Forum

I noticed 4 small UI bugs after the last update (12/02/2017).1) Navigation buttons sometimes covering part of the board.2) Player's avatar slightly misplaced (partially hidden) when it's his turn to move.3) Clock shows 0:59 instead of 1:00 for the player who has the move.4) Truncated usernames not fully shown when hovering the mouse as tooltips.Browser: Brave 0.19.105Screen resolution: 1280x720

The title says it all.

[edit: fixed attribution of development of http://www.smartbridge6.nine.ch/.4pcp/ website to @_-__-__-___-] I think 4pc would be greatly enriched with better facilities to explore/discuss/analyze games after the fact. Two requests along these lines: 1) At the end of each game, on the pop-up dialog that shows final places and ratings adjustments, add a scrollable text area (with selectable/copy-able text) which lists all moves of the game. Best case would be to format into a syntax of Fen4 or PGN4 (as utilized in _-__-__-___-'s website, http://www.smartbridge6.nine.ch/.4pcp/). However, if that's a hurdle in terms of development time, a dump of moves in any format (e.g. move listing as sequence of Cartesian coordinate pairs) would be fine. I suspect you could do a hexadecimal memory dump and we'd see a "Get HEX" dialog box appear in a matter of minutes on _-__-__-___-'s site. :-) Assuming a server-side repository of previous games is retained: 2) Publish moves of all historic games. At a minimum, some interface which lists the games, participants, and a selectable/copy-able list of moves (as in #1). Even cooler: each game has a link to a "replay" rendition of that game.

A game had just started, and Red made a move. It was now my turn, and it said I resigned but I never did! Helpppp!!

Players resigning in this game (ffa) should lose double rating points imo as resignations really ruin the game. At the start someone resigns and the person left sitting in the middle of the other Two remaining players is onto a hiding to nothing. Not only does he have no chance of winning the resignees king but due to being between the Two remaining players he will be a natural target. Resign later and it has a big impact on who wins the king. One common scenario is where you check a player who then resigns. Ok so he resigns because everyone about to pile in on him due to him being in check. However the resignation has a huge bearing on where the points go. Basically the person who put him in check wins the king on his next move and scoops up the points. If the player had not resigned it is more likely one of the other players would have reaped the reward. I propose resignations should only be allowed without penalty once only Two players remain as before then it is too disruptive and needs punishing. Thoughts?

https://www.chess.com/member/bartoszsocko

So I just grabbed a free pawn and this happened Soon he was focusing me with green and I lost in few moves later. He even sac his Queen on me just to keep me under pressure. Very unfair.

Yesterday I set my opponent rating range 800-1200. Then I played a game. My opponents ratings were 1500+! That game was not fun at all, because my rating is 1100 and they obviously beat me up. Somebody should fix that rating range!

Arrows from the previous game appear at the beginning of a new game.

About 80% of these 2v2 games end in the first 5-10 moves, and as far as I see, those very short checkmates could be avoided with placing the partners next to each other. This would make the bishops harder to activate, for instance, moving your king's pawn would open only one diagonal against an opponent, the second would aim at your mate. The kings could castle into real safety, where there are less diagonals to use against one's king. Let's say XXXXXXXX Stronger 2 XXXXXXXX Weaker 4 Stronger 3 XXXXXXXX Weaker 1 XXXXXXXX Matching: The highest and lowest 'elo' players are mates. Moves could be: 1) Weaker 1 - Stronger 2 - Stronger 3 - Weaker 4, 2) -||- (or whatever) This could reduce the number of very short games, and could also lead to more tactical games, where the knights and pawns have more role.What do you think?

Dear Chess.com Team, Did you consider making the 4 Player Chess an open source project? There are lots of Java Script developers (as long as HTML and CSS developers and designers) in chess.com community. We could contribute! This way you'd become this project alive again. Some bugs can be fixed by changing 1 to 5 lines of code (CSS, HTML or Java Script). For example, a bug with long player names, a bug with 2 teammates appearing in different teams, a bug when the same player appears in 2 teams and should play against himself, a bug of the rating range selector, a bug of left arrow key in chat rewinding game moves and so on. The community could fix it fast. The paid engineers could not fix it from 10th of November. Let the paid engineers to make core things and the server side things like "the server can handle a million of players now", but UI things and related bugs can be fixed and changed by the community.

See the screenshot I won this game, but it was absolutely no fun at all.It would have been much better if I played vs someone of my rating, even having to wait much longer.

Very simple: The player who gets checkmated (/ resigns, ragequits, loses on time etc.) first, will be the last (4th), whatever happens after that. The player who checkmates two other players wins the game (1st), the game ends after his/her second checkmate. So the fourth, untouched player is forced to stop this checkmate, in order not to lose. When there are only two players left - last man standing. (With the normal drawing rules) (Without that shitty claim win button) The player resigning or losing on time.. loses more points after a resignation that after a checkmate. So resigning after a blunder or in a losing position would be worse than carrying on the game. What do you think? If you insist on the score system, the just consider the fourth 'suggestion'. This could be useful in 2v2 too.

Hi, if you could make tournaments that would be awesome!!

Quite a few times I have been knocked out in third spot but with more points than the guy in second. Then watching the rest of the game I see in the chat the player in second begging the overwhelming leader to let him have a couple of points so he can overtake me. This has happened a few times, in the last one the player winning let the other guy have a rook just so he could take second, this has to amount to blatent cheating. From now on I am disabling chat on every single game im involved in on move One. There is too much of this behavior occuring

This kind of things are continue happening for quiet long now, but is there still no other way to prevent them except disables the chat? I think we should at least add a sentence like "teaming in FFA by using chat is cheating and if you do that you'll get banned" to the rules page.

A few times I was trying to playing with joanapita and after it searched for a while we both ended up in the same game, however I was with a different partner (I think it was Medlo_1994 both times) and each time my partner was red, with joanapita to my right. This was still far better than being matched randomly, but it is a bug worth investigating nonetheless.

Not sure if this has been addressed in any previous topic, but at the present time the only way to play on a mobile device is to utilize a browser and "Request desktop site", which is less than ideal to put it mildly. I experience timeouts, misclicks due to fat-fingering the moves, issues with chat, etc. Just wondering if the engineers are working towards getting this mode onto the app

So Why did Yellow gain more points then first? That's really sort of unfair to blue.