Forum

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.

I not too sure about this, but because there is a focus mode in standard chess, maybe add a focus mode to 4 player chess? Let me know what you think below.

Hi, I was just thinking that if bishops worth 5 points, so Queen maybe 11. In two player chess: -Queen = Tower + bishop + 1 = 5 +3 + 1 = 9 In four player chess: -Queen = Tower + bishop + 1 = 5 + 5 + 1 = 11 What do you think?

i make this topic because if four player chess is fun im just imagining how fun and chaotic it would be and i really like chaotic games by the way and twelve player chess has already been made

can we post some tips for new players hear

I found a new bug. I tried castling long, when my opponent was covering a square that the rook would pass through but the king wouldn't pass through. It wouldn't allow me to make the move. As soon as I covered the line to that square with my knight it allowed me to castle long. Needs to be fixed thanks!

I get that these situations should be rare, but especially when there are 2 players remaining they really can happen. What happens when a player is put into stalemate? What happens with 3-fold repetition? Is there any insufficient material rules? (like king vs king endgame) Any 50 moves rule? If we are in an endgame with knight vs rook and the player with rook does not want to give up points by trading to king vs king endgame is there any way to end the game (draw offer or 50 move rule or just play until either player timeouts)?

Maybe we can have clubs participate? 2 people on each club go against another 2 people from another club. Once we get teams up and running maybe we can do this?

This is a wacky suggestion for players who enjoy teaming, while still playing a Free-For-All game. It is inspired by @Omega60's score sharing idea.My idea is to introduce contracts, agreements between two players (partners) regarding a third player (enemy). These contracts could be signed anytime during the game, could not be revoked after that, and will be visible by all players and spectators. Two types of contracts will be available:1) Checkmate Contract: If any of the partners checkmate the enemy, or capture his dead king, the points earned are split between the two.2) Material Contract: If any of the partners capture a piece of the enemy, the points earned are split between the two. A contract is terminated when anyone of the involved players is eliminated, either a partner or the enemy. Multiple contracts could be signed during the game. Participating in more than one contracts with different partners against the same enemy will not be allowed (in other words 3 vs 1 will not be allowed). What do you think? Opinions are welcome!

i make this topic because if four player chess is fun im just imagining how fun and chaotic it would be and i really like chaotic games by the way and spherical chess has already been made

A 1700 player won 3 1900+ players: The strongest player (1958) got the 4th place, the 2nd strongest (1939) got the 3rd place. The "low rated" one got the 1st place and +73 to his rating in a single game.

In more than one game, I was the last surviving player but finished second as the last player I checkmated had more points. This is why more points should be awarded for the players who last till the end. If checkmating get you 20 points, then checkmating the last remaining king must be worth maybe double.

Can we make unrated games so we don't have to lose our ratings?

So after I click "I understand" to the rules, and gives the option to click "Play" to find a game, nothing happens. I have tried 30 times over the past four hours and have been unable to get the screen to advance, despite seeing that there are 600 people playing right now. I have tried using Firefox and Chrome with the same result. What's going on here, and is there a fix on its way?

One of the best parts of 4 player chess is when I am working with another player to take down a third player. The only thing that is not so good about this is: one person gets 20 points, the other nothing. This almost makes working together not worth it. Recommended change: 20 points for a checkmate is good. However, in multi-player checkmate scenarios, I would like the credit to be shared a bit differently. 4 points goes to the person whose move it is. 6 points gets divided between all players that are currently checking the king 10 points gets divided up between players attacking squares around the king Dividing up those last 10 points may be a bit tricky. One way is to think of it as "shares" For each square around the enemy king that the king can go to (basically one that is occupied by anything other than a friendly unit), 1 share is given to each player attacking that square. After this is calculated, each person has a number of shares. If only one person has shares, then he gets all 10 points. If more than one person has shares, points are divvied up in the following way: 11+ total shares: reduce the number of shares in some deterministic way until there are 10 shares. 10 total shares: 1 point per share 6-9 total shares: 1 point per share, remaining points go to whose turn it is 5 total shares: 2 points per share 4 total shares: 2 points per share, remaining points go to whose turn it is 3 total shares: 3 points per share, remaining points go to whose turn it is 2 total shares: 5 points per share. This would make cooperative conquest more equitable in dishing out points for a successful conquest. One of the more disappointing events to happen is when a good campaign is finished against a competitor... and someone else gets ALL 20 points. It also rewards agressive play a bit more, and makes it more risky to turtle up and let your other two neighbors crush a third.

If a pawn promotes to a Queen, any piece taken by that Queen is worth only 1 point. That would make it worthwhile for rooks, minor pieces, etc. to attack that piece. That would make the use of promoted Queens more tactical and makes pieces already on the board better suited to be used as attackers. If one point is too low then the Queen could be worth two to three points and any piece taken would be valued the same as the Queen.