I agree, but inviting opposites makes it easier to do pre-arranged teaming.
and i feel this more than many other players as my rating is still too low to play in high rated queues, though i know those concepts and recently beaten three 1900-2000+ players
though in many games i find bad opposites and i end up losing material and soon, the game. Also i lose because my computer crashes during games sometimes, but thats other situation
You lose a lot of points, especially if you're highly rated, and in this game all 3 players teamed up against me, and as a result I finished 4th and lost 73 points. The opposite player played absolutely terrible and didn't make a single attempt to co-operate with me. I didn't attack or take a single one of his pieces throughout the whole game, yet he attacked me. https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=10295397
This is purely just karma for farming games without a rating range set. You should play 2100+ at the minimum.
You really can't expect a 1700 rated player to know he should team with you. If he knew that he probably wouldn't be 1700.
I'm 1700 and do cooperate. and i see 1500s cooperating with me
You really can't expect a 1700 rated player to know he should team with you. If he knew that he probably wouldn't be 1700.
I'm 1700 and do cooperate. and i see 1500s cooperating with me
I'm not even sure, if there's a connection with how highly you're rated and how much you co-operate. I've seen many 2200+ and 2300+ players, who don't co-operate at all with each other. I played aginst a 2900+ player, who only plays 2100+ games, and don't co-operate in them at all.
I've completely quit playing random rating games. The current only solution, I'm using right now, is to only play standard FFA games that are at least 2300+ rated, anything below, means I could run into bad opposites, who don't co-operate.
You really can't expect a 1700 rated player to know he should team with you. If he knew that he probably wouldn't be 1700.
I'm 1700 and do cooperate. and i see 1500s cooperating with me
I'm not even sure, if there's a connection with how highly you're rated and how much you co-operate. I've seen many 2200+ and 2300+ players, who don't co-operate at all with each other. I played aginst a 2900+ player, who only plays 2100+ games, and don't co-operate in them at all.
I've completely quit playing random rating games. The current only solution, I'm using right now, is to only play standard FFA games that are at least 2300+ rated, anything below, means I could run into bad opposites, who don't co-operate.
That's a good strategy for anyone who is going to get upset if someone doesn't team. Not setting limits can make for less predictable games. And that can be fun too. If you get someone rated 1570? and they have only played 1 game, well that's a real wild card.
Do you end up waiting a lot to get 2300+ games?
Yeah, the higher the rating range you select, the longer you have to wait.
You really can't expect a 1700 rated player to know he should team with you. If he knew that he probably wouldn't be 1700.
I'm 1700 and do cooperate. and i see 1500s cooperating with me
I'm not even sure, if there's a connection with how highly you're rated and how much you co-operate. I've seen many 2200+ and 2300+ players, who don't co-operate at all with each other. I played aginst a 2900+ player, who only plays 2100+ games, and don't co-operate in them at all.
I've completely quit playing random rating games. The current only solution, I'm using right now, is to only play standard FFA games that are at least 2300+ rated, anything below, means I could run into bad opposites, who don't co-operate.
That's a good strategy for anyone who is going to get upset if someone doesn't team. Not setting limits can make for less predictable games. And that can be fun too. If you get someone rated 1570? and they have only played 1 game, well that's a real wild card.
Do you end up waiting a lot to get 2300+ games?
Yeah, the higher the rating range you select, the longer you have to wait.
At what rating should you start playing games with a minimum rating?
That's up to you. Once you reach 2500, you won't get a lot of points by playing random rating games, maybe only 1 or 2 points for winning against 3 players rated lower than 2000, and you won't learn a lot or become a much better player by playing those games. They will be cheap points though, because players rated lower than 2000 make a lot of mistakes, but you could even lose some of the games and lose a lot of points because an opposite messed up your games, even though you didn't play that bad. So I would be very cautious before playing offensively and teaming up with an opposite in those games, and be aware that you can often get attacked by the opposite and lose a lot of points for getting 4th place.
I would say it would be a good idea for anyone rated higher than 2300 to play games with a minimum rating. You can play games rated lower than 2300+ and get more points than random rating games, but don't expect to get a lot of good opposites.
I would be cautious before I team up with someone in a game that isn't rated at least 2300+. Look at their opening, and see if they're playing defensively or offensively. That might be a hint. If they make many reckless mistakes in the opening, or they're only moving one pawn to get another queen in the opening, then that's definitely a hint that it's a noob playing. I wouldn't team up with those players.
4|0 FFA 1800+ has better cooperation than 1|15D 2300+
1900s cooperate in 1/2 FFA
lmao
I would say it would be a good idea for anyone rated higher than 2300 to play games with a minimum rating.
Absolutely. Under 2250/2350, even 2400 now, you may easily have a player in front (either lacking experience or intelligence) who will ignore totally the FFA basics <https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects>; and who is able not only to fail to cooperate (or to save you when needed), but also to attack you making you 4th. And in this case you lose a lot if your rating is 2500+.
You lose a lot of points, especially if you're highly rated, and in this game all 3 players teamed up against me, and as a result I finished 4th and lost 73 points. The opposite player played absolutely terrible and didn't make a single attempt to co-operate with me. I didn't attack or take a single one of his pieces throughout the whole game, yet he attacked me. https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=10295397
He kept moving his pawn in the opening, thinking it would give him an advantage, and he would win the game by already having 2 queens that early in the game and not developing any other pieces, but it is a very bad idea to only move one pawn to get another queen in the opening. Having 2 queens in the beginning doesn't make you any stronger. It only makes you weaker.
Another problem there is in the standard FFA mode of 4PC is, as I've said earlier in my topics, that you can't customize your games and select when you are allowed to attack an opposite. You should be allowed to select if it's at the 4 player, 3 player, or 2 player stage because it often gets confusing, especially when you play 2000+ and unknown rating standard FFA games, where you could get attacked by everybody. In this game I was attacked by my opposite during the 4 player stage, and he didn't co-operate with me a single time. I'm pretty sure if it was a 2500+ game, that would never have been the case.
I think there should also be an option to blacklist players from being your opposite, so you will never get them as your opposite player again, if they played very bad. Often when an opposite player plays extremely bad and the 2 other players on the left and right co-operate, it affects your own result, and I don't want some noob opposite to affect my results in a game. There should also be an option to invite a player to be your opposite in an FFA game.