Let's rename FFA to eliminate ambiguity

I did not say it's from the rules! I said it's from a

pinned forum topic by the author of the rules
and i had linked the thread in the post already: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/your-best-friend-backstabber-and-worst-enemy.

> @BabYagun what would you you play here?

You took this position from https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/excessive-teaming-by-blue-and-green-2018-11-03 , so you can see my opinion there.

Your question "what would you you play here?" is wrong (or incomplete, at least), because the context is missing if you do not show the whole game. 4PC is not classic 2 player chess. In classic chess you see a position and you have 100% full information (in some rare cases they also need to mention if kings can castle short or long). In 4PC a position without move history may be not enough to make a conclusion.

The first question is: How did Blue appear in that position? And if you'll look at that particular game, you will see that that position became possible, because Blue and Green played like a team. And once you understand this, you get enough info and can suggest Blue's moves. Green's 9th move in that game https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=399006 when he does not take a hanging blue bishop was just signing a teaming contract.

I will not appear in that position, because I don't cheat, so your question "what would you you play here?" is meaningless. It is like asking me: "What lipstick (presented on this photo) would you choose?" I don't use lipsticks, so it is not a relevant question.

and yes oviously if you don't want anything bad to happen to him, you shoudn't take his queen, rather help defend her! Shes your friend!!

Thinking about it, the whole thing sounds like a teams game. 1 friend and 2 enemies, with the addition

"Obviously the player I called best friend is also an enemy at the end of the day and this is a simplification of the players roles."

to remind you that you are there are situations "at the end of the day" (usually when 1 player is already out) where your opposite turns into an enemy (and it might be wiser not to cooperate or expect cooperation)

I respect your decision not to want to play like that, and indeed it would be nice if everyone would play like that. but that's not the reality (most will do anything to win) i'll have to agree with whoever it was that said you won't go far beyond 1600 playing like that. The reality is that if you don't cooperate with your opposite, you will most likely lose because the players to you sides are cooperating and gain an advantage.

The whole point is that players are cooperating to avoid losing outright! (the stats tell us that if your opposite get's eliminated, you only have  30-56% to finish 1st or 2nd, depending on level of play)

An old thread on the matter

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/share-your-quickest-checkmate-or-your-favourite-one

i even made puzzles as soon as i had recognized the power of cooperation in ffa to gain a huge edge

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/4-player-tactics?page=2 #37f

correction: the stats don't say that. i was referring to the 44-70% the player opposite the winner gets 2nd. i don't have stats for "finished 2nd or better after opposite was eliminated".

First of all @Martin0's post https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/your-best-friend-backstabber-and-worst-enemy is not the Rules. It is just tips. If the same author will write something else (related to 4PC), it does not make that new text a part of the Rules automatically. So, please don't tell me that @Martin's words in that topic is the Rules. It is his point of view, tips, recommendations, but not a law.

> and yes oviously if you don't want anything bad to happen to him, you shoudn't take his queen, rather help defend her! Shes your friend!!

Here you can see why that text is not a part of the Rules. "Anything bad" can be considered as "not even take a single pawn from your opposite". You cannot argue here. Because "anything" includes pawn captures. If this is a part of the FFA Rules then why don't we have this hardcoded in the 4PC engine yet? Is it a bug in the engine? Let's make it this way then:

1. If there are 3 or more players on the board, opposites cannot capture pieces of one another. Not even a single pawn. Because they are a natural temporary team (according to the "don't want anything bad to happen to him" rule).

2. If there are just 2 players on the board, opposites can capture pieces of one another.

This way we legalize teaming in FFA and remove the gray area and subjectivity. Is this what we want?

If yes, we can also think about checks and checkmates. Checks are harmful, so opposites should not be able to check one another too.

Now @Martin0's post about "your best friend" is not a part of 4PC Bible. But we can make it a part of this book if the community insists.

I think the thing to really keep in mind is that the rules should be objective. They should clearly define what is and isn't allowed, in a way that doesn't depend upon judges to make very subjective calls. A rule against 'teaming' can never do that, since one man's 'teaming' will be the next man's 'brilliant strategic move'.

>> So, please don't tell me that @Martin's words in that topic is the Rules. It is his point of view, tips, recommendations, but not a law.
Nobody did say that. What he said (and that I agree with) is that when the guy who wrote the rules writes a strategy guide, the rest of us should be able to take it for granted that he isn't writing stuff in the strategy guide which is against either the spirit or the letter of the rules.

> The reality is that if you don't cooperate with your opposite ...

The cooperation is absolutely fine. Excessive teaming is not.

Look at my yesterday's game with Gustav. We were opposites and we cooperated, other 2 players also cooperated. We won. No one hanged queens to his opposite. No over-trust.

Why do some players need to hang your queen to your opponent? Maybe they cannot play without that? Low skills?

>>This way we legalize teaming in FFA and remove the gray area and subjectivity. Is this what we want?
It's not what I want. What I want is objective rules, not subjective ones. Thus 'no teaming' needs to go as a rule, and instead have a rule (which could have as a preface 'to prevent teaming) which states something very, very objective. That anyone can look at and say, "Yup, that's against rule 37a." In fact, a rule which will simply be disallowed by the game engine. You'll get a 'beep' instead of that move.
Everything else should be legal and playable. Want to punish someone for resigning too early? Make a rule and make the computer enforce it. Want to make minor exchanges of pieces less important? Make checkmate worth 1000. etc.

@Martin0 has done a great thing: He wrote those tips and helped thousands of players to play better. Please do not try to turn it into a wrong direction like "he is now responsible for our cheating".

>>Please do not try to turn it into a wrong direction like "he is now responsible for our cheating".

... and no one was doing that either. I don't think that what martin described was 'cheating'. I think it was good play. Excellent play. Play we should encourage.

But that's just me. I don't think teaming is a big deal... as long as the rules are objective.

@VAOhlman,

> What I want is objective rules, not subjective ones.

I (and other admins) do understand this. I asked the community 2 months ago to help us write those rules. Till now we do not have even a definition of teaming.

Again: I never said it was from the rules, you are quoting me incorrectly. Thank you VAOhlmann, I have nothing to add.

ok perhaps this:

so here were are a year later. Not so unlikely anymore, is it?

>Is this what we want?

I think almost all FFA players don't want it, especially since we already have a teams variant. But it doesn't matter because many still like it better than losing.

I never said I liked it, but I do like winning..

>>Till now we do not have even a definition of teaming.

Methinks thou dost ask the question backwards....

Don't search for a definition of 'teaming'. Instead compile a list of actions that you don't want to see in the game, objective actions, and implement them. And then tell the whiners 'Hey, if it ain't against the rules, its legal!"

One example:
To avoid teaming:
1) Players which have come in first and second place in the same game will be prevented (by the computer) will be prevented (by the computer) from playing in the same game as each other until *each* have played five games without the other.
1a) If they then come in first and second *again* the delay will be increased to ten, etc.

The idea here is that the reason that we dislike what we call 'teaming' is that the player do well against us. Well, if they can only do it every five, then ten, then fifteen, etc. games it won't be such a big deal. And if it is merely that they are good players, well, they will continue to do well in other games.

I also propose 1000 point checkmates for a similar reason. But stop searching for an objective definition for 'teaming'. Decide what objective actions you don't like, list them, and we'll help define rules, objective rules, that prevent/delay/diminish them. (Or we'll tell you that we like that!)

1000 points is like only giving points for checkmate (and resigned kings?)

As i said, if taking the green Q secured me 2nd, I will be much more likely to play that move.

So perhaps we do need to factor the relative positions into the rules of FFA in some way?

@_-__-__-___-, you said:

> Note that the rules we have regarding teaming are from the same author, as they seem in violation on his own advice about the best strategy, depending on how you interpret them.

and @VAOhlman supported you. You think you found some violation/contradiction/gray zone in the Rules. I offered a straightforward solution to resolve the contradiction. But now you said it is not what you want.

I don't understand what do you want. Please clarify your position.

Is there a violation/contradiction? (If yes then) Should it be resolved? (If yes then) How do you offer to resolve it?

Should @Martin0's topic(s) be unpinned, removed, edited? Please be consistent, finish what you wanted to say. If the tips are wrong, misleading and/or harmful to 4PC gameplay/community or spirit of the game then we must do something. We should not promote poor sportmanship or provide false directions in pinned topics.

> I never said I liked it, but I do like winning..

Do you want to say that excessive teaming with your opposite (with hanging queens, over-trust, etc.) is the only way to win (and/or the best strategy) in FFA these days? If yes, then why don't legalize it?

Not quite. The point is that the other points would only be useful in 'tie breaking'.  Let's say Red checkmates everyone else. He gets 3000 points (plus change). Blue, Green, and Yellow would then place according to their success with non-checkmating points. One might have 23, one 32, one 18... etc.
If Red were to checkmate two of them, and then Yellow were to checkmate him, Red would have 2000 and change, Yellow 1000 and change, and Blue and Green would get third and fourth depending, again, on their minor piece points.
If Red, Yellow, and Blue were all to get one checkmate... then the 'and change' would make all the difference.

>>Should @Martin0's topic(s) be unpinned, removed, edited?
No. MartinO's advice is excellent. Following it should NOT be seen as a violation of the rules. The rules should be written in such as a way that his advice is seen as best practice.

be useful in 'tie breaking'. agreed.

How about: The material of the player opposite you is worth double?

> Decide what objective actions you don't like, list them, and we'll help define rules, objective rules, that prevent/delay/diminish them. (Or we'll tell you that we like that!)

Well, admins expect this from the community. Looks like you expect this from admins

I cannot just change the rules according to what I like (or both @_-__-__-___- and I like, or all 7 (or 4 from 7) admins of this club like).

Personally I don't like, for example: 1 point queens, 10 points to everyone alive for a stalemate, earning points by double and triple checks, promotion on 8th rank. And what? @_-__-__-___- also does not like some of these rules. Maybe all of them.

I don't like when players in FFA play like a team. And one of the signs is when they hang their queens. What solution can you offer?