Forum

Lets post some screenshots of positions that are interesting from an artistic point of view. Here is one with the bishops forming an aesthetically pleasing rainbow!

i would also like to have six player chess it has a hexagon board

If you want 4 Player Chess to be improved some way, but it is not very important, write your suggestions here. 1) The players should see how many spectators are there watching their game. Some players will avoid insults if they know there are spectators. Some players will avoid making offers like "give me 5 points and then I'll resign", etc. Not all of them, of course. 2) The Top Games list should be sorted. Either by the average rating of 4 players or by rating of the strongest player. 3) Players should see how many players are waiting to start new games right now. And their rating range. Without the players names. 4) Would be fun to have some sort of betting. Spectators watch top games and make their bets (no money involved): Who will be the 1st, the 2nd, etc. Those who were right get some achievements. 5) "Refresh" button in the Top Games list.

Can't we ordinary members get to choose a partner in teams? It could be more fun.

Got it - the outcome of the game was surprising to me though. 2nd player out and still won because I happened to be close (2 moves) to the timed out player's king.

The current system of promoting pawns to 1 point queens is OP. For example, a player captures gray pieces with a pawn, and the remaining opponents cannot easily stop him from queening. Therefore, promoted queens should be worth 3 points one move after the player has promoted the pawn. What are your thoughts?

Asthings stand right now, much as I can sympathize with complaints of top players feeling that other players gang up on them; I can also sympathize with the rational-game-theory side of the equation. If I'm a 1200 player, and two of my opponents have ratings of ~1200, and the fourth player has 1450, there's an obvious incentive for me to try working with the other 1200 players to beat the high-rated player. The math is simple: if we team up and eliminate 1450-player, I'm left with a 1/3 chance of first place (and gaining substantial rating points from finishing over two equal players and a 1450 player) 1/3 chance of second (again, still getting decent rating points due to finishing ahead of 1450-player). 1/3 chance of third place (possibly breaking even, losing to 2 equal-players might offset beating a 1450 player) If we don't team up, and I assume the 1450 player has a 2:1 skill edge (would win 50% of the time in an alliance-free match), then my odds are 1/6 (1/3 of the 50% that 1450 player loses): first place. As above, lots of points, but far less likely. 5/18 (27%) second place, gaining few points for beating 2 low-rated players 5/18: (27%) third place, losing a few points for losing to high-rated, with offsetting win&loss against 2 equal-rated players 5/18: (27%) fourth place, losing lots of points for losing to 2 low-rated players I suggest that the point system be modified to offset these incentives. If left unchecked, nobody will become GM-level high player; the further someone pulls ahead in ratings, the more they will be sabotaged in their games. While it might be argued, "Hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles in 4PC", I'd retort that 1) Obviously certain players are incredibly skillful, and in a blind matchup would trounce the majority of opponents. 2) If the point system is set up / enforced in a way that precludes such high-skill players from obtaining high ratings, then... well, what's the point? What I'd suggest is an adjustment to the point system to account for skewed match-ups. Basically, the bigger the gap between best player and average of other players: * The fewer points top-player loses for getting 3rd/4th place. The extreme of this is, if top player is sufficiently higher-rated than other 3, her rating cannot go down at all (though, naturally, a victory is still to her credit - as per usual "beating weaker players" math). * The fewer points bottom-3 players can win by finishing ahead of top-player. The extreme of this effect would be all 3 bottom players receiving points based only on their relative finishing place (independent of top player) The effect should be: A) In a matchup between 3 low-rated players and 1 high-rated player, the high-rated player is still trying to win. B) The low-rated players are most concerned with defeating the other low-rated players (e.g. defending themselves from "dangerous" high-rated player, still seeking to get points from attacking high-rated player's pieces, but not overtly focusing on high-rated player at the risk of exposing them to attack from other 2 low-rated players). C) In a circumstance where high-rated player neverthelss feels unfairly targeted, he/she can simply resign, losing few (if any) rating points.

Who in the right mind wants to disable the chat. I mean, people who disagree for teaming up would probably do this so players can't communicate but what about everybody else. The chat is to be friendly and kind. There's no problem in teaming up and putting your plans in the chat. The other player/s can see your plans. Who thinks disabling the chat is the right thing to do? Please do tell me in the comments.

Who here plays regular chess? Lol I attempt at least 3 or 4 if most that day is focused 4 player. lol just curious

Bishops are more powerful than rooks. And, obviously, Queen points should be increased too for the same reason bishops are deemed more valuable. Maybe Queens should be just 10 but look at it this way - in standard chess R + B = 8 and Q = 9. in 4-player B + R = 10; so Q = 11 is way more reasonable than the current 9. I think they should go with - bishops = 7 (at least 6) rooks = 5 queens = 11

Basically me and green only had our kings left, blue had 50 points, green sorta spammed in chat kinda then blue checkmated green, and decided to give me second by feeding me pieces which included one queen two knights and a rook, then checkmated me once I was 3 points ahead of Green XD

it would be good to be able to analyze the game after playing it the rewind buttons are good and still work but the final points get in the way of the view of the board and the points and times still dont go backwards with each rewind of the game. also a play button to watch a movie of the game would be cool. possibly also with the choice of classical music for accompaniment...

This happened many times: If a game ends as a draw the server does not show the score table and does not finish the game. The timer keeps going. I described it somewhere on this forum already. Today this situation again happened in my game and also in a game of @126349301hf : https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/draw-questions In my case there were only 2 kings on the board. Do not know about @126349301hf 's game.

4 player tournaments would be cool. We could have clubs and people participate. It would call more people's attention to play 4 player.

If I manage to somehow get stalemated, I should be rewarded. Currently I don't get any points, I liked the previous system where I could get 20 points if I managed to get stalemated. This also adds an incentive for the other player to avoid stalemate. Maybe +10 points for the stalemated player (and nothing for the other), or at the very least +10 points for both players would be a good compromise.