standard way of thought

That's something that I've been now months (years?) to think, and now would like to express publicly.

I believe the fact that there are many (brilliant) Teams players who come to play FFA deprives us of many interesting games, as they tend to play standard moves and are easily irritated when one (in front) doesn't. 

Some months ago a player who will recognise himself even spoke here on the forum about "inevitable moves" (!!!). 

NO! There are NO inevitable moves! How don't you see that this standard way of thinking drives us to intellectual poverty and deprives us from the extraordinary rich world of possibilities?!

Today again, I played an FFA; the guy in front betrayed badly just because I do not like to play the standard teams opening. Of course he finished 3rd as it happens in 95% of such cases (and only beginners or total idiots still do not know that to attack in front in the 1st stage FFA is simply counterproductive, https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/to-betray-too-early-means-3rd-place-in-95-of-cases).

So the guy preferred to betray and to finish 3rd (and, being 2503 FFA Rapid, and having played almost 34000 games, he knows that to betray in the 1st stage is stupid) just in order to "punish" someone who hates standard thinking and ordinary openings.

(NO, I am not paranoiac, it was precisely his goal, what he showed after the question I asked in the chat). 

So, it's simple, PUBLIC NOTICE: I am currently 77th in the FFA ladder (Rapid), I consider that I am entitled to play the way I want, and no one will ever oblige me to play some way or another, I'll always play the way I like, experience new approaches and new moves, etc. and the fact that the guy in front doesn't open with his king pawn when red doesn't mean necessarily that he is an idiot and deserves to be betrayed in the 1st stage FFA.

(I do not care that he did; what annoyed me, that was the fact that he ate my queen whereas his own queen was eatable by me and of course I didn't eat it as we were attacking a side player. I even supposed in the chat - as it was an anonymous game - that he was under 2500 Rapid, well, he is 2503 currently, not very far. What also annoyed me A LOT, that's the fact that he happens to be one of the most important admins, i.e. is normally supposed to promote the game and its variety and rich possibilities, rather than restraining creation and imagination or freedom of thought. It's in fact a totalitarian way of thinking: "You don't think like me, so you deserve to die (and to finish 4th). Quite disappointing).

FFA = Free For All

How does one “betray” an opponent?

Once you'll reach 2200/2300, you'll understand. Cf. some basic principles like https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects.

The concerned player COULD DO IT, the rules of course were respected! But the usual principles for games of certain level definitely were broken.

Message to Teams Players: If you're not sure what your opposite is going to do, just play the Van 't Kruijs Opening. It's the most common 4PC opening and literally everyone plays it commonly whether they're RY or BG.

My FFA rating is 2370 and my opposites are fine... but then there's the 3PC stage where someone plays for 2nd and then tell me to stop playing for 2nd.

JkCheese, EXACTLY. It's clear that to attack or even to mate the opp makes sense if a) he clearly shows that he won't play normally (=cooperate during the 1st stage of 3), b) attacks you or weakens you clearly deliberately, c) he is dead anyway during the next move with absolutely no possibility to save him, etc. 

Here I was speaking about a much simpler case: someone (playing red) doesn't open the way you like (in my case, with a knight instead of the king's pawn) and then you eat his Q making him 4th and yourself 3rd. 

I find that way pretty silly, and shall NOT change my moves because of people who think standard way. I prefer to make experiments and to think outside of the box, and shall not change because of their intimidation, even when it''s a star player or an admin.

If you are not helping your opposite, why should your opposite not eliminate you? Your opposite gets the safety of not getting 3rd, and a 1 in 3 chance of getting 1st (you can argue that there is a lower chance than 1 in 3 because of being stuck in the middle, but usually that advantage is small).

You aren't required to "change your moves because of people who think the standard way". But if you expect to win, or at least not get 4th, the best way to maximize your chances of doing so is opening the standard way. There is little to no reason for your opposite to help you if you do not help back (you say that you helped by not taking his queen, but by this point you were most likely beyond quality partnership as your start was bringing out a knight and then spending 3 moves on pawn moves (your opposite seemed to want to work together as he mimicked your move and then started attacking blue with threats of Nc10.

You are correct in saying that you are not obliged to play this or that opening. But your opposite is not obliged to help you if you do not offer actual help.

/close thread

Type, he didn't eat my Q because of any lack of cooperation or because I would've been passive or would've failed to help him, etc. BUT BECAUSE I OPENED WITH MY KNIGHT INSTEAD OF THE KING'S PAWN. Ok?

Furthermore, all my moves from start were showing cooperation, and precisely I didn't move my own Q "under attack" because I was sure it was a normal game; and I didn't eat his own Q (that was not protected) because for me it was a normal game. We were precisely attacking together the green between us (that's what I thought).

I am quite sure that if you saw the game, you wouldn't have written how you wrote. Because I AGREE with what you wrote, and here it was not the case, by no means.

I just reviewed the whole game, you were useless. Maybe look at what you did incorrectly and ask for constructive feedback because your 1.r was NOT the problem. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

According to what the concerned player said, THAT was the problem for him.

BTW: in another game YOU made more or less the same, eating my Q as well and finishing 3rd as well. (But contrary to the today's game I could be accused of passiveness; in fact probably excessive caution; and STILL I do not believe that it is normal/productive/constructive to play for... 3rd by betraying. And YES I see that many high-rated players react like the player today and like you did 2 weeks ago. But higher I'll climb, more you'll have to get accustomed to some player(s) who do not play exactly how you expect/would like. I'm just not as good as you are at Teams (and don't care to become) and play FFA my own way).

OR just don't play FFA

It's simple. A [somewhat less than] 33% chance of winning is better than a 50% of finishing 4th, which is very much a possibility while you're still in the game, since there's every chance the two side players will cooperate against your opposite while you're "doing your thing".

Yes, true, I DO agree, it's about the math. expectancy.

BUT.

If your opp doesn't follow the traditional/classical opening (?, somewhat ridiculous to say that for a game which is more or less 5 years old) doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't cooperate or wouldn't be a loyal opp.

Once again, this thread was NOT about the case of disloyal opps, or opps who wouldn't cooperate or who would weaken or attack you. (All this is clear and outside of the point). It was about simply someone who, being red, doesn't open with the king pawn, and whom therefore you decide from this very first move to kill ASAP. That is, in my mind, a very simplistic and totalitarian way to think.

No, but it means that they likely won't be in time to help you. Better get rid of them, before the others get rid of you. Seriously, not playing the best opening is like playing 1. h4 in 2PC, and then complaining that your results aren't that great.

Which actually brings me to my next point. What you're doing is fine for a certain level (just like playing 1. h4 is something you can get away with up to a certain rating), but not for the top levels.

Ok, let's see .
(My 5 kopeck is that it's an auto-realisation phenomenon here: PEOPLE THINK IT'S THE ONLY OPENING POSSIBLE, and then are influenced by this mere prejudice and like that it becomes a dogma. Whereas in fact plenty of rich possibilities do exist, but people by laziness or intellectual comfort don't want to explore (and punish those who try). Basically I am unsure, but SUSPECT that maybe my way to higher places in the ladder will simply be slowed down by people who think standard way, but that would be because of their conservatism and not because of the intrinsic value of their opening).

(And besides, BTW, plenty of GMs do play successfully other openings than e2e4 in 2p chess...).

Your opening is possible, but it is sub-optimal (it's just too slow). Just like 1. h4 is in normal chess (would love to see a GM who regularly plays that successfully). If you're playing a sub-optimal opening, why are you then complaining about getting sub-optimal results?

But they all go after the center, following the "standard way of thought".

To JonasRath:

That was not the point. I was not speaking about the merits of this or that opening, at all. I was speaking about the reaction to this or that opening. If you believe that it's normal to directly condemn to death an opp who was guilty of playing anything but your preferred first move, regardless of his further moves or suggested strategy, well, you just illustrate my point about the standard way of thinking. (Besides, it's interesting to mention that just 120-150 players are above 2500 pts and are really concerned by this discussion, i.e. a very very small proportion of all the players here; that's why I was speaking about the self-realisation above: that's facilitated greatly by the narrowness of the group).

To Typewriter: 

Yes of course they do, because that's optimal. I was speaking here about the condamnation to death of somebody who doesn't play the FIRST move that the majority prefers (king's pawn).

What's the issue with that? You could have attacked side players right away, but instead you opted to try to make a queen. This kind of greediness is not appreciated by most. Not starting with the king pawn indicates that you're not trying to help your opposite, and pushing the pawn all the way nearly confirms it. Not taking your opposite's queen doesn't make you some saint.