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

why is this 'opp thing' doesn't apply in solo? HOw to play solo

If your opposite is bad you should attack them since the side players will tend to attack them too, also will weaken them.

In that game, look at what your opposite said about hiding your queen.

He only got 3rd because he blundered mate, otherwise he was fine.

It does apply, just less so. Neo serbian was asked about this and he said that the full on teams openings happens sometimes and happens not. He said the last solo w4pcc had some games full on teams, some not.

The big difference in solo is that 4th is the same as 2nd and 3rd, so eliminating a player isnt as important.

It DOES apply in Solo, but to lesser extent. And depends quite a lot on the level of the players. 

Indipendenza I would recommend that you closely study your own game and work on improving that first.

Yep absolutely Radon, you are right of course; but the issue is that being 2777, you haven't personally experienced a lot of such occurrences for months certainly. Because indeed in no 2500+ games we ever see that sh...t. And therefore yes you do not feel the importance of the point. (When I was 2550 for some time, I didn't see a lot of that neither...). So yes you're definitely right, I should just strive to get back to the normal players' group. 

(But I still believe that some could progress thanks to such threads as their attention could be attracted to the fact that to attack in front is counterproductive in the 1st stage FFA).

Agreed that I experience less of it however playing the 20 required solo games im pretty sure my brain is bleeding from the incompetence shown so I understand from that point of view. The key takeaway should be what you said, IN GENERAL attacking your opposite in the 4pc stage is losing for both your opposite and you.

Yes, me and radon have had to deal with lots of poor players, and had to work ourselves up (multiple times, since sometimes strings of very bad opposites are possible). It was only a little while ago radon was like in the 2400s.

Yes, that's what happens when you're obliged to play with 1800/2100s. They simply ruin games for you and themselves. Whereas 4p chess is beauty and elegance normally. 

(And by impatience I descended from 2500 quite fast because with every game - that I played as if I were with 2400+ players - I lost more and more points, and faster I was descending, more points I was losing and more impatient I was becaming, etc., it was quite stupid whereas I should've been obviously just patient and avoid at any cost games under at least 2300... Now it's been 4-5 months I struggle to get back to the Top 100 elite).

Independenza, in your example game, or 2nd and 3rd move are already quite questionable. If I see that being green, I might play it the same. And it doesn't mean I will end up 3rd either. Your openings must be improved in the first place. 

Also, there is no such thing as betrayal. Again, FFA is not team, there are no written agreements and just like in solo, it's one player against the other 3. No matter which of the other three opponents you attack, this cannot be called betrayal.

Now I think what you mean are more like 2nd place players. or even 3rd place players. Some players would rather settle for 2nd or 3rd rather than play for the win, because they are scared of 4th place. Know that in the long run, these players will reach a limit in player's rating playing that way, but that's part of the game

Magicsteph, a) you're certainly right as for my openings, and I'm working on it, but this thread was not about that, b) what you mention is another issue (and you're right, playing for 2nd is clearly a plague, and I see it every day, and people even recognise it, and it ruins the games, that's especially common in the 2000-2200 range I would say), c) when I speak about "betrayal", OF COURSE it was not from "moral" point of view (and the choice of the word was clearly and voluntarily ironic), but strictly on the basis of the theory of games. I mean, I consider that it is absolutely silly and inappropriate in most of the cases to weaken/attack/kill the opp in the 1st stage of FFA, it is first of all counterproductive and bad for the one who does it. I.e. when I write that one betrays, I mean in fact that he betrays the spirit of the game as he should play to win, and playing against the optimal strategy is betraying the spirit of the game (even if indeed the rules are respected!). 

You strongly believe that if you're opponent is first to go, you might end up 3rd, but it is not true. You're pointing at the spirit of the game and how it should play to win. Once again, it doesn't mean that your direct opponent has to help you, nor that you have to help him. In order to win, you should be able to win alone without anybody's help. Of course, if the right and left player's are "teaming" to bring one player down, it's going to be tough, especially if your direct opponent is also waiting for the "kill", which often happens in blue or green colors, and I understand your point of view, don't get me wrong. But there are ways, techniques, psychology tricks and a large panels of methods to win a game rather than just worry about what your direct opponent will do. I use to be pissed to be blue or green as opposed to be red or yellow in FFA, as I would call the red / yellow color more as the "offensive team", and the blue / green "defensive team" in early game. But it is only virtual, and may last as low as 2 moves, or not exist at all. I see players always blaming their opponents for their loss, blaming "teamers" for their loss, I see much less players blaming themselves for their loss. In fact, you cannot become a better player without blaming yourself first. Any game you lose, replay it, and see what you could have done different. That's the secret. You lost a game, it is 100 % your fault. You lacked something somewhere. Poor position, poor attacking, poor defense, poor game psychology, poor understanding of the game, lack of realization that a player is playing for 2nd place, etc. And also, no matter how good you are, you probably will not win every games, because there are the other player's goal factors in play. But then again, play your best, and if you're last, look again how you could have play better rather than blame someone else's play. There are 100's of way to win, killing your opponent first being one of them, although probable not the most "honorable" when two players are obviously teaming hard to take one player down, and you're just pushing pawns, or moving your rook right and left on the other side, waiting for the "kill". Definitely not my winning strategy, but it exist and you should be aware of it rather than complaining about it

Magicsteph is totally on point. All well said.

I agree with some assertions, but not all. My main point (once again) was NOT about the morality of this or that, but about the clear statistical outcome I've found: it is largely silly to weaken/attack/kill your opp in the 1st stage FFA. I've never said that it is impossible to win afterwards; you may well sometimes, but statistically it is clearly seldom and it is therefore rather bad to "betray". 

As for helping: it is another topic (that is interesting though) and deserves probably a separate thread (whether one SHOULD necessarily cooperate in the 1st stage FFA). But my point was about something slightly different: one should AT LEAST have a non-agression pact with the opp until one of the sides dies, everything else (IMHO) is counterproductive.  

"you should be able to win alone without anybody's help" : I think it is totally false, and that's where 4p chess is much closer to poker than to traditional 2p chess. It's a psychological game, much more than in 2p.

"Of course, if the right and left player's are "teaming" to bring one player down, it's going to be tough" : precisely, but as you know yourself, above 2400 it's automatic, so to play neutrally just trying to assess what their style of possible cooperation could be is simply wasting time.

"Any game you lose, replay it, and see what you could have done different": yes, but. It is 100% true and a good method as for blunders, or combinations we failed to see in time, etc. But it won't help you as for BINARY PSYCHOLOGICAL OPTIONS. I mean, in many cases in 4p chess, (well, not in games under 2200 of course) you have 2 very different options, you do or do not do something, and have to choose (because it's also clear for your opp what you chose... It's not hidden). And you have to take risks, and to bet sometimes on some move from your opp (without being sure he would see it, AND he would decide to play it), etc. And you may replay it 15165 times afterwards, it changes nothing as in the same situation you will still have to decide whether you take risks or not, OR whether you save your opp or not, etc. (for example, how many games have I lost and even finished 4th simply because I sacrificed too much material for my opp', whereas in fact I should've realised slightly earlier that he couldn't be saved anymore and I was jeopardising my own chances), etc. And for such fundamental choices one can't improve: all that is the result of complex human interactions between 4 players, and in addition even with the same players another game with the same situation won't finish the same as people depend also on their current state of mind, weather, temper, stars, etc. 

"lack of realization that a player is playing for 2nd place" : here you raise a very important point (that also would deserve a separate thread). What one should do when you see that? (as usually such a player doing that ruins your chances to win, helping the leader in fact).

Its not statistical evidence if you dont collect data. That is just extrapolation and throwing numbers around.

You're fully right, it's simply my empirical feeling. I may be wrong. Maybe it's not 95%, but only 83%!

You are speaking in contradictions. You dont have feelings for empirical data. That is why its data and that is why we collect on data and not just judge based on our perceptions

Yep Daniel, but I'm not a dev nor an admin and haven't access to the data as for the results of standard rapid FFA. In addition, it's not that easy; one needs to code a calculation within only cases where someone eats the opp's material or mates the opp BEFORE A SIDE IS GONE,  in order to understand what is the final outcome for this player statistically as for his position, 1, 2, 3 or 4. (In addition as we all know the INACTION may also be a clear betrayal in some cases, but for this I believe you can't algorithmise this...).