Forum

Yeah you can a. team b. chat just to chat but what else can you do on chat? c. showing opponents threats to carry out own plans d. distract opponent (hardly works, but sometimes worth it) e. seem friendly only to backstab f. cease fire We can discuss these strategies and put new ones in on this forum.

Is anyone else experiencing issues with the rating selection not doing it's job? i.e. Restricting to only players greater than 1400 still matches with two opponents below 1200? Should this not be more even so that all players are in a 1400 range? Would be interesting to get other people's thoughts on how they're finding it.

Today when I open https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess in Chrome the page is blinking. It shows the board for a moment then black screen for half a second and so on. But in Firefox it works fine. Relatively fine, because the server lags and other players confirm that.

vrdtmr and myself happened to seize a milestone opportunity this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJPAd4kBWhE The least number of moves possible to capture a live unresigned king in chess is 4. This is done by one player moving a piece out of the line of check and the next player capturing the king with the piece whose checking ability has been discovered before the victimized king has a chance of getting out of check. This is why turn sequence is important in 4 player chess. I haven't seen an unstaged 4 move king capture until this one.

Please stop these maniacs. I played these two guys twice in a row in teams. They used the exact same opening to get queens asap then used them in tandom. . The first game was with Brimo and the second one was with JoePictures

There have been a lot of technical issues since this last update; seems like it's created more problems than fixes; being able to filter out FFA \ Teams games in the list is admittedly a nice touch; however, I've run into the following bugs within two games: A) I sent an invite to a partner but it wasn't accepted right away so I started observing a game; a minute or so later the invite was accepted and a game "started" with the usernames in the correct positions; however, the board still showed the position of the game I was observing and I could see their moves being played out; every 20 or so seconds it would briefly flash to the position of the brand new game...I could also see the /all chat of the observed game still being typed out; flashback of the movie "The Fly" - type combination happening between the new gamed being played out and what I had been observing. Next game, I try to invite but the person I invite, albeit they can see the invite and can click ok and get the "accepted" message, no search begins at all on their end, and on my end the client makes no acknowledgement that they accepted the invitation; since a chatroom \ lobby of any sort is lacking for people not in a game together (ahem), I could well go on and assume they simply did not accept the invitation and not realize this is actually a bug if we weren't communicating over WhatsApp. The bug with The Fly combination had occurred to me once or twice before the recent update but the second one has only been happening in the last two days, and I have played numerous games before, so it seems newly introduced. I hope my tone isn't too critical in this post, but it is rather frustrating to have all these issues. I don't know how many, if even more than one person, are working on this four player chess, but admittedly the functionality can barely be called of beta quality, more like an alpha pre-release. If this is the case, why does chess.com require premium accounts to be able to pick a non-random partner? The quality of this section of the site is frankly far below the rest of chess.com and I honestly feel that decision is very misinformed; I know it is not my privilege to be able to play four player chess over the internet by any means, and someone or other is working hard on this, but can we not pretend this is some sort of finished product and charge money for the ability to pick partners? It is the only reason I pay for a premium account on chess.com, while the site offers tons of other great options that are far more polished and professional for free...I just don't feel like this part of it is in the spirit of the rest of the site that offers all other chess variants for free (and you can pick Bughouse partners with a non-paid account for example). Is anyone else of the opinion that this is ridiculous?

Hi I have this problem with 4 player chess teams matchup in Chrome on a Mac. I use another premium account where I am able to invite teammates; however, if I log off from that account and log onto this one, there is still a username in the "Invite teammate" box, remembered from my premium account, and it is un-editable. Therefore I can't delete the name to try to find a matchup with a random partner and cannot at all play on this account in this browser...if I try to click ok it just thinks I am trying to invite that person and that I need a premium account. Kind of annoying to need to use a different browser like Firefox for a second account, and there's some small issues I have in non-Chrome anyway. Thanks for adding this to the list and keep up the good work.

I suspect that facebook authentication does not authorize properly with 4 player chess. Accounts that login with facebook only face the problem of blinking screen regularly. Please change 4 PC authorization request to acklowledge facebook login.

In FFA, with 3-4 players left, it is (at least theoretically) possbile to checkmate when only the kings and one single minor piece are left on the board. This is why insufficient material is defined as 'only kings left'. But what about a teams game? How to define 'insufficient material'? assume the game to be drawn at some point by 3-fold repetition or the 100-move-rule. (these rules are currently not yet implemented for teams)

Playing a partnered team game...in my view I was green and red wasn't making a move and letting their time run out. But apparently from everyone else's point of view I was red and it was me who was letting their clock run out. I only got a message at the end saying "Your new rating is ..." as if I hadn't been in the game :\

I've just gotten through (hopefully!) one of those crazy-busy stretches of life, and had to put a lot of rec activities (like 4PC) on hold. One nice aspect of this is the singular jump in features/enhancements... I wanted to give an immediate kudos to the development team on the tabs! That rocks! And as promised, a feature request: Under the Settings tab, would it be possible to have an option "Hide arrows when observing". "Optional", as I'm sure many players are comfortable enough with arrow-drawing conventions that they add to the experience of observing. But personally, I just find it really distracting when I'm trying to assess overall position of each team and "random" arrows just keep popping up on the screen. An aside: for those who are enthusiasts of this feature - isn't it a tad inconsistent with hidden team chat? That is, if insights into each team's strategies and plans was meant to be part of observing the game, why not show the team chats as well? How is observer to know if, right before an arrow was drawn, the teammate had chatted, "Don't do this!!" ?

Never put your piece on one of the four squares on your top right. My clock ran out because the queen wouldn't move (inside red circle).

Am I the only one who feels its unfair to 'give' points to the last player so that they can surpass other players in points? My opinion is that it's their loss for not earning points earlier in the match.

So, in the last couple of weeks I played FFA after a month and I wandered between 1580 and 1640 points. The thing is that barely a handful of times (I don't think more than four or five) I played against players with more points than me; and only three times I was matched against someone with more than 1600 points. And yes, I adjusted the settings, I always select a minimum of 1400 or 1500 points. I don't want to sound like a dickhead. I know I don't have a great rating, but I think that this is a bit too much. I month ago I roamed in the 1700s and it was very normal to meet better players. I enjoy playing all the same, but I've lost points for finishing second. So, what happens? The game's dying? Should I play at a specific hour?

The FFA game is being spoiled by players who quit early, each week the problem seems to worsen. There needs to be a penalty for those who resign early or let the clock rundown. Maybe they should be blocked for an hour when they quit within 15 moves, a day when within 5 moves? what do you think

I'm kind of new and i started playing 4 way chess recently again this person resigned right as the game the game started just wanted to let you know

So I've been playing FFA for almost a month or two now. I mostly hover around 1650 - 1750. As the time has passed, playing styles of most players above 1500 has progressively changed, all in one direction. A controversial theory popular in higher rated games now is this : Do not attack opposite player because weakening opposite player weakens you. I hesitated to follow this theory a month back (FREE FOR ALL), but I got no success as I would not coordinate with my opposite and would get crushed by synchronous plans from right and left. So, I adopted the idea. Now like most players above 1600, I do not attack or even touch my opposite, unless really necessary. This bothers me a little bit. I understand that it is important to help opposite, because that way you are making yourself stronger. But, my question is this: Where do we draw a line? Because the idea of keeping opposite safe is vague as far as limits is concerned: Some players do not attack opposites Some players do not attack opposites + they defend opposites Some opposites sync mating patterns against right and left Im not against the theory. I'm just trying to find a way to quantify the "amount of help" we can provide to the opposite. Any suggestions as to how we solve the problem of vagueness in this theory? How would a player know that he is keeping the spirit of FFA, while at the same time preventing not trading or killing opposite side. Note: I'm bad at summarizing things, apologies if anything is unclear.

Is there any way to play unrated 4 player chess? I think you can't play untrated games. I think an option for unrated games should be added. I'm not playing so well and I don't want to have a too low 4 player chess rating.