Forum

Played a game with bikramc and 2 more guys. At the end of the game I had 71 and he 51. I clicked Resign, he got +20 (71 in total) and the game ended. But it did not show the score table and did not change our rating. In the next game we again played with bikramc, I asked him, he also did not get the standings table. Maybe it is only if there is a draw?

(Inspired by our discussion in https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/suggestion-capturing-dead-grey-pieces-earns-0-5-points ) This may be a good idea to change the value of pieces this way: If some piece (or pawn) captures another piece (or pawn) its value increases by +1. Real world analogy: Your soldier becomes more experienced, skilled, a veteran. Example: You have a bishop (5 points). You take a pawn with this bishop, the bishop's "price" becomes 6. This way we can force people to think a little more before they do some unneeded piece exchange. And this adds some additional layer to this game (see Example 3) below). Some more examples: 1) You take an enemy's pawn with your pawn, you get 1 point and your pawn is now worth 2 points. Your enemy takes your pawn and earns 2 points. 2) You take an enemy's bishop with your knight, you get 5 points and your knight is now worth 4 points. Your enemy takes your knight and earns 4 points. 3) You take 3 enemy's pawns with your pawn, and your pawn is now worth 4 points. Your enemies stop chasing your knight and instead start fighting one another (and each other) to capture your super pawn. P.P.S. I remember there was an idea to increase the value of promoted queens from 1 to 9 (every move with +1 increment). These 2 ideas do not contradict.

Before I clicked "Resign", I had 57 yellow had 26 and green had 43. Shouldn't the Resign button have said "Claim Win"? I assume it was because green didn't have 20 or more points less than me, but green was dead, so he couldn't gain points from me resigning. This shouldn't be too hard to fix, should it?

red was the one who got checkmated so he is gray. i got 35 points for the move but lost my queen.

today I was playing 4 player chess and I could not abort it did not give me the button.

I just watched a game where the player that got 4th place gained rating points. Is this a visual bug or did he really gain rating?

We need to bring back teams! I seem to lose more by myself than when we used to have teams. Plus it is fun to watch the game and makes it more competetive. Plus, its funny how the players are overconfident in their team chat and end up losing!

I love this game but there has to be some sort of stipulation that if you checkmate the final opponent, you win the game. I get the point system and I think it's great because it encourages fighting, but come on... I slammed home a checkmate and lost?? That just can't be right. The current system allows people to win by mating or getting mated, by resigning or having their opponent resign... it's just about capturing material. Chess can't be reduced to just capturing material - that really removes an important element from chess. The value of material captured should be a secondary means of determining the winner, not the primary means. The primary means of determination should be checkmate (last man standing). In cases of 50-moves, repetition, or insufficient material, use the points. No wins by resignation or getting mated. And the last man standing should never lose.

Hi chess.com, Did somebody already did a triple check?

The board is huge now 14x14. We need something smaller for mobile devices. So, I propose to make a separate variant of the 4 Player Chess. Hope chess.com developers will add it to their 2018 or 2019 To Do List. To make the board smaller we can remove some of the pieces. If each player has 1 king, 1 queen, 1 rook, 1 bishop, 1 knight + 5 pawns the "cross" board can be 11x11 or 9x9. Another way is to make a square board and something like this: This picture is a setup of the ancient game called Chaturanga, the mother of Chess (if you did not know).

We are already familiar with the Resign button changing name to Claim Win, when a player becomes immediately qualified for the first place. Why not extend this textual convenience to all outcomes of the resign option? Of course doing so is only reasonable when the outcome is single and unambiguous. What I propose is this:1) Resignation guarantees the first place: The Resign button changes to Claim Win2) Resignation guarantees the second place: The Resign button changes to Claim Second place3) Resignation guarantees the third place: The Resign button changes to Claim Third place4) Resignation guarantees the fourth place: The Resign button changes to Claim Fourth place4a) Alternatively the Resign button changes to Admit Defeat4b) Alternatively the Resign button changes to Admit that you are an utterly incompetent Loser Under the current point system, that includes no cases of score reduction, the case (4) does not demand that only two players are remaining. Claiming fourth place can become a reality very early in the game. As soon as everyone else has got at least one point, and you are still at zero points, you are qualified for the last place by simply resigning!

Hey guys, and devs! Wanna suggest to add the function to rotate board so we could see from other colour's perspective Wadya guys think?

I think that players should be able to steal checkmates.(This is the main focus of this topic) Example, Around the board clockwise. 1, 2, 3, 4. Player 2 takes his queen in with the support of his bishop to attack player 1's king. For the moment player one is checkmated(In the current version he is eliminated right now. I am suggesting that you wait until he is checkmated on his turn). Player 3 does his turn and does not do anything relevant to this example and player 4 can capture player 2's "checkmating" queen. If he does not then player 4 still did the checkmate because he did not capture. If player 4 captures and is checkmating player 1(on player 1's turn) losses the game and the person who could have stopped it gets the points and no points for player 2. So the person who could have interfered with the checkmate delivered the checkmate by NOT capturing(including blocking). Teams were really cool! I think the game is twice as good with teams compared to without. Keep up the good work!

Yesterday I met with this phenomenon, but I did not make a screenshot. But it just happened again with DragonB70: Quite a stupid way to claim win to let the clock down...

Hello All!In normal chess you only have one motive and that it to take the other player's king. So checks have to be stopped and once your king has no places to run and is in check (checkmate) your dead. In 4 player chess there is no motive to beat a single player but get the most points. So when a check is given it is not necessary for them to take the king as doing this itself does not win the game. Based on this I think there should be an option to ignore checks, and you should only lose once the king is actually taken (not in checkmate). Take for example the case where I get checked by the person to the left of me but notice when the other 2 players move that his queen is now being threatened. I could risk it and let my king be put on check and assume that the person on the left wants to play for a win and keep his queen. Like wise say for example my king is checked right in front with a bishop. Because its not necessary that he would take my king like in a classical 1 v 1 I think I should theoretically be able to take his rook and risk him not recapturing. Furthermore rather than deeming checkmate immediately other players moves should be considered. For example in this one game I was playing this guy who was dominating the game with a few queens and had his bishop and queen lined up on another players king. He was checkmated but because I wanted to keep winning chances alive, I was thinking of obstructing his bishop and queen with my rook and allow the now checked player to take the other players queen. There are many other instances but based on the idea that four player chess is based of on points and not the sole purpose of finishing one opponents king of, I think losing should be based of when the king is taken. Interested in hearing other people's thoughts thanks, Richard Fairley

What can you do if your opponents just clearly collude with each other like this? It's just so frustrating as it happened with me so many times before. Each time usually costs a lot of ratings as cheaters are usually lower rated players... I don't really have a solution for this, though maybe a report functionality would be nice?! Check out video.

I spectated a game. When it finished I decided to rewind a few moves. But the left arrow rewinds all the moves at once to the very beginning of the game. And then the right arrow returns the game to its final move. In a single click.

I heard that the server is back up again and is functioning for the majority of all the players out there. For some reason I still cannot connect to the server and I have tried my wifi but it is not working. Anybody experiencing the same? How to troubleshoot this problem? Somebody let me know. Thx Richard.