The real loser in FFA

Often people think that THE loser of a game is the 4th. But it's not true. Quite often you're 4th simply because the both sides cooperated correctly in the 1st stage, whereas your opp didn't intervene fast enough, and/or played passively (or even worse, mainly under 2000-2200 points, helped the sides to kill you, weakening you for instance, or even killed you...). No one (not even a 3000+ player) can resist a massive and coordinated joint attack from sides (even two 2000+ players) if done correctly with no blunders, and if the opp does nothing to take some fire on his side and to release the pressure on yours.

No, the REAL loser is the 2nd. As the 2nd in fact is the one who had most chances to win, but still lost. Sometimes by just 1 point, like in the game I've just finished. I finished 3rd, the points were 67, 66, 29, 10 pts. The 2nd (a 2300+ player) was happy to be 2nd, but in fact the first only won because he was much more patient and smart than us, and managed to manipulate the 2nd player nicely, who weakened me enough in the 2nd stage FFA to allow the 1st to kill me.

Playing for 2nd ruins games. That's were the clever post by Sigma https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/1-15-ffa-2000-tutorial-balance-in-the-3-player-stage helps a lot. So many players, especially under 2400-2500, still fail totally this 2nd stage. Many players don't even understand some basics, about 3 stages in a FFA game and about the balance... (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects).

2nd gains about a point, 4th loses 10-20 points. I'd say 4th is the real loser.

I don't think so, precisely. You can pretty well be 4th because of the opp, just by chance, with no mistake by you. But you can't be 2nd by chance.

1st place wins and gains points.

2nd place gains points but doesn’t win and beats 3 & 4.

3rd & 4th both lose points = 2 losers.

Ratingwise (if that's a word,) 4th is the loser. But integritywise (if that's a word,) it could be 2nd, 3rd, or even 1st! It really depends on the situation.

Look, your rating is 1968 FFA. Reach 2200-2300, then you'll reconsider maybe.

i think it is the points instead

With no surprise, Crispy, YES, I do not agree with the point. 

a) when you say that it's possible/feasible to resist a joint attack from 2 sides alone, with no help from the opp, it's because you do not really know yet what is a fully coordinated attack, a professional cold-blooded killing technique. (You can't resist simply because they have twice as much material and twice more moves than you...).

You've reached 2205 in FFA Rapid, which is excellent and remarkable if you never cooperate. But you won't be able to move towards 2400-2600 before you understand some basics (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects) about the 3 stages and precisely about the 1st stage where the cooperation is simply the best strategy.  

b) I'm not sure you can really criticise people who do this or that if their rating is 100, 500, 800 (!) points above. If they do something which is not against the rules (FFA) and succeed, that means that their strategy is better than yours...

c) I do not like blatant teaming neither, and made 3-4 threads with several proposals how to address the issue.  For instance, https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ideas-to-prevent-teaming-in-ffa and https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/new-idea-checkmate-value-to-dramatically-reduce-ffa-cooperation, 

d) play SOLO, there are much less cooperation...

Subjective opinions

I laughed when I saw this article. First of all fourth is the loser and second of all independenza is a 2400 rapid and a 1950 bullet player and he doesn’t really know how 4pc works. If he would just ease up a little, manipulate his fellow 2400s, and occasionally betray his opposite he would be a 2700-2800 player. Almost every single game he insults someone because they “betrayed” him or they fail to play accurately. I hope he reads this and reconsiders his approach to 4pc

Dark, you may well be right; but just for your knowledge, I don't know what is your age, but it was IN THE PAST CENTURY already that I was taught how to discuss correctly and what are the usual demagogic arguments, and ad hominem attacks are among them. Here the point is not ME and not my (certainly low level) play, but the general issue of about who is the real loser of a FFA 4p game. That I definitely think to be the 2nd.

(And it's even more true for Solo, of course).

The real loser is 4th place, losing the most points and having had little chance at 1st place. 2nd and 3rd did okay in the game, as they didn't not get last and did have a chance at 1st but in the end got outplayed. The real winner is obviously 1st place.

I think what you're trying to get at is that 2nd had a 'psychological' loss in not getting 1st. That's true, but at the end of the day getting 2nd is better than getting 4th.

Type, my point was much simpler: you can easily get 4th merely by chance (just because the sides played correctly whereas your opp didn't), regardless of your level. Whereas you're never 2nd by chance, but by lack of analysis/skills.

(In addition, even in your ad hominem attack you were utterly inaccurate; I'm 2500+ Rapid (2537 currently), and used to be 2300 in bullet, just descended somewhat over the last 2 weeks. And as you seem so interested by ratings, I'm not quite sure your arrogance has grounds as for instance in Solo your rating is under mine. I would accept this criticism from Riba or Arseny or Cha-Cha certainly, but not from you).

Multiple comments concatenated into a single reply by admin. Please follow our forum rules with regard to sequential replies.

Yeah, you can get 4th by chance (bad opposite as you said) but you can also get 2nd or 3rd by one of the other players in the 3 player stage blundering and giving the win to 1st place. It depends game by game, but sometimes the real skill is in being able to take advantage of the blunders. There is no real way to take a position between 3 players that's completely equal and win by building up pressure and eventually finding a tactical breakthrough as there is in 2pc. You have to slowly build your winning chances and hope that one of the other players makes a mistake.

Yes, also true.