To betray too early means 3rd place in 95% of cases

And another idiot, oh sorry "drunk general" thank you Gustav...

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4817473

Managed to finish 2nd, but of course didn't win.

So even with 2181 (!) some people don't know that to weaken the opp during the 1st stage of FFA is just stupid.

any games where somebody got 1st by weakening his opposite?

Yes, there ARE some, but in the vast majority of cases it's when ppl are under 1900 points.

For the 1st time I see it in a 2250+ game as well. Just because the guy didn't like my opening. Of course he finished 2nd, one very seldom wins by attacking in front first.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5010223

And another rare case with a guy having 2225 FFA who attacks in front; and finishes of course 4th. Some people are definitely strange.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5142050

And in the really rare case where somebody DOES get 1st in 2250+ games he is only exceptionally lucky.

And another imbecile who attacks in front and finishes 3rd.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5315093

I don't care to lose, but I hate wasting time. Such idiots kill the game for themselves and their opp, and steal your time and good temper. It makes boring and tasteless games. 

JB, no, not "after they beat <me>" because the ones I speak about DO NOT, it's rather "after they kill the game making themselves and their opp lose", because it's clearly counterproductive to attack in front, and not even 5% of people who did that to me eventually won.

In addition, please first reach 2400 and then speak.

Yes, right now I'm just 2184 which is in fact 5 pts above of your rating but who cares, as I  was 2400 just two weeks ago, much higher than you now, and shall be there back in less than 10 days; and I dropped that much PRECISELY because of the idiots (the phenomenon is easy to understand: higher you are, much unlikelier it is to play with incompetent people and it's extremely seldom to see a 2200+ to attack the opposite player in the 1st stage, unless he's dying anyway next move, and that's normal and acceptable ; then you drop -20, 25, 30 because of that and you're obliged to play less rated games where such behaviours are more and more likely to be seen, etc. and you drop even lower; I lost something like 200 pts over 2 weeks because of that and maybe only 50-100 pts because of my own blunders and mistakes and misjudgments. And yes that creates some anger and frustration because lower is your rating, less interesting become games and you're wasting time, and this explains maybe why I'm sometimes much less polite than I tend to be in real life. You're right, I have to be less emotional about that, but yes the fact that idiots exist (and even are terribly numerous) is extremely disappointing for this planet.

Look, you cannot just blame your opponents for the result of the game. Its starting to sound like you think that the result of the game is decided by who you get as your opposite. Everybody agrees its better to have a cooperative opposite, but you are blowing this out of proportion. It might be helpful to take a look at your play as well. The game you linked was not decided by a poor opposite and coordinated flank players, at all! I decided to check the last 4 games that were posted. None of them were decided because of poor opposite and coordinated flank players. I would not be surprised if I went further back this would still continue to be the case. If you want to just vent, I get it, but if you want to improve, its not your opponents who have to change, but you.

In the last posted game, you 1) did not play the early game in any sort of cooperation/teaming fashion, so you shouldnt expect help from your opposite. 2) Going for the early pawn push is not solid and often very risky, although here you were ignored so you got into a commanding position. The flank players were not playing it like teams either, so you were in a superb position. But the problem is that you were not solid, and in 4p chess, when it rains, it pours. This is a reoccurring theme in your games, you do not effectively solidify your position and your king isnt well protected. You cant expect your opposite to bail you out if you play like this. For some more concrete evidence, consider the 3rd most recent game, the only one of the 4 where the flank players were playing teams style/coordinated. You lost this game because you left your king exposed, castling was a big blunder, and in general you should have focused on getting pieces to cover your king. Your opposite was actually playing the teams openings, and you were not (relatively passive set up too boot). Red even mentions this after the game, although you are not receptive.

You cant have it both ways (expect opposite to work with you and/or help you out, but not reciprocate). This is a reoccurring theme, it shows up in the other 3 games as well. 

The fact you were 2400 for a time doesnt give you a license to demean other players, or say that their play/views are worthless/bad. Someone 1900-2000+ definitely is experienced enough and is entitled to express an opinion, nobody should just shut them down because of their rating. 

The fact you tanked in rating should be a good sign that you are doing something wrong, it isnt your opponents or opposites. When you look to the games you post (and I assume similar themes are present in the ones that arent), this is backed up. Even in the worst case scenario- teams openings from flanks, turtle opposite, you at worst have 50% chance of 4th (in practice its much better). You dont get 4th because of bad opposites. At the lower rating levels, it also means bad flanks, so you wont get massacred in the early-midgame as you might at very high rating levels (with teams openings). What does get you 4th is risky and unsolid play.

So in my view, you should stop blaming things you have no control over, and fix what you can change- which may well be the root cause of your struggles. 

Daniel,

thank you for your detailed reaction.

a) I've never said the way I play is perfect or whatever, I am still learning. My point was that to attack or to weaken the opp during the 1st stage FFA is counterproductive and stupid. And YES the result in 4p chess depends a lot on whom you have in front, and being 2374 FFA with 3949 games played so far you know that.

b) I definitely don't agree with your 1) because you do not need to open teamlike (I am very inexperienced in Teams anyway) in order to expect the opp to cooperate, and anyway I was not speaking about HELP really, but much more about the fact that people sometimes ATTACK you.

c) early pawn push: it's not what I usually do, even if it happens sometimes in Solo. In FFA I only do it depending on conditions.

d) I fully agree about the defense and YES I have to work on that, absolutely.

e) I haven't said that 2400 gives any right, and anyway it's far from being a lot. I said that when speaking about cooperation/3 FFA stages/"teaming", etc. you need to be at least 2200 in order to speak (and I've seen something like 50 topics made by 1700-1900 players saying "such a scandale, they teamed on me, it should be forbidden, etc.").

f) you are right on many things anyway; I was simply expressing some frustration because in normal chess you depend only on YOU, here it's much trickier. And when I was playing in 2300+ games, some issues never happened so it allowed to have interesting games. Whereas once I dropped, and reached back what I call the "grey zone" (with many "drunk generals", to you Klimt nice expression), it generated a lot of frustration because I forgot how it was, to play with incompetent people. I mean, I prefer to lose and be 4th with smart players around, rather than finding myself 4th just because the opp was an incompetent idiot. (And I easily pardon to those who have done under 1000 games, because I also played like that in the beginning, of course; the problem is that some of them have done 2000-3000 games...).

And OF COURSE the problem is not external, it's due to me: if I hadn't dropped recently 250 pts, I wouldn't have been exposed to such opps'. But I know that once I'm back to 2400 (and I'm working on that, patiently), the problem will be solved. (But many new ones will appear).

Kind of general law. You attack in front in the 1st stage FFA? You are an inexperienced idiot and you finish 3rd. Sad for the unlucky guy in front.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5459789

To weaken, to attack, to kill, to fail to protect/save the opp in the 1st stage FFA (4 players) is utterly counterproductive. One doesn't win like that.

Blue played it poorly, but I would have tried to mate you too. You are totally dead, their is nothing to protect or save. When your opposite self destructs and the side players are getting points, you should try to benefit from it off possible as well.

Daniel, I agree that if he's anyway dying, it is normal to kill the opp and to avoid the 20 pts go to the flanks. Clear.

The problem is to have failed to react early enough in order to avoid such a situation; when there is a vigorous joint attack from the flanks on your opp, you have to help, everything else is counterproductive and prevents you from winning 100%.

There was nothing to be done because you jeopardized your position so quickly and thoroughly. 

Daniel, I certainly played badly. But my point was elsewhere. 

From move 7 exactly it became 100% clear that RY were attacking me jointly. (And it's normal, no problem). And I was checkmated move 26. I.e. during 18 moves (!!!) blue does... nothing but disorderly moves, checks me move 15, showing that it would be 3 vs. 1. His move 17 is total nonsense, a blunder (and red doesn't even eat the free Q, another blunder).

So I'm curious why you defend his style, as in fact not only he fails to help (whereas everything was clear from move 7), but he even attacks in front. It's easy to say to someone that he jeopardised his position, but I wonder what I was supposed to do after move 7, in your mind. I resisted trying to survive, but against 3 enemies nobody can.

(And once again, it's FFA, so no problem; but my main point that I don't think to be questionable is that to attack in front in the 1st stage FFA is just silly and counterproductive, yoy don't win like that).

Kind of general law... https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=7180978, again and again to betray in the 1st stage FFA doesn't pay.

https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=7298373-120 I WON mating my opposite

IT'S NOT AT ALL THE SAME CASE!

It was stage 2, not 1 !

I've never ever said you had to stay allied until end. LOL.

The point was ONLY about the 1st stage of FFA (from 3).

In addition, your play was bullet. I spoke much more about normal games.