My Thoughs to all the discussions about Setup and Rating - Empty_K3

Dear 4PC Community!

There is a lot of discussion going on about the setup, the rating system and much other stuff.
I participated in most of these discussions but I want to sum it all up in one post here.

1. Who am I?

For those of you who still don't know me: My name is Michael T. Tieber and I am from Austria.
I started playing 4-Player-Chess when it was quite new and I rose to the top 20 right away and I've been there ever since. When I started there was only FFA and I never really became fond of Teams and stuck with FFA and Solo. I am one of 3 players who played all 3 Solo world championships. So I guess it is fair to say that I know a lot about this game and I understand it on a very high level.

2. How does 4-player-chess work?

Let me explain to you how 4-player-chess is played. I am going to break it down in reverse order we begin with how a game ends and work us backwards through the stages to the beginning of the game. This might seem a bit odd, but every stage makes more sense if you know what the goal of the stage is, so it makes sense to analyze later stages first:
How the game ends:
The game ends if only one player remains. But this player is not necessarily the winner because the player with the most points wins not the last remaining one.
2-player-stage:
If one player has a lead of more than 20 points it instantly ends due to "claim win". If the difference is smaller, it is often still not played out because one player has a significant material lead and the other player resigns. 
3-player stage:
The goal of this stage is of course to create a winning 2-player stage. So either you go into the next stage with 20 points lead, or with a material lead that wins. In order to do so, you have to stop other players from achieving such a lead. So there is a constant change of alliances because if one player gets too strong you team up with the other player and attack him. So in the 3-player-stage, it should be easy for you to attack other players and hard for other players to attack you. Therefore you need a save king position and good piece mobility.
4-player-stage:
The most important thing here is of course to make it to the next stage. You can go into the 3-player-stage with less material because it will be balanced out anyways. In order to do so, you have to make sure another player is going to be checkmated and not you. This is the primary goal, but there is also a secondary goal: You want active pieces and a save king in the next stage. Geometrically your opposite is farther away than your flank players. So if one of your flank players is checkmated first you have a side where you can put your King and both players are far away from him and will have more difficulties attacking. Or you can push your pawns on that side and there is no player to stop them. While if your opposite is checkmated first, no matter in which direction you move your pieces, there will always be an enemy, and your pieces are not mobile. 
Teaming
Considering this it is in both your and your opposites interest to checkmate a flank player and not your opposite. Therefore even in Solo early teaming is just a natural development because it is the best strategy to play for the win. And you can sacrifice a lot for that because the positional advantage in the 3-player-stage is more valuable than material.

3. Rating System

For the rating system, we can make a lot of different approaches. I want to focus on 4 of them and tell you what I think which rating system suits them best.
Fun
Different players enjoy different things about the game, but I think especially for new players it is important to have small successes right away so every new reached stage in the game should feel meaningful so there should be a different rating calculation for each placement.
I suggest the classical FFA rating +3 +1 -1 -3
Sadly this rating system runs into problems in higher elo because it can be a strategy to just play for 2nd. This would entirely change how the game is played because you can team with your opposite through the whole game. Take out one flank player, then the other one, and then either play it out, resign, or even share the win. Does not matter much because you always win elo, and those games can be really fast, so you don't have to play the long and difficult 3-player stage. This is actually how Teams was invented, and why the Solo rating System came, to prevent this.
Win
In the end, everybody wants to win the game, so there is one winner and three Losers.
The rating for this cause is of course the Solo rating +3 -1 -1 -1
This rating can be very frustrating if you almost win a game but not quite. Or if one player is not able to win the game anymore but does decide who wins. Then it's a coinflip for the other two players who wins and who loses and they often have hardly any influence on this.
This is emotionally draining even for strong players and really not what you want for a new player who is just learning the game.
Representative
It is a very valid point to state that the rating system should represent the way the game is played. If we look at what we described earlier there is one big winner who wins the game, one big loser, who did not make it to the 3-player-stage and two smaller losers who were not successful in the 3-player-stage.
The rating system that is most representative in my opinion is the Radon rating +4 -1 -1 -2
Strategy
Both Solo and Radon rating run into the problem in the 3-player-stage that you sometimes end up in a position where you can't win anymore and you are just kingmaker. This is frustrating for all players and has an element of randomness. So to take out this Randomness it makes sense to make a difference between 2nd and 3rd place. But as we discussed in the classic FFA rating if 2nd place wins elo, there could be played for this. 
So the rating I suggest is the Empty rating +4 0 -1 -3

I think all of these rating ideas make sense in some way. Classical FFA rating is not really suitable for high elo if you don't want to change the way the game is played but the others are all fine. All of these rating Ideas can be tweaked a little bit and all of them need to be scaled with the right elo factor.
Rating systems that I don't consider suitable for FFA are systems where the 2nd place wins more than 3rd and 4th but those places are equal such as +2 0 -1 -1 or +5 -1 -2 -2 Maybe there is an argumentation for these rating systems but I see none.
And totally inappropriate are systems where 1st and 2nd win equally or systems where 1st place does not win most but I don't think that anybody would suggest this.

4. Setup

The difference between the setups are King and Queen positions. As for 4 players the King can each stand on their left or their right, we have 16 permutations of the setup.
Half of them have some kind of symmetry and Half of them has not.
According to engines, the most balanced setup is with reds King on his left and all other Kings on the right. But I think symmetrical setups are more enjoyable. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I think the more Symmetrical the setup is the easier it is to adapt to different colors from game to game. So let's focus on the Symmetrical setups. But first let us talk about what matters about the setups.

Kingside
You want your King to be save from attacks. If you get a check from the left side other players know that you have to react to that, and can attack you easily. So it is beneficial to have your King on the right.

Diagonals
If queens are on the same diagonals as Kings you can create an attack by just moving a pawn without developing the queen. If Queens are on the same diagonals the opening of a Queen diagonal might stop other players from doing the same if they don't want to risk a Queen trade.

Sadly I am absolutely no Teams- and therefore no openings expert, so I can't go more into detail about what the strategic differences are in the opening. I just can tell you that later in the game the setup matters less and less, because in 3-player-stage totally different things matter, and there has been loads of movement on the board so it does not matter much anymore where the King was in the beginning.

Old Standard Setup
Red and Yellow kings on the right. Blue and Green kings on the left.
According to engines and also a lot of very strong players it is the most unbalanced setup. Green and blue have a huge disadvantage because they move later, their kings are on the left, and if red and yellow open with their king pawn, which is the most common opening, this opening is basically denied for green and blue. So they have to play more passive openings.
The Old Standard invert is already slightly better because the later moving "team" BG has their Kings on the right, but the denied king pawn is still a big disadvantage.

Omatamix Setup
All kings on the right
Is by far the fairest setup and easiest to play as you can play mostly the same opening as all players have the same setup. Still, engines favor other setups maybe because Kings and Queens are on the same diagonals which allows fast attacks and therefore gives benefit to earlier moving players.
The Omatamix invert is basically the same setup, but why you would want all kings to the left if having them to the right is better?

Bsrti-invert Setup
Red and Blue king on the left. Yellow and Green king on the right.
According to engines, it is the most balanced Setup that has some symmetry. I can't talk much about Bsrti, because I have not tried it yet. The Idea is that both teams have one king on the right and one on the left, so they are balanced. Later moving players have their King on their right which should decrease their disadvantage a little bit. The fact that each King has one Diagonal to a King and one to a Queen makes fewer early attacks possible than in the Omatamix setup. So maybe this is really the most balanced Setup
I covered Bsrti-invert instead of Bsrti, because according to engines it is more balanced because later moving players have the king to their right.

The 4th symmetrical Setup is similar to Bsrti and again I think the best version of these kinds of setups is the Bsrti-invert. 

Personal Opinion
I like Omatamix best due to the consistency you can have in your openings. Some people state that Omatamix is boring and you always play the same opening. Well first, I play a different one, the Pegasus opening, and I am very successful with that, so there is obviously not that only line some players state there is. And 2nd, even if it were so, a good FFA game normally is more than 100 moves long. And only the first let's say 10 moves are the opening. So to say that Omatamix games are always the same and boring is an enormous exaggeration. 

I really hope we won't go back to old Standard because it is the most unbalanced one and playing blue or green is just less fun. I know a lot of people wish it back because they are used to it. But sometimes you have to adapt. And we should really not go back to a worse setup only because we are too lazy to change.

Standard Setup
We are discussing a lot what the best setup is, but the question is, why do we need to decide? Can't we just let the user decides what he likes best? 
The answer is, that we can let users decide, but there still has to be a Standard. Because if I just want to play a game I want to press the play button and play. So there has to be one setup preselected. And this will be played the most just because it is easy to select. That does not mean that all the other setups should not exist. And this is also true for rating systems and time controls. All the other systems can exist and can be selectable, but there has to be a Standard.

I would really like to have loads of setups to choose from. They can be played on the same elo. They should be shown in the same Lobby, of course with selection options like "only show Omatamix games". But every queue that is not Standard will take longer to fill up because Standard will be the most played one and therefore the one players are used to.

So this is why we are discussing so heavily the topic of what should be the Standard Setup. Because even if all the other setups are available it still influences us what setup will be chosen as Standard. Also because the world championship will be played on the Standard Setup. 

Summary
For me, all of this is a very important Topic because 4-player-chess is my biggest passion and the world championship is the highlight of the year for me. I state that world championship games are better than sex.

I did not cover time controls but I heavily prefer increment and I really enjoy the 1|7 time format. I think the best Setup is Omatamix but I think I would also be fine with Bsrti-invert.
As rating system, of course I think the one I suggested, the Empty rating +4 0 -1 -3 is the best.  But I can also live with Solo rating +3 -1 -1 -1, Radon rating +4 -1 -1 -2 and even high Standard +3 0 0 -3 is fine for me.

A huge Thanks to all of you who took the time to read my entire post.
I hope I was able to explain my opinions to you, and I hope you have the feeling what I'm saying makes sense.

Cheers
Michael

Well, thank you very much for this very instructive and quite short post; yes you are 100% legitimate to express your opinion and I would like to react on some points, after I will have reread it a couple of times and analysed in-depth.

I agree with just about everything you said. Except for the matter of starting position.

Honestly, I really appreciate this illustration!

One opinion:

BG has the advantage in "old" standard. I like to suffer for a draw as RY. Bring it back...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1eN8vyVFIM

Another opinion: 

Bsrti-inverse no.4 is the best position.

Another opinion:

Omatamix looks so similar from every direction, must be good.

Another opinion:

Chess needs players, the players need other players. The players can play other things than chess if they like. Chess is competing against every relaxation, entertainment and game out there. This means the standard dropped below taking a stroll in the park or watching tv.

Another opinion:

I come to chess forums for comedy.

Spectate some hyperbullet games for a 10 season long sitcom

@icystun

Lars, I don't really understand what you are trying to tell us...

As the reigning world champion, your opinion is probably the most valued. What do you think about all this?

I told you all my opinions, no puns. The starting position only matters in relation to the opinion that 4 player chess needs players. Popularity is driven by quality which is produced by good players. Right now probably one 2000+ game at most. The old position will bring back players, it has stood the test of time, the bsrti invert is best, omatamix is good, however it is a transition period for all changes, so either you flake or you stay. I don't care, I will always find a different game I like if I want to play. 

I am currently coming here for comedy.

the new setup ruined the game, green is practically lost

Considering what you say Lars, we should not go back to Old Standard. 
Yes changing the setup costed us a lot of strong players now. But in the end, people will play the games they like best. And therefore it's better to have the best version of 4PC because in the long run, this will bring more players.

I hope you will also come for the world championship Lars. I can't feel like a world champ if I haven't defeated you.

I don't have the feeling that it's more lost than in old Standard you always had to play very precisely and were most reliant on your opposite as green.

@empty_K3

In terms of rating choice, I probably agree with 4 0 -1 -3 the most.  It doesn't punish those who outperform others but end up not winning 1st (sometimes due to unavoidable circumstances).  At the same time, the 0 for 2nd has the advantage of discouraging teaming to some extent because the 2nd place player doesn't gain anything (they only avoid losing).  In terms of opening setup, I think the issue of which setup is chosen is much more relevant to teams than FFA.  While the opening matters for FFA, that is nothing compared to teams.   While FFA (especially at the higher level) mimics Teams in the 4pc stage to some extent, I think I can safely say it is nowhere near how Teams is played. The things you discuss (kings on the right or left, ability to open up queens) are, quite honestly, trivial compared to the factors that dominate in teams.  In FFA, king safety and pawn structure, amongst other positional factors, fly high above in terms of priority compared to activity and material.  In teams, it is the exact opposite: activity is paramount.  That gives teams opening play the urgency and accuracy that FFA lacks.  Which is understandable: the two variants focus on differing values. But ultimately, no matter how unplayable the position, it will always be easier to survive an FFA game as bg then a Teams game in an unequal position.  

Improve your mentality. I do not matter.

Don't say that about yourself! Just know you having a loving and supportive network, you matter to us x

We will get through this together!

You matter a lot. Not for the title. The title is awarded to the one who wins the world championship. But you matter for the feeling, the honor, the prestige.
Winning the world championship is what I am aiming for. But it would mean a lot more to me if I become world champion by defeating the reigning one: You.

Cool post empty_K3. Very informative.

I could also back the +4, 0, -1, -3 empty rating. I hadn't considered what giving rating points to 2nd place does for the endgame. It encourages people to play for 2nd which will frustrate those who get 3rd and punished for the kamikaze. I dislike the solo rating system we have now though as well. Getting a 1.3 loss after so nearly winning just feels bad as you state in your post.

Good luck in the world championships. When are they, how can i watch, and how can we get icystun more passionate about it? haha

Radon rating system is my favorite, but either one is better than solo.

New discussion forum and poll:

Variants Poll: What rating system do you prefer?

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/variants-poll-what-rating-system-do-you-prefer-1