>>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?
Well, my 1000 point suggestion is my stab at preventing non-strategic 'teaming'. IMO it makes it harder for 'teams' to work, since they aren't going after a variety of little point gains (which makes it easy for 'both' to gain more or less at the same rate) but three huge gains. Trust would have to be very high to make this work.
It would address your hanging queens as in, 'Umm, well, I know I agreed to team with this guy so we would both do well, but if I take this queen he has just left hanging here, I'll be able to checkmate him!" And of course, "Well, yes, I know I agreed to team with this guy, but I would be an idiot to just leave my queen hanging here. Best help him avoid temptation."
I have left a queen hanging in 2pc... and we definitely weren't teaming 
... when doing so was strategically or tactically valuable.
Let's rename FFA to eliminate ambiguity
@Bab my whole point is that the issue at hand has nothing to do with the rules in the forum. How many players are even aware those rules exists? (same for Martin0's strategy tips)
As i wrote already a year ago, I think it's the best strategy, and that is why players are playing that way. Are you really going to argue with that?
I would much rather hear ideas about what logical rules to change. we can't put detection of "teaming to gain an unfair advantage" into the code. giving double points for opp's pieces/mates on the other hand will be easy.
I also provided a suggestion with my 'five games' rule.
> How about: The material of the player opposite you is worth double?
This is a step in the right direction. (We had a similar suggestion: +1 or +2 for opposite's pieces).
But:
1. Imagine this is implemented. Do you think it would stop Blue and Green from teaming in this game: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/excessive-teaming-by-blue-and-green-2018-11-03
?
2. Green was checkmated by Blue. Blue is the 1st. You are Red, I am Yellow. I take your rook, you take my bishop. We both earn +10. We do this again and get +20. Now Blue is not the 1st. The only piece we cannot feed one to another, is 9 point queen. But one of us can get +18 in the endgame. So, Blue has almost no chances to be the 1st. We again have the situation when you should protect your opposite, or you are going to lose.
>>As i wrote already a year ago, I think it's the best strategy,
It seems to me that 'opposite' teaming (which is good strategy) and 'pre-arranged' teaming are very different animals, and really need different rules to prevent or discourage them.
@VAOhlman, please imagine that your "1000 point for checkmate" rule is implemented and look at that game too. Do you think Blue and Green would play different way? Imagine that they both agree to be either 1st or 2nd, no need to be the 1st.
>>1. Imagine this is implemented. Do you think it would stop Blue and Green from teaming in this game: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/excessive-teaming-by-blue-and-green-2018-11-03
It depends. If Blue and Green are good buddies, chatting on Skype, and not at all interested in winning vs each other... then no.
If they are, as Gustav suggested, really good players who know how the game is played, and so were 'teaming' in order to win... then there were times when the temptation to take a piece of the opposite side would have been extreme. And having been extreme, the player on the opposite side might not have taken the chance, etc.
> It seems to me that 'opposite' teaming (which is good strategy) and 'pre-arranged' teaming are very different animals, and really need different rules to prevent or discourage them.
We have more and more cases when opposite players team up exactly as pre-arranged teamers do. There is no difference. This practice distributes like plague, especially among Top Players. And you cannot just put them into different games, because: the pool is small (especially Top pool) and if most of them become infected they will always in a game with a trusted teammate.
> my whole point is that the issue at hand has nothing to do with the rules in the forum. How many players are even aware those rules exists? (same for Martin0's strategy tips) ...
Then why mention them at all if they are not relevant? I feel that I just lost time trying to understand that and write the answers.
> I would much rather hear ideas about what logical rules to change.
Please, next time just write it at the beginning. Don't bother me with long texts and questions like "what would you play in this position"? Let's discuss what is important.
>>As i wrote already a year ago, I think it's the best strategy,
It seems to me that 'opposite' teaming (which is good strategy) and 'pre-arranged' teaming are very different animals.
indeed. i'd like to believe pre-arranged teaming is not a great concern these days. i'd say the most obvious cases are when side opponents teamed up from move 1. i don't see it very often.
as for the +1000, there are a few concerns. one is that it looks like a very drastic change. doubling checkmate points would already point in that direction (and still be quite a big change from what we have now), without turning the game completely into a game of #checkmates + tiebreakers.
When I created this thread named "Let's rename FFA to eliminate ambiguity" and proposed to rename it to Solo Play, I expected some feedback about it. It is the 3rd page of the discussion and only @Skeftomilos told his opinion. All others discuss something else. However, it is a very important thing. If you name your game "Deathmatch" you cannot expect players to play like gentlemen.
We have other threads where we discuss possible rule changes and anti-teaming solutions.
Could you please tell me here what do you think about changing the game mode name and removing ambiguity.
I guess I prefer FFA, probably because I've gotten used to it. Solo play sounds very reasonable though. Perhaps just "Solo"? Very easy to understand, and a clear contrast "Teams". It's better than FFA in that way.
2. Green was checkmated by Blue. Blue is the 1st. You are Red, I am Yellow. I take your rook, you take my bishop. We both earn +10. We do this again and get +20. Now Blue is not the 1st. The only piece we cannot feed one to another, is 9 point queen. But one of us can get +18 in the endgame. So, Blue has almost no chances to be the 1st. We again have the situation when you should protect your opposite, or you are going to lose.
My proposed solution was to have the value of the bonuses vary through the game, based on the number of players remaining. At the end of the game with 2 players left the bonuses for opposite player pieces are 0.
The point people are making is that regardless of what you call it, unless the rules are changed to stop the incentives to team with your opposite, it will continue to happen. Its like an incentive plan in your work place, whatever you incentivise is the behaviour that will be encouraged. What you call the incentive plan doesn't really matter, the rules and conditions of it do.
I guess I prefer FFA, probably because I've gotten used to it. Solo play sounds very reasonable though. Perhaps just "Solo"? Very easy to understand, and a clear contrast "Teams". It's better than FFA in that way.
I prefer FFA, but I don't think a name change will affect the issue of teaming. The good players will 'team' with their opposite, because that is good strategy.
A response to "Dashes".
I have watched this forum closely for more than a year now, and I am pretty confident about what @Martin0 had in mind, when he authored his excellent article about the differences between your three opponents in a 4PC game. This article was authored before the introduction of the Teams variant, when the game was still very young and mostly unexplored, and it was an instant hit. If I remember correctly it was the second topic that became pinned in the forum, after the Changelog. Btw the forum looked a bit nicer back then, without a dozen pinned topics cluttering the first page!
@Martin0 wrote: «You also don't want anything bad to happen to your friend since you are unlikely to be able to join the party and get points from him. And you don't want your enemies to get free points.»
By this he was not advising against grabbing free pieces of your opposite, but against doing nothing while you opposite was ganged up be your side opponents. Remember, ganging up is allowed, teaming up is not. Ganging up and teaming up are different concepts, with examples that in most cases are easily distinguishable. @Martin0 was not advocating for teaming up with your opposite, by means of coordinating and supporting each other's pieces. I am willing to bet my pet snake on that.
If your opposite is offering free material to you, then there are two possibilities:
1) Your opposite is a patzer that blunders his pieces right and left, or
2) Your opposite attempts to team up with you.
In the first case declining the offered material makes little sense, since you can't expect from a bad opposite player to help you in any way, other than gaining points by grabbing his pieces. In the second case declining the offered material makes you an accomplice of a teaming violation, that may result on you being reported for teaming by your side opponents or spectators, and receiving a warning, play-ban or other punishment. So in both cases your best bet is to grab the material.
3) Your opposite thinks that taking his material is a bad move and think's you're better than that.
..but really, it's beside the point. teaming is best strat as is, so what can we do to change that? so that the best strat is to play solo?
be useful in 'tie breaking'. agreed.
How about: The material of the player opposite you is worth double?
Are you suggesting this as an overall anti-teaming rule, or in addition to my 1000 point rule?
If the first, this is an excellent idea. It is purely objective, and it will tend to discourage the automatic teaming. Not eliminate, just discourage.