Forum

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?

[COMMENT DELETED]

ue to the changed board size, some pieces have increased in value, while others have dipped in value. The pawn has gained increased power due to being able to promote in the middle of the board, in stead of the typically well defended back row. The pawn and the promoted queen should still be valued at one point, the other pieces should adjust to allow that. The knight, in contrast, has dipped in strength. It retains it's defensive capabilities, but pales in comparison to the bishop. I believe it should be considered to be worth two points. The bishop has an increase in strength. It - unlike the rook- can easily target two opponents at once. It's greater maneuverability should increase it's value to four points, it's only weakness being it's access to only half the squares on the board. The rook has not increased it's value, as it's lack of maneuverability negates it's increased range. It should also be valued at four points, adjusting from the usual five points due to the increased power of the pawn. The queen has almost doubled in strength. It has the abilities of the bishop and room but with none of the weaknesses. I believe it should be valued anywhere between ten and twelve points.

I am not sure if this has been posted before, but I noticed that in my opinion too many players abort their games. for 2 reasons. 1) They dont like their color (if they start as 4th color for example) or2) if they dont like the ratings of other players I think that people should be punished with some little amount of rating points, so that this problem stops. As it takes some time to create pairings, it can take sometimes take minutes for creation of pairings, which is quite a lot of time online ;-) Any other opinions on this?

We need your help to make a few key rules and game play decisions. Please fill out this 10-question survey to tell us what you think. https://ignoble.typeform.com/to/bq7LR2

Listen, I know many here play bullet, love fast pace games, but... this is very very new and, don’t you think to be more inviting to newbies that find out about this Fantastic New Addition to Chess.com there should at least be another added minute? I know a lot here wish to rush their game, but I am rather upset that I had to with my past device I used to have and was conditioned to have to quickly move or it would lock my screen, therefore forced to blitz 5 minute ones if not an insane 1 minute’r and it forced me to move quick, though I so rather E N J O Y a ‘game’ and not some rush to see who can do the most damage with the little silly time given! It seems quite FAIR to have AT LEAST 2 small minutes.. Yes, there’s a slight lapse before each move that does help, but IT MOST CERTAINLY WOULD were we given the totally sensible extra SMALL minute.. Please forgive me if I’m sounding too much of griping, you guys have made an ABSOLUTELY AWESOME ADDITION TO THIS SITE but I do fEEl it can be SO MUCH MORE (lol AWESOME’R) were we to have the very least one more minute, P L E A S E.. This game SHOULD not be so rushed. For crying out loud there’s lol like a total of 3 boards instead of just one.. c’mon ”,

I've just started at four player chess, but having watched a few grand masters flounder around and say 'I don't know what I'm doing', I figured that the field was pretty open. I've written up a few four player strategies, and would love to get feedback: Four player chess Strategic Elements -Don't trade Trading weakens you and the opponent you just took, leaving the other two players stronger. Even 'trading up' will weaken you. Example: You take a bishop for a knight. Great trade, right?? Let's do the math: Before your trade: (You) Red: 30 points in piecesBlue: 30 points in piecesGreen: 30 points in piecesYellow: 30 points in pieces After the trade: (You) Red: 27 points in piecesBlue: 25 points in piecesGreen: 30 points in piecesYellow: 30 points in pieces You see? While you gained two points *against Blue*, you lost three points against Green AND Yellow!! You also gained five points toward your final score, but few games are decided by so small a margin. -Don't leave your pieces en prise In ordinary chess you can say, "Hey, if he takes me here I can just take him back." Two problems with that in four player chess:1) It is a trade, thus bad for you and2) In the meantime, after he 'takes me here', someone else might do something I need to respond to! So I might not be able to, or willing to, 'just take him back'. - Don't focus on one player You have this great attack going against red. Two moves from now, he is toast, checkmate... Except while you were looking that way, Blue snuck in and started attacking you!! - Gang up When you see a player being attacked, check to see if you can use the tempo he needs to defend himself in order for you to take a piece. This is particularly true when he is checked, and when you move before him. You might just be able to gobble a piece for free.It is less dramatic but also true that when a player is busy fighting off an attack by one player they are simply more vulnerable to attacks elsewhere. -Balance the powerThe opposite of 'ganging up': when a player is attacking another player the attacking player might be 'vulnerable' to your attack... he might be willing to sacrifice the bishop you are attacking in order to gain a checkmate, for example.And, hopefully obviously, you don't want that other player to do well -Don't forget turn order, the player that moves right after you is much 'stronger' than the player that plays three later The player that moves right after you can respond right away to your attacks. The player that moves three after you has two other opponents who might do things that they have to respond to.-Defense, defense, defenseAn attack is an attack against one, a good defense protects against all.-Diagonals are fantastically important Bishops are arguably more important than rooks, as a well placed bishop attacks two opponents at once, from the safety of the home squares, whereas your rooks have to move out into the board to do the same thing. -Get in on the mate! When you see one player start to line another player up for a mate, get your pieces lined up to cover the area where the mate will be takign place. It might very well happen that what is one move away from mate for Red, might be a mate you can do *right now*! One really important strategy is to cover the 'mating square'. Often an opponent will chose to move there, and get the mate, even with a queen, even if it means giving the queent to you! They get twenty points, after all! So why not you get nine at the same time! -Don't let others in on your mate! Don't set up a mating situation that someone else can take advantage of! You get Red's king backed up to one file... and yellow swoops in with his castle and gets the mate! You might even need to back off to prevent a different opponent from mating. -Knights are best at home. Knights move really slowly compared to bishops, queens, and rooks. So use them mostly for home defense duties, or to wrap around the corner and go after a castled king.

For some reason, I realized that except in games, there were no other possible way of knowing our 4-player rating. Opponents, I can only view them if I were playing them. Is viewing ratings of 4-player possible in the near future? If there already is another way, can someone let me know? Thx Richard

Here is a rule change that I think would solve some of the issues that have come up:Treat the pieces of a resigned/time loss/checkmated player *as if they could still move* for the purposes of check. Example: Gold's king cannot move to square B2 because Red's queen faces down on that square. Red is then checkmated/resigns/runs out of time.Current Rules: Gold's king can now move to square B2.Proposed Rule: Gold's king cannot move to B2 until the queen is blocked or taken.Some of the issues this might address: Several times the idea of having to only 'checkmate' a resigned king has been proposed and even implemented, no? However given their resigned state, bizarre conditions can result. If the pieces were still considered movable (even tho they wouldn't actually move) any checkmate would have to be 'real'... ie really deal with the pieces around, and the king.Standard chess parallel: There is a parallel for this in standard chess. A bishop, say, which is 'pinned' in front of its own king, and thus cannot legally move, can nonetheless participate in a discovered check, or even be part of the block for a checkmate... *as if it could move*.

Since checkmate or the last man standing isn't the way to win, resignation doesn't necessarily lose. Some players use this as a trick to win (when there are only 2 players left) when he/she has more points and can afford to give 15 points to the opponent by resigning, and still winning by points. Wouldn't this be a little annoying?