  Yalin? thank you

ReportAllTeamers:  bye

dogmanstar7:  yes it will be good for them to see this game and chat

claudiusalunescu:  Oleg, don`t get me wrong

Oleg_Barantsev:  I am ready for new rules

claudiusalunescu:  I know you are a top team player

YalinTala:  c you guys

claudiusalunescu:  but we made different rules here

Oleg_Barantsev:  gl

YalinTala:  gg Oleg

Oleg_Barantsev:  thx

claudiusalunescu:  ok

claudiusalunescu:  good night all!

Unfortunately none of the options will stop opposites from working together or attempting to work together.  The rate of which they do it during a game is the main problem.  This game was an easy example of 2 players playing for 1st and 2nd.  There are hundreds of similar games.

1) The first player getting checkmated causes someone to win?  Not for me personally especially in what is a you against 3 game.  But I also commented in his thread if interested.

2) Anonymous.  Why just at the 1600 level?  It would seem more logical that it should match your seek settings for all players.  But again the law of the land has change and many players will still immediately "see" if that player is a good opposite or bad one.

3) Temporary Alliance = temporary insanity. Count me out

4) Zero points for second.  The games, when good, can be relatively long so this may die a slow death.  You have to change the scoring system and again would it really slow the team train?

There is nothing wrong with some help with any player but how can you make it so you have a fighting chance to perhaps come out with some positive points even against aggressive teaming?  I'm starting to convince myself that 20 points for the King is way too much.   You just have to big of a point deficit to overcome. That may be one of the reasons teaming caught on.  Get the points and finishing 1st and 2nd become easier.

The answer to this question must be an emphatic no. Any legal move must be admissible by definition. 

Personally, I am perfectly fine with the way the game is changing; it is still quite fun with added temporary alliances and game-theory complexities. I'm not against having additional variants (such as those described), however. 

You've clearly put a lot of work and thought into this OP. You are like a researcher. Interesting ideas.

I'm pretty much on board with what reasons say, I really enjoy the current FFA, as someone who only has really played much FFA very recently, not much before that...is it very frustrating when you get teamed on and you get punished quickly and mated? Yes, but I get over it pretty quickly and just play a new game...the cases of that happening are quite minimal I find. 

lol, yellow rushes a pawn queen, red is passive, green is ready to stop yellow's pawn queen and blue is proactively moving to attack.

Hmm, yellow sacrificed his defense/attack potential in early moves to rush queen, which could be countered by green's knight.
In my opinion, red started with two bad moves, and later on he moved with his King, not castling, what a throw. Still not making any pressure on anybody, just hiding behind minions.
In other words, I don't wonder why Yellow got rekt so fast.

After first mate, red was playing defensively to the very end, which was his decision and he played it well. Personally, I would rather attack green, so blue could exploit it and attack green for free, which is a gamble, I know, but there is a (at least some) chance end up second, instead of being 3rd for sure and crushed by sides. YOLO tactic. That are my opinions.

I am a bit confused right now. What is the point of this topic? Is it a place to compare the effectiveness of all ways that have been suggested so far as solutions to the teaming problem, and also a place to discuss if teaming is actually a problem or not? This is a way too broad discussion for a single topic!

The title calls for a compromise, but for what purpose? For reaching a middle ground between allowing and disallowing teaming? Or for accepting that non-Teams 4PC will always be a game with lower standards than desirable?

I appreciate what @ReportAllTeamers suggests, except this strange limitation: "Please try to limit your comments to THIS GAME."

In addition to https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=404066 we have 2 more good examples:

2. https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=379049 (discussed at https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/an-actual-case-of-collusion-in-ffa-2018-10-30 )

3. https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=399006 (discussed at https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/excessive-teaming-by-blue-and-green-2018-11-03 )

In all 3 games we see teaming of Top 4PC FFA players.

What is strange in 404066 : hest1805 did nothing to help his opposite. Like he didn't understand what is going to happen.

Just opened Watch tab and looked at a top FFA game (I did not search for it, just clicked the 1st one in the list) : https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=407545

Nothing strange till move 23. On 22nd move Yellow checkmates Green and Red could take hanging yellow queen on move 23.

The points were: 14 16 33 7

Red could get +9 and it would become: 23 16 33 7

But Red does not take Yellow queen (why?!) and let it escape. Till this moment you can think that Red is a teamer, but Yellow is not, he just was ready to exchange a +9 queen to +20 checkmate and then was just lucky that Red didn't take the queen. It is just a blunder of Red.

But then Blue makes his 23rd move and Yellow could checkmate Red immediately with his rook: Rk1+#

After that the points would be: 14 16 53 7
and Blue could resign and be the 2nd, because his army is weaker than Yellow's and he cannot be the 1st in this game.

So, in a fair game, it would be: 1st Yellow (53), 2nd Blue (16), 3rd Red (14).

But Yellow didn't checkmate Red. A 1707 player missed a simple mate in 1? Well, all is possible, top players are not gods, they make mistakes. But look at the rest of the game and you'll see that he even didn't look at simple ways to checkmate Red, he was fully focused on checkmating Blue (which was longer and harder). He could decide whom to place on the 2nd place and he decided to place his teammate on it.

It is a randomly selected Top FFA game. No need to watch lots of them to understand that this infection has spread widely.

Re: The game in the OP.

Want to know how good Hest1805 really played?

The score at the end of the real game was:

Blue 53 (CC2)- Green 46 (Oleg)- Red 23 (hest1805)- Yellow 0 (Shawamra)

Green mates Red, Blue takes Green's 1 point Q and then Green resigned giving Blue another 20 points.

Look what happens if the King is worth only 5 points.*

The score at the end of the game is:

Green 31 - Red 23 - Blue 18- Yellow 0

Now would Green resign and give 2nd place to both players?  (Blue gets 5 points tying him with Red)  Most likely not based on how they teamed play.  But it's another fantastic look how 2 aggressive players put a beat down on one player, netted him zero points and then went straight for the jugular of Red, who still was able to put himself in place to possibly gain second.  There was 16 major pieces of Blue and Green going against Red's 7.  At that time Red had zero points!

Those who team to the end may very well start to see the profitability of doing so diminish.

* Please remember this game may have been played differently.  At least logic seems to suggest it would be the case.

I see there's some criticism as to how I played this game, considering how I didn't help my opposite and ended up without much chances to get anything better than 3rd place in the three player situation. In general I think that if a player gets checkmated on move 9, it should be considered his own fault, not someone else’s. I'm not claiming that I think all my decisions were correct, but I've decided to at least share my thought process when playing this game. 

 When the game started, I noticed that to my left and right were strong players infamous for trusting their opposite and trying to play like a team. My opposite I'd never seen play before, so it was hard for me to judge how much I could trust him. I considered the following two strategies:

1) Play normal developing moves , make sure my king is safe and don't give the flank players weaknesses to exploit. More of an awaiting style of play, in other words. This leaves my opposite on his own for a while, so I'm at higher risk of ending up in the middle. I'd be less likely to finish 4th, but more likely to finish 3rd. It goes without saying that with this strategy, I'd still be looking for ways to exploit weaknesses in my flank players' camps and cooperate with my opposite. 

2) Play more aggressively from the start and try to obtain some sort of initiative against a flank player, preferably green since he's to my right. This could work well if yellow cooporates well. Since b/g are expected to play like a perfect team, we (r/y) would probably also have to play like a perfect team to stand a chance in this kind of 2 v 2 battle. I'd be risking 4th place more since I'm opening myself up more. However, if we could prove ourselves the better team, we'd be playing for 1st/2nd. 

These are things that should be taken into consideration at the start of every game. Those who’ve seen me play before know I tend to opt for strategy 1. That’s because I generally find it better to trust my own abilities, even if it means increased risk of ending up in the middle. This game became no exception. The first moves seem normal, yellow goes for a pawn push strategy, which is fine by me. Move 5, blue sends his queen towards yellow, but still yellow seems fine. If yellow threatens the blue queen, I might have Bxb5. I like his decision to close the g14-o7 diagonal with his knight, delaying checks from green in the future. I’m not sure when and how people think I should’ve started making helping moves, maybe here (move 6). In hindsight maybe g4 was better than h3, introducing ideas of sacrificing my LS bishop against green to give yellow more time. Anyhow, blue proceeds with 6… Qf10, targeting f13. Yellow doesn’t realize that he’s facing a perfect team and allows the capture on f13. Two moves later, he is mated. I couldn’t see a way to prevent this. On the comment from Eruner_SK that I should’ve castled my king, I believe that castling in that position would be a mistake as it commits the king too much to one side and misplaces an important king defender (the rook).

Now, over to the 3 player game. I didn’t really consider some yolo attack against blue or green because they’d both showed very clearly that they are a team. I felt like it’s better to be solid and hope for some errors when they try to cooporate in taking me out. Dragging the game out might make the bond between them become weaker because they don’t need to team anymore. Also, because I never played like a team with my opposite, they might feel less inclined to play like a team against me if they don’t have to. Anyhow, their alliance proved more than strong enough, and I couldn’t do much except forcing them to trade me down. I still feel like that was my best chance. If I were in their position, I’d be trying much harder to secure 1st place for myself. I guess we’re just different in that regard.

People have been requesting my opinion on the metagame. I love ffa and find it sad to see how strong players try to undermine its strategic richness and complexity by automatically teaming with their opposite under every circumstance. Whether the game should be changed, I don’t know. You can still have interesting games without predefined teams if you play with slightly lower rated players (and certain high rated players). Howerver, I support all the testing that’s being done and I’m open for changes. There’s many interesting suggestions that might improve the game further.

@hest1805, thanks a lot for your feedback. An explanation of thinking process from a Top player is always pleasure to read.

About that particular game:

> Now, over to the 3 player game.

You appeared in a game with 2 known teamers and they just proved that they are teamers by kicking your opposite by a Teams Mode attack and checkmate. You didn't have a chance to finish the 1st or 2nd. You could click Resign and be the 3rd. Why did you continue playing?

@BabYagun I agree I'm very likely to be the 3rd, but since I can't finish any worse than 3rd (assuming I can get one point), playing on is without risk. If there's a 1 % chance I can finish 2nd (one of them blunders or blue decides to play against green, for instance), to me that's worth fighting for. Besides, resigning with all my pieces left feels very wrong to me in general. 

@nutsyci for various reasons I felt like I should keep my king far away from blue, but it'd be an interesting attempt to have the king in the centre instead.

So I just watched a game along with hest1805 and 10 other spectators.  This was said at the end.

YalinTala: Yup, the teaming was too much I had to mate you
dinamit64 resigned.
Game over. (Green +20)
dinamit64: gg
YalinTala: Your defence was bad as well Besher
YalinTala: Can't wait until the new rules
YalinTala: It should solve this problem :)
dinamit64: which new rules for example do you expect?
YalinTala: You will see, don't worry

What's up??

I think Yalin talks about experimental rules from our test server:

However, no one promised they are going to be implemented this way. Promotion to rook/bishop/knight has high chances to be added to the next 4PC update. Other rules are there just to check if they can help against teaming in Solo Play.

I would not try to sac my queen with a 1500 across from me, nor with a player who doesn't understand like yourmasterishere, or vs a mortal enemy like angelinakali.

But if someone strong who I know their style is opposite from me, I feel like this is the optimal way to play.

One solution I thought of is to make the kings increasing in value, the 1st checkmate worth 20, the second worth 25 and the 3rd checkmate worth 30.

Given these exact circumstances, Anonymous seems to be a valuable solution here. The only reason to play these kinds of unsound combinations with non-captures of hanging pieces is because you know for a fact you can trust the specific individual across from you. This level of trust is an unfair advantage, there is no defense.

If you want to team, just play Teams. That's why it exists. The spirit of FFA is to constantly shift allegiances based on which player has the strongest position, not to team against the weakest player in order to "not finish 4th". 

Ultimately this guy Oleg costs himself 10+ points in this game by finishing second instead of leveraging the continued presence of R/Y to get a better position against blue. 

Another feature to consider-- there should be a feature where a user can blacklist specific individuals so they can't get matched in your game. A similar phenomenon exists in the poker community where people with unsavory reputations lose their action because they can't find a game anymore. Allows the community to police itself