Forum

The problem with deadkings: There is no way out of this one: if deadkings are worth less points than mated kings, people can affect the game via resigning ( ie: you piss me off because you hurt my game so I resign and you dont get the full points for your mate haha) This will make the player more hesitant to launch a mating attack on a player since the end result will not be of as much benefit ( 10 points ve 20 points) In my opinion, this kind of situation is even more unfair than the one we already have with deadkings being worth 20 points,

Basically, My idea is that if someone does not move in 30 seconds, The player that does not move, is kicked out of the game, (They Lose No Points) But the other three players have two turns to move til the aborted player's king is "Claimable" to make it fair to all the other teams, Good Idea? Yes? No? Suggestions? My idea is that the king turns purple when he is not claimable

Here is a new rule suggestion that seems to impose itself If a player resigns or discoinnects while he is in possession of ALL is original material, the game is automaticaly aborted. This is a very simple rule to apply that could resolve the most unfair situations that arise when people do early resigning or disconnecté What do you guys think?

Post your lowest points wins here. For example, the least points I remember winning with are 48 points:

Update Oct 26, 73 responses Results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UkHq9sl3F0TupoOrHmSAtKxlmhxJ2tbRf1D6SgyFjF0/ 46.5% like it 34% for +10pts, 33% for +20pts, 33% prefer the current "+10pts for other" rule 60% prefer random seating 29% like it and 42% want to try, 29% prefer current rule 67% like it (i think this was already implemented a while back) hi all, i made a rule survey with 5 quick questions: https://goo.gl/Ena3iC please participate! will publish results here soon. the questions are: survey link https://goo.gl/Ena3iC

This game is great fun, however (especially considering it’s so new) I am completely baffled why they removed the additional minute that it first started off with. I know many like to play fast bullet games, but THIS HERE game is NOT anything like the small boarded single one on one game of chess, no, it’s WAY MORE INVOLVED, much more GOING ON, hidden pieces needed to REALIZE beFORE your MEASILY small 1 minute (15 or 10 second lapse given) is up.. I’m sure many here can completely agree the additional minute added would be a very sensible improvement, and in no way am I downing this game, though it truly does make sense to add another minute so we all aren’t frantically attempting to as quick as possible find our best position as each opponent decides their move, placing a little more to frantically choose. I hope, I HOPE, I H O P E this gets adjusted for everyone’s happiness, and those bullet slammers can then adjust their reasoning for to choose whether they wish to continue their bulletization (lol) each move or take advantage the PEACE OF lol MIND it can give them.... Por Favõr

I have found it immensely enjoyable to watch GM/IMs trying their hand at 4-player chess. To date, I've only found a couple GMs to put up such videos: Tal Baron: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND0HNRF6Xfo * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSH0kWcxqL0 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPdvoI6ikiI * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBgi5rJE20U * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQCERLFo55A&t=11s Jon Ludwig Hammer (on chess.com youtube channel) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqFQEMrgsnY Is anyone aware of any other such videos, on youtube or otherwise?

It hasn't caught me yet, but I could see this happening easily and being very frustrating: If I play a quick game on my home PC, fail to close browser tab, then attempt to play another game later that day via laptop (i.e. not at home), I will not be able to. Unless/until I can get someone to power down my home PC, it will effectively keep me locked out of 4-player-chess indefinitely. Is there any way a simple time-out (1 hour or so) could be added? Or, alternatively, an option to "kick off" an older session if a new session is initiated?

I think this is a minor issue, but I think there are inconsistencies with the point system when it comes to positions that are drawn in classical chess. Insufficient material (only kings left): 0 points for each player 50 move rule (or 100 ply rule to be exact): 10 points for each remaining player 5 move repetition: 10 points for each remaining player Stalemate: 10 points to each remaining player except the stalemated player. Please correct me if I got any of the rules above incorrect, but I believe these are the current rules. I think all drawn positions should have the same rules, so what I suggest is to always give 10 points to all remaining players (including the stalemated player). Of course stalemate can be seen as an exception since it does not end the game if there are other players remaining, but since it is a draw in classical chess it makes sense to me that the player that gets stalemated should get some points. Also some other minor things I would change is from a 100 ply rule to a 50 move rule and change the 5 move repetition to a 3 move repetition. Those are the limits to claim draw and not for automatic draws in chess (automatic draw/declared by arbiter is 75 move rule and 5 move repetition). I can see merits to using either the claim limit or automatic limit though.

There are a lot of interesting ideas for variations of rules. Some ideas are presented (often with good argument) as changes that might amount to objective improvement in game play (reducing "luck" factors, hampering unsportsmanlike collusion, etc). For instance, pure "king-capture" play (no checks/check-mates/stalemates - people are eliminated as their king is captured) has been proposed as an idea to simplify player-elimination rules; and "points-for-uncaptured-pieces" variants might make for more balanced scoring. Other ideas are presented as changes that might entirely change the flavor of the game (random point-values is one such enticing idea; or perhaps a "Blitz" variation that removes the 15-second timer; etc). Unfortunately, there's no way for many of these discussions to go beyond speculation over the pros/cons such variations would entail. Unless/until a particular variation is deemed "worthy" of being unleashed upon all players by the chess.com "Overlords", there's simply no way to establish an empirical case (eg. example games) that one variation is truly worth broader consideration. I'd previously proposed some sort of "experimental release" approach, where one-off variations of the game could be published "off-the-menu"; available for small-scale testing/feedback, but not distracting from the progress of the major release path. After giving this some more thought, I realized there might be a cleaner way. What if certain "intriguing" or otherwise-promising rule variations were offered as options in the pre-game screen (before clicking "Play")? The main hurdle is the logistics of "matchability"... even with just 3 variations, the chances of 4 players all selecting the same variation within a reasonable window of time is probably next to nil. What I'd propose is a list of all available rule variations (including "Standard Play" variation), wherein players are allowed to select one setting for each variation: * "Yes please!" (I prefer this variation) * "Meh" (I'm okay with this variation) * "No thanks": (I do not want to play this variation) By default, "Standard play" is marked "Yes please!", and all others are marked "No thanks" (this would guarantee that any player who does not modify these defaults will get "Standard Play"). Furthermore, "Standard Play" only allows "Yes Please!" and "Meh" (it is not possible to choose "No Thanks" for "Standard Play") Opponent selection would be completely independent of these preferences; in other words, 4 competing players are chosen using the existing player-selection algorithm. Thus, this new feature will in no way introduce delays in games getting started. Once 4 players are brought together to play (again, using standard rankings-based player-matching algorithm), their preferences are scanned. The variation to be used for any given game is decided as follows: "No Thanks" acts as a "Veto". No player will ever be put in a game variation they have vetoed. Of all non-vetoed options, "Meh" counts as a +0 vote and "Yes Please" as +1. Whichever of the non-vetoed variations has the most "Yes Please" votes from the 4 players is used (random selection is used to break ties). Lastly - whenever a non-standard variation is used, at the end of the game, all 4 players are asked to rate "How much did you enjoy this variation?" on a scale of 0..5. Those variations that consistently rank near 5 - perhaps they are considered for incorporation into standard play. Those that consistently rank near 0 can be quickly pruned out of existence.

I did find a new bug which I had never seen, you can see it at the end of this video, around 21:37

I recall playing 4-player chess on an actual board several years back through this model so it's pretty cool that chess.com is offering their own spin on the game. Many of the suggestions can be taken with a grain of salt. An example being the 2 vs 2 person within 4-player chess suggestion, that'd actually be a variant. Most variants on here are not defined by any true rules by one's national federation nor FIDE. There are 2 suggestions that I would set forth: a) If a chess-player leaves a game within their first 15 minutes (be it resign, checkmate or worse and what I'm seeing too much of: they bolt or let the clock run down when in a bad position) they should have to wait a set period as determined by chess.com staff. That period should be stern if they leave by either resigning, letting the clock run down or close their browsers out aka run/bolt; I'd go with a 3 hour wait until they can play another 4-player chess game. If they get checkmated they should wait until the entire game they were mated concludes. RATIONALE: a) That person who leaves abruptly might have eliminated pieces from one or more of their opponents rendering that/those opponents pieces down for their own remaining games. b) a chess-player that currently finishes their game early (i.e. is eliminated 3rd or 4th) can play another game at their present rating and play up in the subsequent game when in reality they should be seeded much lower with a lower rating which has not been computed yet [until their last game concludes.] In the following pic the individual competing as yellow resigned after they lost a couple of pieces. They could however play another game a second later 🙄 On this next pic, blue let the clock run down when they lost their last Rook. They didn't even have the common decency to resign. Made much worse he/she did damage to all three opponents and as such all three have to continue playing pieces down. It begs the question, why even play 4-player chess if you're going to bolt?! 😡😤 I won that game so don't rank on me 😝 LOL b) On communication: /stop-chat is great if you don't want communication but if it's going to be kept as it is now, the player who enters that command should have their username/handle disclosed in the message as opposed to some generic line like a player has disabled chat. Some of us can use 4-player to be entertaining and talk sports and other such banter. That being stated, correct chat so if someone disables it, it's disabled for them only. 4-player chess is a variant, there's no right or wrong in how it operates, so why copy the foolish disabling chat for everyone we see on live chess in it too?? The devil's advocate would argue disabling it for all prevents teaming up but that's seen so few in my end. It's been more as an instant messenger for chatting than cheating/teaming up. The other sub-suggestion to this is create a 4-player chess board that always has chat enabled and another that has it disabled and the former cannot be disabled. Everything shouldn't be competitive and 4-player chess itself as a means of camaraderie can be a great marketing/promotions for chess.com All my very best to everyone -just have fun! 👍

Hi everyone, I just created a channel where I will mainly post 4-players videos to show games I find interesting https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyn0Pbflh4_K0FMiiDhsuXA subscriptions and comments are appreciated, let me know if you have questions on the game and I'll try to explain (from my point of view)

There is a funky issue in the rules. Not sure if I like it or not:1) It is not considered a mate if *the player involved* can do something to prevent their king being taken. Duh, standard stuff.However2) It *Is* considered a mate even if *an intervening player* could (and sometimes will and does!) do something to prevent the king being taken.Example: Player A checks Player D with his queen. The queen cannot be taken or blocked by Player D, nor can the king move out of the Queen's reach. Ergo: mate.However, before Player D's move actually comes around, Player B takes Player A's queen. Thus when it came time for player's D's actual move... he isn't even in check!! Yet his pieces are grey.Optional way of handling this would be not count any mate before the player being mated's turn. This would obviously be a bit tricky to code and display.I see this as fairer to player D, C, and B. A little rough on player A. But is it wrong to be able to say to one'self, "Player A would never put his queen on that square, player B's bishop could eat it."??

i've seen strong players opposite another destroy weak lateral opposition several times now. friendly queening and not hesitating to open up a weak players king. let the weakest player move first? in team version i think the strongest and weakest should be paired. in the all vs all it would also be a good idea. if the player opposite you goes out you are often in a very bad spot. this makes him more your partner than the other 2. balancing pairings could provide for more equal games. having a strong player to your left is the scariest. player 1 strongest -4 weakest, i would seat them clockwise 1-3-4-2 so that 3 doesnt get 1 to his left

for whoever is interested, there is a server on discord dedicated to chess variants! https://discord.gg/vAbP4Pt there is also a 4-players channel, to join it just type ".iam 4 player" in the server it would be nice to create a friendly 4 players community where players can discuss new ideas and opinions about the strategies and the game itself! everyone is welcome, strong players and beginners

I suggested this a while back ago and the reply was that 4 Player Chess wasn't fully released, but not is has and now can you add how much points the people have on their page with the rest of the variants.

It may be a good idea to give some additional points to those who do something for the first time in a particular game.For example: 1st checkmate, 1st piece capture, 1st check, 1st double check, 1st promotion.This may motivate players to be more active.

I just played a game where yellow pawn-rushed successfully. Then green and blue both flagged early in the game, and yellow was in position to take both kings and nobody could interfere. Guess who won? It makes a big difference when two people flag early in the game leaving it as essentially a 1v1 with extra points for whoever can get to the kings first...

Even with the point system, higher rated players tend to avoid capturing pieces in the opening and middlegame, because they are afraid that a passive player will overtake them. I propose that the value of captured pieces should be multiplied by 4 in the opening (when there are 49-64 pieces on the board before the capture took place), x3 in the early middlegame (33-48 pieces), x2 in the late middlegame (17-32 pieces), and x1 in the endgame (0-16 pieces). This system will discourage passive waiting moves. What are your thoughts?