Rest In Peace Solo

I think these statistics (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/4-player-chess-statistics?page=3) clearly demonstrate that Solo is not very popular compared to FFA:
Games played in the last two months:
ffa.standard.blitz 223747 solo.standard.blitz 11782
ffa.standard.bullet 21530 solo.standard.bullet 3079
ffa.variants.blitz 26179 solo.variants.blitz 2737
ffa.antichess.all 12132 solo.antichess.all 1090
ffa.variants.bullet 4432 solo.variants.bullet 430

But the general the scenario of game is no different. It seems to me justified to remove the all Solo leaderboards and add Solo as a WTA rule in FFA. I propose to do this on June 1, after a chic funeral on May 31 at the Solo Championship

P.S. But still there is one thing that haunts me. This is the standard rapid (and blitz like 1 | 5, 2 | 5) for highrated players. FFA and Solo have differences. Although in any case I see no reason to save Solo rapid as a separate leaderboard, this only has a chance with a system like FFA / Solo (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/rapid-ffa-solo-and-blitz-ffa)

Let s give the Solo another chance.

Maybe I got this wrong but are you saying kill FFA because nobody plays solo?

Seems a bit weird to me.

i mean system Solo (3-1-1-1) and FFA (31-1-3=>300-3)

i don't even play solo, it just seems stupid because its literally ffa except there is a way higher chance you will loose points instead of win

a) nope Angelo, Solo (which is WTA) definitely involves other techniques and strategy and is different from FFA,

b) I agree with Arseny, Solo should simply be an option (that the player who launches the game might choose or not, exactly like the time settings and anonymity, and so on) and the Individual leaderboard become re-united as previously,

c) it is clear that the stats above are very clear; but I suspect that if we look into 2000+ games only, it would be pretty different though. But in my mind we shouldn't maintain something considered as "standard" if it's for an elite only; it should be an option or a variant. Typically when WTA used to be imposed for 1550+ games (1850+ today) it was not that stupid. And anyway I'm against the fact of having 1001 leaderboards visible to all (I mean, the niche leaderboards for those who love this or that variant are totally legitimate, but shouldn't be mixed with STANDARD MAIN FUNDAMENTAL leaderboards nor be taken into account for the Champions leaderboard).

Lol Arseny

Guys, it's all but stupid; and probably you're just not experienced enough in order to get it. Solo is much more subtle than FFA and 95% of the reproaches done to FFA (where the teaming is inevitable in the 1st stage) are not so valid for Solo.

But as Arseny rightly says, a thing that is marginal by quantity of games cannot be a standard mode comparable to FFA and Teams. 

If we were to simply remove solo from being a game mode and make it an optional rule for FFA, without making it mandatory or changing the rating system, there are three things that would need to be considered. First, an optional WTA option would mean almost no one would play solo anymore. Because most players don't play casual, we probably would not have many players playing solo, because they would be likely to lose rating. Secondly, there are a few people who mostly play solo. Because I don't think almost anyone would play solo, we would risk losing these players. Finally, why do we need to remove solo? The only problem I've heard is too many leaderboards. If there were other problems with solo being a game mode, that would be different, but because there aren't, I don't think we should make solo an option just for that reason. Yes, less people play solo, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be removed. I don't think two leaderboards (Rapid/Blitz and Bullet....I'm not referring to the other solo Leaderboards) is worth potentially risking losing people. With these things in mind, I don't think we should make solo an option.

I hope this makes sense, and I'm addressing your point Arseny. If we were to make solo mandatory, or change the ffa ratings system, that would be different. But these are my points if we were to make solo an optional game option, without changing ffa. 

Let's look at the root of the problem. Why WTA was implemented for 1550+ games (=1850 today) 2 years ago? It was to combat excessive teaming. And indeed as playing for 2nd became irrelevant, it removed most of the teaming (with Solo today).

Why some people criticise Solo? Because they feel that losing in 75% of cases (statistically, in a very gross average) is not encouraging for them. Quite naturally, people like to be rewarded and not punished. And FFA (where, today, the 2nd and the 3rd are not really moving) is more appealing to them. (But on the other hand, it changes the game quite significantly vs. Solo as people are not that eager to win, and sometimes are Ok with the 2nd place, especially if they had risked at some point to finish 4th). I believe it makes the game less dynamic.

Any system where the 1st wins a lot and the 4th loses a lot creates a lot of specific behaviours that are not necessarily good for the game dynamics. And on the other hand, any system where the 2nd player earns a significant amount of points, creates other perverse behaviours like playing for 2nd place and excessive teaming.

It's simply a case WITH NO SOLUTION, and the only compromise would be something that creates different rating calculations with different rating ranges. Basically the old system forcing WTA at some stage was not stupid at all.

What we could do, that's to have let's say three different ranges:

Games with the average rating of players under 1800 : +3.5 +1  -2  -2.5

Games with the average rating of players between 1800 and 2200 : +3.5 +0.5  -1.5  -2.5

Games with the average rating of players above 2200 : +3 -0.5  -1  -1.5

Players will of course be able to influence it making rating limits like now when they launch games.

Thank you arseny for objectively admitting solo sucks

replacing Solo with the WTA rule = complete death of Solo. this is absolutely true, I understand that perfectly. but on the other hand, What Is Dead May Never Die. when was the last time you played Solo with three strong opponents? (It’s not for me to complain, I play every Sunday in the championship, but this will end soon). or at least with two? you can play solo with weak players. but would you enjoy it? me not
I don’t see big differences between the games 1|2 (1|1) and 4|0 (3|1) in Solo and FFA. therefore, I see no reason to fight for a bullet or blitz. but in games 2|5 and 1|15D this is. I want the rapid games (most likely to be separated from the blitz) for high-rated players to be Solo, not FFA (as with the old system with a border of 1850+). but even if they leave the FFA system for rapid it will be better, perhaps something good will come out of it too. Yes, it will be a pity to lose good players. but to leave them in a world of illusions (solo now), it seems to me also not right. It’s better to chop off all the ends and get used to the FFA, rather than necrophilic over Solo’s dying body

If we were to force all high rated (1800 or 1900+?) ffa players in Rapid to play wta, that would be good. Solo would remain, kind of, and we probably wouldn't lose many players. I think that's what you (Arseny) support, and I agree, this would probably be better. 

If we were to make solo just an option, I think this would finally destroy solo, and I disagree with this idea. People wouldn't play solo, even less than they play it now, if solo was only an option. 

@Indipendenza, very well said (I talk about your "Let's look at the root of the problem." post.)

> It's simply a case WITH NO SOLUTION, and the only compromise would be something that creates different rating calculations with different rating ranges.

Some solutions were offered starting from 2017. Just they were not accepted either by the community or by admins, or both

Rating calculation may be based on players behavior/actions in a particular game.

For example, someone offered to implement rules similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannin_shogi :

"Two players may team up against the third, forming an alliance. They may attack each other, but not place each other in check until the third player is defeated, at which point the alliance is annulled. They may not move each other's pieces.

Allies may attack each other to gain pieces-in-hand for drops, or to weaken each other in anticipation of the two-player end game. However, if either ally is checkmated by the third player, both lose, so these are dangerous tactics."

"If there is an alliance, then the non-allied player wins by mating either opposing player, and the game ends. That is, a player whose ally loses, loses as well. However, if the non-allied player is mated, the alliance is dissolved, and the two erstwhile allies continue the game between them."

After a game we can award different amount of points to winners depending on their actions: Did they team up? 1 time or 2? With the same player or not?

If Red allied with Yellow against Blue, but then allied with Green against Yellow - it is one case. If Red allied with Yellow against Blue, and then again with Yellow against Green - it is a different case.

If players continued fighting after kicking 2 other players - one case. If one of them gifted points to another - a different case.

Teaming up (allying) should bring some responsibilities, should add some risk. If teaming brings only benefits players will team up.

"A player whose ally loses, loses as well" rule adds that risk.

I am also interested: How do they solve this issue in Shuang Bai Qi Daizhan with 8 players?