Specific toxic behaviours

Some players clearly lack of fair-play spirit, have no sportmanship.

For instance:

- betraying the opp in the 1st stage FFA for any reason (finishing then 3rd in most cases, but they don't care),

- targeting some particular player, specifically the opp', simply because he is much higher rated, in order to make him finish 4th on purpose and to have the Schadenfreude to see him losing 30, 40 points,

- resigning on purpose just before someone eats your Q and gets 9 pts that he deserved,

- resigning on purpose just before the certain mate, in order to create thus a zombie king and to prevent the winning player from having 20 points that he deserved and quite often from winning the game he was clearly winning,

- eating as much pieces of someone as possible with no strategic advantage (once someone realises he won't win), just in order to make him lose (by revenge),

- failing to take an obvious mate in 1, making the opp to lose his Q, on purpose,

- throwing on purpose in the 2nd stage FFA to some other player, playing for 2nd and wanting another specific player to be 3rd (kingmaking),

- resigning on purpose in order to avoid for the CLEARLY winning player to win, seeing that he needs just 1 or 2 points to win (another case of kingmaking: one makes on purpose some player win rather than some other who clearly deserved the victory taking into account the game and his moves, etc.).

I haven't played a lot of games where all the players were above 2500-2600, so cannot say, but in the 2200-2500 area such behaviours are unfortunately common. I think it's very damageable for our nice hobby.

yeah but some people do it for tactical reasons

Me gusta tu disertación y apoyo muchas si no todas las cuestiones, aunque algunas se justifican como dice Kkpo2009.

didn't you make this forum like 6 months ago

Yes, but some trolls came, obstructed any serious discussion, polluted the thread so much that an admin simply closed it. Punishing the author and serious participants for some precise cretins' fault. Not fair. I felt this topic deserves being republished.

the resigning on purpose to make zombie king is not something i full agree with. sometimes it's quite undeserved so i would be happy with making them lose the points that they "deserved"

and i would also be very happy to take all of a person's pieces provided they can't win themselves and they have consistently been showing that they have no interest in winning anyway, especially if they target me for no reason other than to try and be funny (revenge) - the best part is when they complain after the game

the rest i agree with

Les 2200 et les 2500 n'ont rien à voir en termes d'élaborations stratégiques.
Sinon je trouve que tu t'impliques un peu trop Indé

the obvious way to stop this is to just add a mode called "Play For Win" in which the points are as follows:

1st = 3 wins

2nd = 1 loss

3rd = 1 loss

4th = 1 loss

this will prevent any playing for second or third, and as i remember, i think there was a mode like this, but i do not see it anymore.

That's called Solo, and you can enable it for a 2100+ game

I still don't understand why people expect their opponents to cooperate with them or play "the right way" (according to you). Resigning out of spite is probably the most annoying to me, and not very sporting... but in some cases you will be the one benefitting from a free king.

There have been times for me where I was about to call someone an idiot for not playing "the right way," assuming they would lose hard, then later it turned out they got an honest 2nd or even 1st.

I don't agree with the Solo argument at all. I'll bet you are hard pressed to find a player whose game history actually shows that they consistently play for 2nd, and succeed, by some of these tactics. Most of the time they were probably just trying to get as many points as they could, even if it means annoying you, lol.

First, I assure that no-fair-playing isn't againist the rules (except rule-violating comments):

- Betraying is "intelligent", when u can get points "freely".

-

- If you don't resign when u r goin to lose ur queen and certainly goin to lose, u'll give points to the opp => lose elo.

- Resigning before mate can protect ur place: E.g: If the point of Red Blue and u is 20, 50 and 30, if u let red have chance to mate u to have 40 pts, that mean u'll finish 3rd => lose elo, and someone doens't want to waste time to move next.

- Revenging can give u some points, and that's a absolutely nomal activity everyone can do!

- You can do that for a "hidden massage" and it doesn't aganist the rules, this can also destroy the humorous opp.

- ??? (Can u explain it?)

-

As I've said, there are 5/8 good reason to be not fair-playing. It's a common tactic so as to win! Winning doesn't need taking care to the other as long as you follow the rules!

Thanks for reading!

Yes, it is not against the rules! Pretty clear.

Just lack of sportsmanship according to me.

I am sure you will one day. Maybe very soon, and maybe in some months or years. And that's how you'll progress from the current 1975 to 2400+.

(Maybe https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects could help).

Do u think that blue can steal the mate ,) ?

lel, you complain about trolls blocking serious discussion, then give a troll response when someone disagrees with you.

I think sometimes giving up to protect the score and not end up last is allowed. it's part of the strategy, since it is a "points" based game. even tho u mess up someone that will not get 1st for that, which is unfortunate. It is part of the calculations that it could happen, it is then to the other players to take advantage of that... which can make mating people even more heavy, since u could end up not getting the points and get flanked anyway and lose urself. and that is exactly what FFA is about, in a way.

I crapped my pants trying to understand all that.

Really? Sorry if you feel like that. But my answer was in fact pretty clear as I pasted the link to another thread explaining that. I am convinced that the optimal strategy for the 1st stage is to cooperate, and it's the common knowledge among all 2300+ players.

would you rather have everyone play for themselves and have the game become one that depends almost completely on luck or a game where each player has some control over what happens