Thoughts about possible anti-teaming solutions

First  of all, please look at game https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=407545

In short: Yellow and Red checkmated Green together, and after that Red didn't capture yellow queen. That signed their teaming contract. Right after that Yellow could checkmate Red in 1 move (and Yellow is a 1700+ player, who has definitely seen that checkmate), but he didn't.

23rd move: rook to k1 #.

That checkmate was the best possible move for Yellow in that position, it guaranteed the 1st place for Yellow and the 2nd for Blue. But Yellow is in a team with Red (in Solo Play?!), and as a teammate he feels that he must help Red become the 2nd. So, instead of checkmating Red in 1 move right now, or in 2-3 moves later, he starts a long attack against Blue together with Red, and at the end of the game resigns to gift Red +20.
(You can see more details and a screenshot at https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/lets-compromise-conversations-with-dogmanstar7-yalin-hest1805-oleg-and-claudius-2018-11-04 ). 

Lots of anti-teaming solutions were proposed on this forum during the last couple of weeks. They all have some advantages and disadvantages. And the main idea is: Let's make teaming unprofitable and it will stop teamers.

As a result we see ideas like:
1. Let's make an assisted checkmate +10 (not +20).
2. Let's give 0 points for pieces captured when the piece owner in is check.
3. Let's give double points for capturing pieces of your opposite.
4.-10. etc.

They all sounds reasonable. But they suppose that teamers tend to make profitable (and/or best) moves in their own interest.

Now look at the game above. Did Yellow make the best, rational moves? No, he did not. He did the moves that secure the 1st place for him and 2nd for his partner. He thought about his own profit also, of course, but as a caring partner, he also thought about Red's profit.

And this is what really must be solved. In Solo Play (FFA) everyone must care about his own profit only.

But how can they care about their own profit when they have obligations and must repay to partners for their help? That means we should make help and/or repayment unprofitable (or restricted).

We should create a contradiction between players so they feel they are opponents, not teammates.

And one of the most obvious ways is to let only 1 player to win. If Yellow cannot repay Red, then why Red will help Yellow checkmate Green? If Yellow wins and all 3 other player lose, then teamers cannot guarantee the 2nd place to their partners.

This idea was proposed many times. For example, recently at https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ffa-ratings-like-risk-on-gambit-com Also there is a brave and creative idea in https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/another-idea-for-non-teaming-gameplay-2018-11-03

I know that "The Winner Takes It All", "The Last Man Standing" and "Rating like in RISK game" are incomplete and may have some negative consequences like "more passive/defensive play", "longer games", "self-destruction", etc. But I believe they can be improved and polished to a usable state. There is a strong anti-teaming potential (look above).

As I said in https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ffa-ratings-like-risk-on-gambit-com , I don't like the change of a "casual game, 2 winners" to a "highly competitive, 1 winner only" variation. But other solutions do not solve the teaming problem.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Is it possible to have 2 winners (2 players getting + to their rating after a Solo Play game) and at the same time make teaming unprofitable?

You failed to also mention the gifted Rook at the end of the game.  Blue and Red are tied at 24 and Yellow can't resign or they both get second.  This is what I would consider aggressive teaming. 

Although the players did not start this game with my suggested King's worth only 5 points, watch what happens if we just change that simple rule.

On the first checkmate by Yellow the score would've been Y18-G7-B16-R14.  

One move before Blue gets mated the score is Y20-B24-G7-R24.

After the mate it is Y25-G7-B24-R24. 

Now some will immediately say but they will still get 1st and 2nd.  Remember they did not go into the game knowing this system so the flow of the game probably would've been much different.  

At least players have a chance against even aggressive teaming under this system.  Also let's say they knew going in how it was scored now they have to really fight to the end instead of a quick gifted Rook and a Claim win.

@BroncoB I think that every time you are referring to your suggestion, you should link to it. Linking is not an act of self-promotion, but a way to funnel the discussion of each idea in a single place. Discussing all ideas everywhere in parallel will not help much.

It seems to me like to only natural solution to collusion in FFA  is to try a winner take all rating format.  It might lead to passive play,  but passive play will always be the only way to win without any sort of collaboration  since we will  never get around the fact that as good as a player may be,  he will never be stronger than 3 other players together. And we will never get around the fact that our opposite is our natural ally.

In a winner take-all format,   collaboration will still be needed with your opposite, getting rid of a flank player first will also be the proper way to proceed.  But it will have to be done in a more balanced way.

And once only 3 players are left,  the games will become much more interesting. alliances will form and disolve every time a player's position becomes stronger than the others'.

I think this is  what should be tried.

giving double points for capturing pieces from opposite is an intresting idea, but it would lead to some impossible dilemmas and some unsolvable problems  The fear of any coordination with your opposite would make it hard to do anything.  Also,  at which point in the game does the 'double points for capturing opposite pieces stop?   Once a player is eliminated?  In the 3 player phase of the game the opposite is not necessarly your strategical ally anymore.  But sometimes yes. How would that be reflected in the points counting?  If you wait untill  only 2 players are left to make it so opposite pieces are worth the same, you would end up in situations where  your opposite is not your ally at all anymore,  yet his pieces are still worth more points.  But  if you stop it after the first player is eliminated, then nothing has changes in this part of the game and teaming will still go on.   Also,  once a player is eliminated,  opposites would be incentivised to just trade off pieces with each others and then resign to finish 1-2. 

And the other ideas  '' 0 points for pieces captured when the piece owner in is check''   dont make sens.   I would feel incentivized to team even more with my opposite to destroy a flank player with this rule , since after I check my flank player,  my opposite wouldn't be gaining free points through the process of attacking him.

Same problem with giving less points for an 'assisted mate'.   That would make me care even less about allowing my opposite to get a free mate.  Assisted mates  would need to be worth more points than non assisted mates in order to discourage teaming.

So no,   I don't think there is a way to have  2 winners while simulteanously making teaming unprofitable.

I would like to pinpoint that this @Bill13Cooper is the same @Bill13Cooper with the other @Bill13Cooper who introduced the "one winner only" suggestion, and after some discussion called for striking the idea because «it would lead to passive boring games».

We should try the winner only rating solution as it is by far the simplest one. Nothing changes in the game besides the way ratings are calculated...

What would be nice is if we could find a way to incentivise aggressive play withing a winner take all format.  Any ideas?

The anonimity  idea  has merti also.   It seems that a lot of players have friends and make decisions based on knowing this particular player likes them,  and because they  hate a particular player.

I dont like anonymity...   But that might be the solution to eliminate the ugliest aspects of teaming.

A take on the one winner suggestion: if opposites get 1st and 2nd, the player finishing 2nd gets no rating points.

There are issues with this, obviously,but it should kill permanent teaming at least.

 1st point not bad. But i don't like 2nd and 3rd point....this change maybe not good for player interest

> You failed to also mention the gifted Rook at the end of the game.  Blue and Red are tied at 24 and Yellow can't resign or they both get second.  This is what I would consider aggressive teaming. 

Yellow could resign without gifting that rook. They had: 24 24 55 7. If Yellow resigns at that moment, +20 adds to Red's points and it would be: 44 24 55 7. Red is the 2nd. No tie.

That is why I didn't mention that gifted rook. It didn't change the standings. They could finish the game earlier.

But that 32rd Yellow's move when he gifts the rook looks amazing! He could capture red rook and check Red. Then Red could capture yellow rook and get +5. But no! Teamers avoid checking their partners at all costs. Looks like it is against their Pirate Code . Hilarious!

pre team before match with friend  can be easily solved just keep the name anonymously and just rank  and color will be shown. so right now team with friend is done with rank filter and little lucky so they will be not sure that my partner is in these game or not   and while talking in chat if any color is sayed in the chat should be converted into **** like it is done for abuse word 

hidden name will be opened after the player die or game over 

something like on spot teaming just see the position that he is not attacking at me or kinda gaveing hint on chat like  (lets pair it would OK for me on 2nd)  that is something to be consider 

Developing skills like this could be essential for making it to the leaderboard of a hypothetical "Free for Teams" variant. Chess skills alone wouldn't be enough to reach anywhere near there.

@BabYagun  Thanks, I got to get better at proofreading.  Dumb mistake like the ones I make in this game.

1. Let's make an assisted checkmate +10 (not +20).

I assume a "non-assisted checkmate" means it would still be checkmate without the help of anyone else's pieces.

Stealing mates has always been a huge part of FFA, and I tend to wanting to keep it that way. It would change the game quite significantly i think. There is much less incentive to sack your Queen for a mate for example. This does seem like a good attempt to disincentivize teaming/cooperating in general. As it's much harder to mate someone without any help, perhaps such a "solo mate" should be worth 30? (except when only 2 remain. or 40 for a solo mate while all 4 remain?)

2. Let's give 0 points for pieces captured when the piece owner in is check.

Intersting idea. Will it make the game more fun? or less, or same? I'd have to think about it more or try it before I can say if i like it.

3. Let's give double points for capturing pieces of your opposite.

ADD: same for mating opposite.

ADD: only applies until 1st player eliminated.

While teaming may remain the best strategy, it should at least make it a bit harder. As long as it doesn't change the game much otherwise, i'd expect it is a welcome change. That said, perhaps Bill is right and the teaming problems can't be solved with points, only with rating. I'm not sure.

Why can't we run some test games with the King valued at only 5 points?  Or is it already available and no one liked it?  Then I can at least move on lol. 

broncoB checkmate is much harder  then capture  pieces gave 5 point for just checkmate who will wanted work so hard for checkmate 5 point =_=

I think being able to play for second or third is something that really discourages resignation. I'm afraid that when people no longer have chance to play for first, they would either resign or start making suicidal moves to screw one of the remaining players. Their moves can no longer be made within their own interest if they have no chance to win.

@Martin0, yes, we discussed a possibility of self-destructing (suicidal) moves in https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ffa-ratings-like-risk-on-gambit-com 

But we don't know if it is really going to happen (more often than now). Also you tell: 1) either resign or 2) start making suicidal moves. These 2 ways are quite opposite. One is passive, another is active and aggressive. Do you think they both will increase at the same time?

What if we will give 0 for the 2nd place? So, the winner takes a big "+", 2nd 0, 3rd and 4th get "-".

If players will team up, one of them is going to get 0. Is it still a good reason to team up? Is it enough to calm down those early resigners and self-destructors?

How about: the game ends when the 2nd player is eliminated? no more 1 vs 1, more like auto-claim. haven't thought of how exaclty..

@_-__-__-___-, I have this idea in my list for a month or two, and I thought about it: "The game ends once 2 kings left the board (were checkmated or captured)." First I thought it is a brilliant idea. Because teamers cannot feed one another with points. But it doesn't solve the teaming problem at all. They will still be the 1st and the 2nd and get + to their rating. Just look at 4 teaming games I showed in other thread and you'll see that nothing will change.

Game number | Points after 2nd checkmate (or king capture):
404066 | 23 32 0 46 (Blue and Green are teamers and they would win anyway)
379049 | 28 65 12 32 (Blue and Green are teamers and they would win anyway)
399006 | 16 44 15 55 (Blue and Green are teamers and they would win anyway)
407545 | 24 24 55 7 (Yellow and Green are teamers)

Only in 4th game the 2nd player would tie with 3rd (24 24), but (!!!) it is only if teamers don't know about the new rule  In other case Yellow would gift a pawn/rook to Red before checkmating Blue and they'd still win.

So, this idea doesn't prevent teaming, unfortunately.