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

Yes, it DOES happen sometimes, even with rather strong players. But it's still seldom. Here he was 2315; probably because of the very low green level he thought it wouldn't be risky (and considered that because of the 2424 of blue he shouldn't let 9 pts, etc.). Still his move should've been k5, with the mate to green 1 move later. Whatever, it was very weak; and BTW I've played with this player plenty of times, he is not reliable indeed and will never be beyond 2600 with this style, unless he progresses and understands, etc.

It's pointless, only losers play for 2nd. In HL games anyway it's Solo, i.e. 2nd gets no points at all. And that's good. (Playing for 2nd ruins games, makes them boring, and also gives points to some people undeservedly).

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/28752935 blue lucky to get 2nd attacking green

also attack me being the weakest player

did you actually win that game with 1st place

Can you rename your video to: "Legendary 2200 beats a 1200, 1300 & 1500 in 4 Player Chess"

It's kind of general law. https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29709213, another example. Idiots betray early, and finish 3rd. They don't understand that not all mates are good to be taken.

It's sad for me personally as I mainly dropped from 2600 to 2200 for having accepted to play low-rated games; and under 2300 it's mainly BS unfortunately; and it's pretty easy to get 4th just because of a totally incompetent idiot in front. At least when it's a beginner, with 50-100 games, there is no regret as he is likely to progress. But when it's someone with 1500 games, it's hopeless.

Thanks Youtube, you're in fact proving my point: one can't be a high rated player if playing BS and attacking in front too early. 

In addition, to play for 2nd is utterly cheap.

YouTube, to begin with, your Rapid rating is under mine in fact. But anyway: I used to be up to 2650 which you've never been close to, as far as I know. (Why I dropped to 2200 in Rapid, whereas I'm currently in Top50 for blitz and bullet, has been explained already plenty of times and anyway is not interesting as for the discussion here; and you can't anyway do statistical conclusions on two cases ; my point was that you'll never ever be beyond 2300 weakening/attacking/killing your opp in the 1st stage FFA).

Yes maybe, but the game means to try to WIN, not to avoid being 4th.

Not to mention the fact that more you do that, more players would block you, and more difficult it will become for you to join games unless anonymous...

A new record, 2679 (by the current world Nr. 3). Who assisted calmly to the effective attack from the sides, did strictly nothing to help (whereas he COULD at least three times) and played passively, then stole the mate from them , making me laugh. And eventually finished 3rd (well done).

This player almost always betrays. Simply because he also thinks that the opp' should play the way he wants, otherwise he doesn't care. (And my side I persist to consider that this attitude that many top players have is utterly simplistic and belongs to "standard thought" that I've already criticised harshly here many times).

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29934394 

Kindly requesting that instead of posting a link to this thread and call it "betrayal", that you research teams opening and why bringing out Double Knights and a Fianchetto Bishop isn't a valid strategy. Do you play this in Teams? Probably not. 

I do not play Teams; I do not care about your opinion on that; I do not think that the only correct way to play FFA is to play standard Teams openings; etc.

It's FFA. You're free to play like that. But I'll take it in mind, and we'll meet again and again and I think one day you'll regret.

(And YES, it was a nice betrayal, and I have already links to THREE games where you played like that in front of me, so excuse me but it's a clear trend).

Dude, if you want to cooperate, then play a Teams opening, it's not like our flanks are 1900 and we can make random moves and still mate one of them; they both brought out their queens and properly developed. You've probably seen multiple times why both you and your opposite have a terrible position because one of you doesn't bring out the queen. 

The only reason why you see a "trend" is because you make the same mistake repeatedly. I'm either:

1. Helping you and your sinking ship in games, and getting mated first
2. Doing nothing and being 3rd place by 20 points in a 3P endgame
3. Attacking you directly so that I get 20 points in exchange for a worse position that you gave me

I like the concept of what you wrote in the original post; I just don't like how you're utilizing it even against players stronger than you are to try and belittle them.

ChessM, the point is NOT the way I played (I played very badly, horrendously, etc., who cares, it's not the point). But the fact that you very often betray simply because you don't like the way your stupid and low-rated and despicable and idiot opp played. It could still be legitimate IF you couldn't save him sometimes and win eventually, instead of settling for the 3rd or 2nd just for having the perverse pleasure of punishing someone who doesn't think like you (in all senses).

This isn’t a one-off lol, you always play this opening.

The queen’s bishop pawn opening is what I played, and it’s the one that is most opposite-dependent of them all; if you don’t bring your queen out and instead develop your knights instead of supporting me, then I have an extremely vulnerable position. If I sacked a queen to help you, then they target me instead. It’s simple as that.

What I’m seeing here is you blaming me for your own mistakes.

a) no, at some moments you could simply help with a B

b) I do not think you would've finished 3rd if at some point when my left hand neighbour put his Q at risk, you checked his opp (yes you were losing the Q, but I still think it was better on the long run; but well, your choice anyway).

c) no, I play 3 diff. openings, not just this one, but who cares.

d) yes the one we speak about is opp-dependent, true. But having an opp above 2500 usually allows you to play it. But I'll know better next time, I shouldn't consider you as reliable, after MANY betrayals you've done. And in terms of mathematical expectancy, when I make my stats I see you were not better off eventually, so it was necessarily to punish, not a rational option.

According to my calculations, he's higher rated than you.  Indi also makes more informative posts that contradict the atrocious 3 on 1 Chess you keep going on about.  

Thanks LosChessquire, I don't know where our friend looked, maybe my bullet rating at the moment he was checking, as it is currently 2105 (41th worldwide). Whatever, who cares. Ratings are not extremely relevant anyway, in FFA Rapid I'm 2300+ now, but used to be 2600+ and was 2196 (!) only 10 days ago, i.e. the overall rating system here is totally flawed (due to the application of 2p chess principles that simply can't work in 4p chess because of the multiplicity of players) and I've beaten all of the Top10 players several times, which means nothing of course. I think once I'm back to 2500+ which is the lowest decent level in Rapid FFA, I'll make a post about how to significantly improve the rating calculation system. As of today, it is not satisfactory.