Thoughts about possible anti-teaming solutions

With the current board layout, starting position, and rules on standings and points, the name of the game is: who is the stronger team of opposites. it's pretty close to a teams game, because the odds to win when you become the middle player 3-way are so slim. You can't afford to lose your opposite.

0 points for kings? fine. But it seems it won't change anything in this regard.

Are we sure winner takes all will change this?

The current ffa rules and mechanics don't take relative seating into account, nor how many players are left.

We could build a wall only knights can jump over to prevent sides from clashing early.
We could change the starting position, scramble the pieces in a way that no two players are natural allies.
We could morph the position onto a 3player chess board when 1st player is out (except we can't..)
We could let the middle player move twice every third turn.
 
Being a game of points, you need points to win, and not necessarily a winning position. You don't een have to be alive. This provides a lot of flexibility. We could change how points are earned.

Re:  comment #41

But it seems it won't change anything in this regard.

Please all I ask is that you share the data that supports this statement.

In the game where Hest commented on, he would've tied for 2nd.  Click here and see comment #14  Because I think a normal player who has the game won AND his opposite is guaranteed 2nd  just resigns and moves on.  It does change something!

Re: comment #40 

It may but wasn't that only valid until 1 person gets eliminated?  Players are really set in their ways right now. Whatever changes are made maybe should be incremental.  The affect of a rule change that effects the score relates to so many things.  How would you know what caused what if several rule changes are implemented at the same time? 

Re: comment #41

Please read my new comment #16 here

> In the game where Hest commented on, he would've tied for 2nd.

Again... Players would make different moves in that game. Different rules => different moves.

> One game analysis?!?!

Even if 1000 games. See above.

Like I said I'm going all in.  First you see if the games as they are played NOW could possibly have a different result on teaming.  Then you see if people may have played differently.

That's what you want!  Can 2 people gain points and make teaming less profitable.  The answer may be staring right at you.  Please look at my comment #45 above.  Did you even look at that link?

A thought about the ongoing quest for the perfect anti-teaming solution: it could actually make the problem worse by providing a justification for teaming. A teamer could argue like this: Some time ago teaming was a controversial practice, but not any more. Now the rules of the game have been carefully adjusted to make teaming a non-optimal strategy. So under the new rules everyone should be free to practice teaming, if it fits his style of play. No accusations about unfairness or bad sportsmanship should be allowed any more.

Yes, and if it fits his style of play and he finds that 1st and 2nd are harder to come by with that strategy guess what happens?  He changes his style of play because he is a competitor, winning and or gaining positive points is his goal.

Which is why teaming to the end caught on (along with the value of the King btw).

Players saw that strategy as the optimal way to gain points.

@BroncoB so you feel confident that you have a 25% chance for the first place, playing solo a 5-point-king variant against three equally rated opponents, provided that two of them are teamers who trust 100% each other?

@Skeftomilos It's not about me.  It's about the thousands of people who play this game now and in the future.  This isn't debate club.

@BroncoB I'll answer the question myself then. My estimation about my chances beating two teamers in a 5-point-king variant is slightly above 0%. My hopes will be on a someone of them getting disconnected, or distracted by an urgent phone call, or fallen asleep, or similar things.

@skeftomilos

I wish that people would not look at the messenger but laser focus on the message.  I've asked those, what few there are to look into their games and others games.  Do they see what I'm seeing if not show me if so show me.  I have asked legitimate questions to the admins in various threads but when they respond the questions are not answered.  They focus on something else or ask me a question.  That's just frustrating.  I'm not the enemy.  I'm trying to help the team (wrong word choice I know).

@BroncoB you are not the only one who is frustrated because his questions are not answered. I have the same problem too. See my question above (#50).

@Skeftomilos If only you would practice what you preach.  That would be a beautiful thing.

And now, just as it has happened in so many other threads you get fixated on debating someone about one of your logical fallacies. The topic is Thoughts about possible anti-teaming solutions. 

“Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty” Niccolò Machiavelli

If admins do not spend noticeable amount of time to check someone's idea, it does not mean the author of that idea is someone's (admins'? community's?) enemy. It means either 1) that admins do not have time, 2) or the idea is not going to solve a high priority task.

All enemies of this community are banned.

What if pawn promotion will have its price? If a player promotes a pawn to 1 point queen, he pays 8 points from his account balance. If he promotes a pawn to rook, he pays 4 points.

To promote or not to promote that is the question!

What do you think?

If yes, then 1 more question should be answered: What if a player does not have 8 points yet? Will we make his account balance negative? Or not allow to promote to queen?

@BabYagun Ouaou! This is a fascinating idea! It has nothing to do with the current discussion thought. I think it deserves its own thread.

Ok, moved in to a new topic: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/paid-promotion-and-underpromotion