Forum

Whenever I want to play with someone on a different computer on free for all I start a game and then he starts a game. But then his computer says possible cheating detected! you may not play yourself! Then I exit he starts but then on my computer it says possible cheating detected! you may not play yourself!

I don't understand what happened here? loosing instant rating LOL. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpXY__5ubMg&feature=youtu.be

Loving having the ability to select who you team with. Was continually frustrated with some random partners. Playing several games in a row with the same person and learning together was so much better an experience.

Hello 4-player-chess advocates, As you probably know already we have re-released teams and are enjoying watching the interesting new scenarios that arise from this game mode. Please use the space below to post your feelings and thoughts regarding the newest update. This is your opportunity to tell us exactly what you love and hate about this mode!

I'm a relatively-weak chess player; curious to see if my experience matches that of others. After many weeks of playing 4PC, I've felt an acute decline in 2PC performance. I attribute it to the following factors: 1) The 2PC board just feels more constrained/compact. It's hard to describe exactly how this translates into poor performance, but that each move has a feeling of tripping all over myself, blocking myself in, etc; and (to a fault) I'm inclined to "spread out" for the sake of spreading out (not for any tactical advantage). 2) 2PC is MUCH less forgiving than 4PC. In 4PC (at least, at the 1400-1600 level of play), blunders are frequently overlooked or ignored, as other players may have more important things to worry about than grabbing a hanging pawn/knight/etc. 3) In 4PC, I think tactics are de-emphasized. Because there will be 3 moves between each move you make, sharp tactical lines are inherently less likely to pay off and more likely to backfire. I've found better 4PC outcomes with "just-play-it-safe" compared to e.g. "try to lay a sneaky trap for blue" (that falls apart when green and red go "off-script"). This mentality seems to have bled into my 2PC games... where it amounts to a "sitting duck" strategy :-) In fact, anecdotally - I've even found the 2PC "tactics puzzles" to seem more challenging while playing 4PC.

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