Possible ratings correction to stop FFA teaming

How about the rating system for FFA offers +3 +1 -1 -3 in any game EXCEPT where 1st and 2nd place are opposites, at which time it reverts to be +3, -1, -1, -1. 

Then opposites wont have the same incentive to team up and helps to balance the game much more, even to the point of not wanting your opposite to win, as it would guarantee you getting at best a -1.

When the game is at 3 player in particular, this would create real differences. By helping an adjacent player instead of an opposite, you can ensure getting at least a +1 instead of a -1.

interesting idea, i've also thought of that. please join our discussion here https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-defense-in-the-support-of-modern-ffa-thoughts-and-comments-appreciated?page=3

Red checkmates Green. Green has -3. Let's look what other players want:

1) Yellow doesn't want Red to win, it is obvious, because Red is his opposite. So Yellow wants to team up with Blue against Red. Yellow wants to be the 1st (whoever is the 2nd) or 2nd (if Blue is the 1st). Other variants are bad for Yellow.

2) Red doesn't want Yellow to be the 1st, but all right if Blue is 1st and Red is 2nd.

3) Blue wants to be the 1st, but all right to be the 2nd too (whoever is the 1st).

Blue has 2 choices:

1. He can team up with Red against Yellow.

2. He can team up with Yellow against Red.

It is much easier to team up with Red against Yellow (Red has more points at that moment), because Blue has practically guaranteed 2nd place and some probability to get the 1st place. It is more difficult to team up with Yellow against Red, because even the 2nd place is not guaranteed.

So, Blue will definitely team up with Red. And there will be 2 main scenarios:

A) Red (with help of Blue) checkmates Yellow. Red is 1st, Blue is 2nd.

B) Blue (with help of Red) checkmates Yellow. Then Red and Blue may play or resign, or gift points, it depends. They are 1st and 2nd.

Conclusion: In this variant you don't want your opposite to checkmate any side player. Because another side player will team up with your opposite and they will win. There is a probability that "teaming with your opposite is the best strategy" will be replaced with "teaming with a side player is the best strategy". And it looks like Red and Blue will always team up against Yellow and Green, because Red and Blue make the 1st moves and have some advantage like white in 2 player chess. Blue will help Red to attack Yellow from the very beginning of the game. Once Yellow is checkmated (by Red or Blue, doesn't matter) they will kick Green.

A bit pessimistic analysis  ... Am I right?

I think it is worth testing to find out. I really like the "In this variant you don't want your opposite to checkmate any side player." aspect of it. For those at the top they will work it out after a few games and the current dynamic  of opposites teaming stops being an issue. Any alliances that could be formed could be with 2 potential side partners, and could be changing dynamically through the game depending on the situation. It is likely to give a much better outcome that is closer to the intent of FFA.

Yes Matt, this variant sounds reasonable. May be tested.

I have a doubt which I described above, but it looks better than the current "always team up with your opposite and win" situation.

Well it would disable the players who understand team chess tactics like that other example that we saw. Team will happen regardless. lol Like Bab say's, but it will be from a different angle and they wont alot of time to figure it out but they will still have private chat. Look they don't even have to find the checkmates. Just assist each other getting points. It's that simple. The private chat kind of kills the anoyimus idea. However it would reveal the people q'ing int he same game and blatantly teaming up. There are no arrows so all can see so why should they be allowed to communicate on discord or private chat? That is cheating. The kind of teaming i like is just tactical plays, where if a player sees a chance to team then why not? You want to win right? Politics lol. No second place and winner takes all! What i say. Be forceful with it. Yes the game may become boring but it's what you allll wanted right? Well there it is. Have it. XD

In this variation your opposite is essentially your enemy, the one guy you dont want to get 1st. You arent trying to help your opposite survive at all. They are the first player you are likely to want gone. Totally different tactics and strategy. Less likely to see queens out early and instead get more normal game development. The more I think of how it is likely to play out, the more balanced game play should be, especially at 4 player stage, as everyone has a different enemy, who isnt always easy to get at. I would really be interested to see the totally new strategies that would evolve in this version.

@ElPolloLocoMan, there are 2 separate issues:

1. Cheaters (pre-arranged, using Discord or whatever to communicate).

2. Excessive teaming of usual/honest players in FFA variant making this variant "too teamy".

We need to fix the 2nd issue by changing the game rules.

The 1st issue will exist forever and it is an everyday task for admins: players report cheaters, admins verify and ban.

We can invent any game with any rules, but there always be cheaters. We want to solve the 2nd task: make FFA less teamy, less predictable, more fun.

@JustinD7, yes, a possibility of "all 4 players will be passive" scenario exists. But if any of the players will be active, 3 others need to be active too.

Imagine that you are Yellow. Red starts harassing Green. If he'll checkmate Green then you are in trouble, because Blue will team up with Red against you. So, you should help Green. Moreover, Blue will help Red, because he also wants Green to be kicked. Can you afford to be passive in such a case?

Yea i see a guy playing too passive and think. Well why should we let him get away with that? He really thinks he can get away with just slipping by with an end game? That player will become the target at the 3 player stage at least! And 2v1 chess is extremely hard. It's asking for a very nearly impossible game. It's like 4 gladiators fighting, with one being passive trying to conserve energy and let the others kill themselves. The others should look, and say "well looks like we found our new first priority don't it boys?". That's what should happen and probably will happen. Playing passive in a winner take all game, may work a few games in the beginning but the players will catch on to that cheesy tactic and will find a way to defeat it, with the knowledge they gained from actually playing aggressive and trying to win! It are in these moments where one looks at the current board and wonder, hmm, should i team with yellow or blue here? lol ffa chess, 4 minds. Anything can happen and should be allowed to happen. If the player is very good at playing passive and somehow gaining a win even when the other players gang up on him?!!! I tip my hat to that player, and that player deserves a metal honour. lol Really really difficult to play passive when you got 2 players on you let alone 3! However this is theory. We got to experiment on it, then we can further disscuss properly. Many ideas, I think mattedmonds idea is interesting too. I kind of like it.

I agree with Justin in that this will only encourage sides teaming up.  Also, the idea that the passive player will find himself in a 2v1 in the three player stage is not guaranteed.  I have played plenty of games in SOLO where the passive player is rewarded, and I don't see why there would be any difference in this scenario.  Too few people will understand or want to play the "kill the player who has done nothing all game" idea.  

I really advocate making FFA 3 0 0 -3.  The point is that both second and third are the same score, so, once one player is knocked out, there is no risk for playing for first since being a "traitor" against your stronger opposite won't effect your end score even if you get third.  I think it will strongly encourage a SOLO type game in the 3 player stage since no one wants to get zero points, and the only way to get first is to weaken the materially strongest opponent, even if it is your opposite.  

There is only one opposite player, there are 2 side players and each has a natural enemy that is different from the others they could potentially team with. These dynamics make the game very different.

3 0 0 -3 doesnt discourage teaming with your opposite, being on the winning team ensures you don't lose points. It also makes it much worse when you have a single strong player vs 3 weaker players, they are certain to gang up on you to ensure you get the -3, even more than already happens currently. It doesnt solve any current issues, just creates new ones.

yea playing passive is something that would work on players who don't know what they are doing. But against skilled players like as i mentioned icystun? No. lol they will play with you as though you were a violin, You must do something about their tactics which will be very dynamic. As the saying goes aggression is the best defence, and defence is the best form of aggression. Maybe you don't even want to team with any of them. Not worthy. You just create chaos on the board, or checkmate one, then the other. Pretty fun to watch players do that, and amazing how they do it too! Very entertaining raw ffa plays.

teaming with opp is likely best even in Solo. i don't see good solo players hurting their opposites hardly ever. 3 0 0 -3 will def stop the teaming 3way though, while remaining somewhat similiar to what we've always had. to stop the 4way teaming with opp i think we need a new concept/variant.

Yes, everything will be that, it is the simplest in the strategic plan and the most effective version of the game for players. But I think it will be interesting. I think it's worth adding this to the rules of choice, like WTM. But you cannot change all the FFA. Players themselves must choose what rules they play. It is also possible that this will affect cooperation in games without this rule, which I would like (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/another-cooperation-in-ffa).

I don’t think that changing the rules of the entire FFA is a good idea. It is necessary to change the mindset of the player and offer him new opportunities instead of / together cooperation with the opposite player. I also think that many players simply do not understand the modern FFA and are trying to change it, instead of building their game differently.

"FFA 3 0 0 -3" is a good option for the 3-player stage, but it has a huge flaw that is mentioned.

This will be not only with weak players. It is always more profitable to kill a player with a high rating or a player with a reputation.
Grathieben imagine that you, me, Cha_Cha and someone 2200 are playing with these rules. Who will we destroy first? I would kill Cha_Cha). I think you would do the same.

i'm not so sure. because losing your opposite will severely hurt your chances for 1st. it's hard to win in the middle. so i don't think losing opposite is good even in 3 0 0 -3. but you will probably risk much less for him / not give everything to save him.

Yes, you're right, I did not think about it. But still discrimination of one of the players is possible. If you hold all the games "3 0 0 -3" in anonymous mode this can be avoided.

I think the same opening principals for 2000+ games (cooperating with one's opposite) will still be thing with 3 0 0 -3, and I don't see anything wrong with that.  What will happen is that one player will make a weakness, and the two flanks will exploit that like in today's FFA.  The major change that will take place is that when that player is mated, the weaker of the two opposites need not continue cooperation with his "partner".  

@mattedombs comment 13: I don't see any logically sound reason why someone would go keep cooperation with one's opposite if it is certain to get him second when second = third = no gain.  What is the fun in gaining zero points in every game one plays?  As Vasily points out, anonymous games will ensure that the strongest players are not ganged up upon because of rating.  I guarantee people will find ways to start teaming with flanks (even though, yes, there is two) and the whole problem will come up again. 

Wooah easy there, you guys are trying to kill me even before the game started?))