standard way of thought

Yes, it is normal. Because your opening directly affects their chances of finishing 4th. In the sense that if they're attacked from both sides, you will not be in a position to assist them. Essentially, your opening makes you a liability to your opposite.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=11232880

What yellow did is perfect, too many mistakes of yours in the openings, you cannot answer with a F3 knight to a Sicilian. yellow will have noticed that detail and therefore moved the pawn to delay his queen exit (good decision) and wait to see how the opposite continues to play. and bishop for pawn is another very serious error, if you practiced teams you would realize the consequences that this carries in the short and long term. Later, more mistakes on his part followed, but that were consequential to your opening, do not pretend that your opposite would risk his life for someone who did not study the basic theory of teams. the most sensible thing is what yellow did and any strong player would do the same.

The only solution is to sit in the chair for 2 hours to watch the games in the files of the teams' top players, just by investing that short time you will improve your opening and you will not have that problem with your opposites. Although you are free to do whatever you want, but if you make bad moves, the opposite is in your right not to want to help you ... and winning the game goes to the background, in a situation in which the opposite is bad or passive, the priority is to survive. 

Thank you to all, you're illustrating in fact my point pretty well. Standard thinking. I've spent my entire life to fight against that (and that explains a lot why I became who I am), and I won't stop hic et nunc.

I don't see why I have to repeat; this post was NOT about my weaknesses and mistakes, that ARE indeed numerous, and I'm working to progress, like all of us. Only Typewriter really tried to answer the REAL point ("Not starting with the king pawn indicates that you're not trying to help your opposite"). I see and understand that about probably 40-60-80 (maximum 83) players above me in the ladder think like that. But even if ALL OF THEM think like that, it doesn't mean that they are right. I personally do not think at all that you can predict what kind of opp the guy in front will be just because he moves anything else but the king pawn.

Sometimes, standard thinking happens to also be the correct one. Occam's razor and all that. No matter how "nonstandard" your approach is, you won't turn 1. h4 into a good move in 2PC. Likewise, the very slow opening you employ will never be anything but an invitation for your opposite to take you out as an act of self-preservation.

Well, in fact there are at least 8 different openings that I practice. For instance, I like to open with the queen pawn, and do NOT believe it's intrinsically weak (even if 90% of high-rated players may think so).

If 90% of high rated players think that it is weak, isn't it extrinsically weak? If 90% of opposites think you're not trying to help them, that makes it a bad opening. Perhaps after the merge things will be different and you can play your unconventional openings. But currently, if you play an opening that you know is likely to turn your opposite against you, you should probably learn to accept being betrayed.

I'm sorry, but that's like saying "I like to open 1. h4 and do NOT believe it's intrinsically weak (even if 90% of high-rated players may think so)." Meanwhile, your opposites get killed.

Type: yes, I agree with the argument (and that's what I was saying to JonasRath yesterday: a lot of self-realisation! A very clear example for me of a phenomenon that is not an objectively demonstrable (scientific) truth, but simply a collective belief that BECOMES truth because of the reigning dogma. But precisely I've always combated the dogmas and tried (with success or not) to explore new possibilities).

JonasRath: well, it's irrelevant to make any conclusions from 1, or even 20 or 50 games of anybody, it's statistically irrelevant and you probably know that.

Whatever, my general conclusion (as of today) is that I'm 82th, so (taking into account the likely 30-40 players who play better but do not appear in the ladder because of the 2 weeks requirement) there are between 70 and max. 120 players who think standard and simplistic way and think that if you don't open with ONE CONCRETE MOVE, you're devil and have to be killed ASAP. I sincerely don't care a lot; they will progressively have to get accustomed that there are some independent players who hate dogmas.

I think I shall provide a certain analogy of a similar psychological scrape: there are a lot of well-working openings in Bughouse. However, when picking a highly theoretical opening that is superior to the other lines, it is pretty much likely that your teammate will not be able to follow it all along. As a result, the teammate may just have cold feet and refuse to play a highly theoretical line due to their ineptitude. As such, one only plays these lines with trusted teammates. This is one possible case, but there is a second one - the player might just not take an optimal line seriously and consider it un-optimal (and were it bughouse, just abort), and due to psychology one is forced to open with what others think to be fine.

However, in four-player FFA, you cannot just choose an opposite beforehand. So, unless you are at a certain level where you are absolutely convinced that players will know how to play this kind of line (i.e. 2800+), you basically have no choice and are forced to play what others can keep up with. Even further, some players just consider certain optimal openings to be unplayable and to show your lack of loyalty - again, the ability to track really passive moves and real lack of loyalty is about 2800+, so below that level, you kind of have no choice. 

This is like playing Slav against somewhat lower-rated players and expecting them to enter into intriguing middlegames, but then you suddenly get stunned they just played for a draw and play Exchange, that's just how it works. And up to a certain level, it is probable one will play the Exchange and just play for a draw. 

All this is assuming that one really plays an optimal and not a sub-optimal opening.

You're confusing "self-realisation" (or whatever you want to call it) with skill level. It's really not that different from 2PC, which has a lot of dodgy gambits, which are playable at lower levels, but will get you mauled against strong opposition. You've just hit the ceiling at which your opening stops working (for reasons I already specified).

You basically speak about "my opening" as if I was always opening the same (in fact, at least 7-8 different moves, according to my mood of the moment...) ; and you imply that ONLY ONE OPENING is acceptable, and I believe that it's not the case.

BTW occasionally I open with the king pawn as well as red; but I wonder if I wouldn't stop doing t completely just to prove that one may progress without your "only-acceptable-opening" (another Teams-opening-lover here who'll recognise himself even spoke last year about "inevitable moves").

I am NOT SURE that you're wrong, I just refuse to take it for granted. And if could progress by 500 pts within 1 year, I do not see why I wouldn't be in the Top 20 in 1-2 years even without using your "golden move". (Why am I rebelling? Because since childhood in a country that you know I've always refused dogmas and established opinions and mainstream ideas and prefer break the prejudices, and here I suspect a mere empirical prejudice simply because of a self-realised collective belief rather than objective truth. If I get to Top 20 without ever using the king pawn as red, would you reconsider ? ).

We were discussing a particular game, so this was the opening I called "your opening". Did you compare your results (against 2500+) by different openings? If so, I'm genuinely interested to know which strategy yielded the best results.

is this a comedy show?