Yes it's absolutely true. That's why I hate playing with opps under 2000 as they tend to be unpredictable. I mean, if I adapt and play as if they were to attack me at any moment, I'll fail to develop AND they're eliminated and I'm easily 3rd or 2nd. Therefore one has to take risks assuming that they will play correctly, or stop playing at all with low ratings. I dropped something like 200 points in 2 weeks just because I stopped to avoid low-level games (yes, from 2180 to 1980 approx.), just because I was fed up waiting for a long time before having a game. And in fact I was wrong.
To betray too early means 3rd place in 95% of cases
Sort:
And again and again...
Even players having 2000-2050 sometimes don't understand it. Here the guy betrays stupidly, kills the opp, and becomes 3rd just 1 min. (!) later:
https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4248327
That's why playing with players under 2200 is often unpleasant, you either play AS IF they were to betray early (and thus sacrifice your development basically, and thus help tremendously your sides if THEY play normally and cooperate), or you take risks and play normally, and thus finish 4th often because of an incompetent idiot in front. Lottery.
Emociones, solo emociones... Lo que sé es que aun no entiendes mucho el juego en modo FFA. Y bloquear a la gente es segno de jugadores debiles. Nunca seras a 2200 se no entiendes algunas cosas basicas.
Jairo, sinceramente tus lecciones morales no me interesan mucho. Al menos me das ocasion para praticar mi (tan perfeccionable) espanol un poco y para eso te agradezco.
Claro que para algunos aspectos tienes razon. Pero la fuerza del tu discorso falta de conviccion porque estas criticando a alguien y al mismo tiempo estas TU culpable de la misma cosa, por ejemplo dices que profiero insultas (si probablemente es verdad) pero TU tambien haces muchas, y eso remueve toda legitimidad para hablar de eso (non solo "en el fuego de la accion", en el chat de un juego, pero mismo aqui en el forum, y todos pueden verlo y juzgar ellos mismos).
Puedo anadir que es matematicamente ridiculo hacer conclusiones despues de 3-4 ocasiones, del punto de vista estatistico es absolutamente estupido. Y tu desgraciadamente lo haces. Solo hemos jugado contigo 3-4 veces, eres furioso despues de UN juego en particular (y me has bloqueado lo que solo jugadores debiles hacen), y sobretodo un juego de una epoca en la qual solo havia 1800 mas o menos (y despues ya estaba muchas veces a los 2150-2250). La verdad es que aun estoy aprendiendo y tambien estas tu, y hacer conclusiones de este tipo es ridiculo.
Una vez (hace aprox. 2 meses) he jugado con un hispanohablante quien estaba mi opuesto. Hemos jugado belisimo, ele termino 1°, yo 2°, rapidamente eliminamos los dos vecinos con una perfecta cooperacion. Era muy profesional. Y despues ele me dice... "No entiendo, como es que jugamos asi contigo, apesar de tu ser un traidor conocido" (?!). Era absolutamente la primera vez que hemos jugado con el y entonces mi senti un poco sorpreso. Y despues ele dijo, "Si, jotahernandezv dice que eres". Era un de tus fans.
He estudiado sociologia y sciencias politicas y entonces ya sé como se hacen reputaciones y cuanto injusto es a veces el juicio de la gente. Pero normalmente un jugador de ajedrez es un poco mas inteligente de la mayoria de la gente, no es?
...and sometimes doing that you even finish 4th, if your opposite becomes too angry...
https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4363422
0
#29
GustavKlimtPaints wrote:
I would say, don't allow mate in one on the board even against your opposite when they are a decent player; it isn't a totally unreasonable strategy to mate an opposite to ensure you are getting 1st-3rd, if it's being offered on a platter (though in this case, it did also depend on blue taking away the flight square, and no pts. for opp.). Also, don't hang your queen to a 2000 opposite, especially when you are threatening their rook, they will just not know how to interpret that : )
I mated someone only to find that I got mated myself!
0
#31
https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4750118 blue had 10 moves to take green's queen WHY NOT TAKE???
JB, a) I agree that being 3rd is not a catastrophe in terms of points; but in fact attacking in front early is much likelier to give you 3rd or 2nd (and sometimes even 4th) than 1st, and that was my point. It is not a winning strategy statistically.
b) I agree with you about 2200+ (rather than 2400+) and about the grey zone; like Gustav wrote above, there are drunk generals sometimes... That's precisely why I hate playing with ppl under 2200. I don't care to lose because of incompetent idiots, but I hate wasting my time...
c) you will see that it's not about "knowing each other", because even in fully anonymous games beyond some rating hanging queens are legion. Because there are clear 3 stages in a FFA games, and in the 1st stage no serious player would ever weaken the opp.
jb9656 a écrit :
cuber4130 wrote:
https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4750118 blue had 10 moves to take green's queen WHY NOT TAKE???
I've seen this kind of thing too. It must be working- look at the ratings. Makes sense if some teaming is much better than no teaming, why wouldn't absolute teaming be better than some teaming?
I do wonder how often someone does take the free queen. My guess is he only plays that move with 2400+ players or something like that.
I've never ever seen that in normal timed games with ppl above 2200-2250 ; but it does happen indeed in 1/0 or 1/1 games for example IF it's anonymous. BTW that's what makes 1/1 and 2/1 or 3/0 games so interesting for me: much less predictable, and there are much less teaming, especially in Solo.
jb9656 wrote:
The other thing to look at is the game from the point of view of the guy who attacked you. I'm not sure his play was that bad from a statistical stand point. I agree it made his chances of winning go way down. But the only 2 places that really matter are 1st and 4th. You want to win every game and you want to not get 4th every game. So you kind of have to weigh things. (hard to say in that game as it was sooo early in the game.) But I have seen many games where one guy is going down and the guy across from him finally joins in on the attack. I think that is pretty smart. There are many games where one guy gets taken out but ends up getting a bunch of points by trading pieces.After he is gone the 2 guys that killed him look at the other guy sitting with 0 points and all his pieces and go after him and he ends up in 4th. My point is avoiding 4th is the second highest concern in FFA. Who cares about 2nd or 3rd.
The importance of 1st and 4th (with 2nd being slight positive-neutral) is a big contributor to the teaming you see in ffa. Working with your opposite to eliminate a side player further increase your chances of winning, you only have one side player left and have one whole flank open to promote pawns / stash king. It also eliminates the chance of one getting 4th. The thing is if you dont work with your opposite, you have no control as one cannot defend team esque attacks, no matter how solid you play. So avoiding 4th is best done by playing like teams. I would agree that if the opposite has a chance to checkmate in 1, they should take it in most cases, as it eliminates the chance for 4th and gives them a solid chance at 1st, assuming the flank players are not one of the "team forever "people.
Doing things like taking your opposites queen also makes one a target, since of the two side players the guy with the queen is more threatening. There also is a kind of "code of honor", so as to punish players who try to play for 3rd by betraying opposite, since nobody likes to be have them as an opposite, so many players will target someone who does such a thing, rather than the player who lost material to their opposite. Even if they eliminate your opposite first, your winning chances definitely go down quite a bit (although if betraying opposite meant you had a free pass into 3p stage you would see everyone do it, fact of the matter it isnt).
EDIT: Forgot to say that this aspect of the rating system is why many players (including myself), prefer solo and would either like it to replace ffa, or make ffa solo either via a slow transition with rating, or a certain rating threshold where ffa becomes solo directly. In solo it is +3 -1 -1 -1 (although +4 -1 -1 -2 exists too) which discourages teaming because 4th doesnt matter at all. It is still good to work with opposite, but not to the same extent. I think the +4 -1 -1 -2 went out of fashion because the importance of not getting 4th was still there, which promotes some level of teaming as it is again mutually beneficial to do so for both preventing 4th and improving winning chances.
Indipendenza wrote:
jb9656 to écrit:
cuber4130 wrote:
I've seen this kind of thing too. It must be working- look at the ratings. Makes sense if some teaming is much better than no teaming, why wouldn't absolute teaming be better than some teaming?
I do wonder how often someone does take the free queen. My guess is he only plays that move with 2400+ players or something like that.
I've never ever seen that in normal timed games with ppl above 2200-2250; but it does happen indeed in 1/0 or 1/1 games for example IF it's anonymous. BTW that's what makes 1/1 and 2/1 or 3/0 games so interesting for me: much less predictable, and there are much less teaming, especially in Solo.
Im pretty sure this is just because with such fast time controls it is about playing moves fast, so players stick to safer moves and dont want the complications of teams. I think the "problem" with some of these faster time controls is they just heavily promote turtling into trying to flag or blunders (from being low on time). Its also less likely that your opposite will see the same combination you see, which makes cooperation a lot more difficult and risky.
100% agree with your analysis, Daniel. That's why I suggested to re-merge Solo and FFA:
- either by reversing to the 2018 situation (FFA under some level, WTA above, it used to be 1550 = 1850 today, but I would suggest 2000 instead as threshold: if all players are above, it's automatically WTA),
- or by making it for all: +4 -0.5 -1.5 -2, like that there are no more incentive to play for 2nd, you are here to win; BUT it's still better to be 2nd than 3rd or 4th (so it's different both from current Solo and current FFA).
jb9656 a écrit :
I bet it's a lot easier to climb the ratings once you are over 2600 because you can play games with guys like you and completly depend on smart moves. "teaming moves".
I don't think so, as the cost of mistakes (that we all do, or at least I do, a lot) is much higher, it's merciless 
and those are always seen and always profited of.
And I agree with you, when playing with players of the grey zone (that I estimate to be about 1900-2100), we can never rely totally on their vision and "optimal" play.
jb9656 wrote:
man oh man do people get mad at you if you betray early. I lost my last game and the guy across from me starts calling me all kinds of names. I get you can be mad but it's a game called free for all. You can't really call someone "fucking retarded" because they took your rook or something. Jeez, if I'm so "fucking retarded" how are you only 100 points better than me?
Such behaviour (the name calling, insults), is totally unacceptable. I would keep in mind that a lot of people who play chess are kids/teenagers, so the maturity levels may not be there (although it doesnt excuse such behaviour). I would try to ignore it.
jb9656 a écrit :
I think you should rethink the idea that teaming is always in everyones best interest. A good player will consider what is best for him at each move. Sure most of the time it will be to team, but not always. Can't really get mad at someone for not teaming in a game called free for all.
OMG. I've NEVER EVER said the teaming would be always the best thing to do.
FFA consists of 3 (three) clear stages, 4, 3 and 2 players. Not to cooperate in the 1st stage is counterproductive. Whereas in the 2nd stage (that Sigma thread covers pretty well, cf. https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/1-15-ffa-2000-tutorial-balance-in-the-3-player-stage) it depends totally on the material, timing, points, level, psychological factors, etc. And as for the 3rd stage, it's clear I suppose
0
#40
jb9656 wrote:
man oh man do people get mad at you if you betray early. I lost my last game and the guy across from me starts calling me all kinds of names. I get you can be mad but it's a game called free for all. You can't really call someone "fucking retarded" because they took your rook or something. Jeez, if I'm so "fucking retarded" how are you only 100 points better than me?
LINK?
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I mean the guy pushed his rook pawn for 4 moves and then you expect some sort of high level strategy against the side player? Get real : )
One of the skills in FFA is gauging how your opposite will play and you definitely had pretty good indication based on green's first 4 moves...it's on you that you didn't read him correctly based on that (the general was pretty drunk this day as in my previous post)