Forum

What I have noticed is that people keep trying to add me to games that I am not interested in. Unlike pre-merge, the server just adds me without me accepting or rejecting the invite. The worst thing is when I am the last player invited before the game fills, and I have to exit the game immediately. I suggest we reverse the inviting idea of real players to how it was like before: they must accept the invite, and they're in, but they can still exit. I'd love to hear from your ideas.

like can you improve them to help the opposite cuz when you try practicng hyper with them they cna't stop 3v1ing you

i know are very few people who play that variant, but why removing rated mode for it? including my favourite variant, 960 + capture the king. i've seen rated 960 still exists, so please, capture the king it's a cool variant, casual games are not cool

I've just found out that new (?) autoresign rules have been created. I'm shocked. Was not aware, by no means. In this game: https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30220804, a) it's unfair for Y who sacrificed himself so much and finished 4th, whereas he deserved 2nd or 3rd at least, and b) I could still win, whereas the system made the autoresign making me 2nd. UNFAIR. Who decided that? On which basis? With which idea behind?

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30244826/289/4

a) the current rating calculation only takes into account the average rating of the players involved. It's inadequate, because it's much easier to win (if you are 2400 for instance) with a 2600 in front with two 2300 sides, rather than with a 2300 opp and sides rated 2600 and 2300. But with the current system the value of a victory would be the same. We must take into consideration the configuration of the board. b) in the classic 2p chess, the rating is a very accurate predictor of the outcome. If you are 1900, it's unlikely you would lose against a 1600, the probability exists but it's under 0.001%. In 4p chess for many reasons it's VERY EASY to lose even if you are 2800 and finish 4th if three 1800 sides cooperate against you (3 vs. 1) or simply if you play normally and put your Q at risk and your opp is stupid/incompetent, etc. 4th places are MUCH MORE PROBABLE in 4p chess (regardless of your rating) than the 2nd place in 2p chess. As a result, most if not all good players avoid playing with lower rated: if they lose, they lose too much, if they win, they earn too little. I think it is normal to earn very few in such cases (we can't encourage farming), but it's not good that the cost of a total defeat is that high. I'm currently about 50/55th in bullet, have accepted two low-rated games and had 4th place twice in a row (paf, -50 points at least). The rating shouldn't be that volatile, it doesn't make sense. I propose we simply LIMIT the maximum progression or decrease in points to 10 points. As a result, high rated players would accept much easier matches with lower rated, and like that everybody would profit from their experience and learn faster. c) we've had A LOT of discussion as about whether it should be pure solo (3 -1 -1 -1) which pushes people to play for 1st, or like previously 3 +1 -1 -3 (that unfortunately encourages playing for 2nd sometimes and makes less interesting games), or something in between. It's pretty clear that the system can't be the same for low rated and high rated players. I believe the current system is rather a good compromise, BUT: I think it should become solo earlier. Otherwise, I've always said that I think that the 4th place shouldn't be punished that much, because the difference between the 3rd and the 4th usually is not high and often depends simply on lack (for instance, with 2 good sides if your opp does nothing, you're 4th necessarily as nobody can resist a coordinated attack from 2 excellent sides). I also believe that the difference between the 2nd and the 3rd shouldn't be high because the 2nd in fact is the MAIN loser: he could've won but didn't. Often 3rd is 3rd for trying to become 1st (which is noble) whereas the 2nd is 2nd for having accepted that the 1st wins and having settled for 2nd (which is cheap). Therefore I think that if we ever had to modify the overall system for having just ONE formula, as some asked (for instance Radon), a good system could be something like 3 -0.5 -1 -1.5. In this case the 4th is close to 3rd and is not punished too much; the 2nd and the 3rd are close as well; the 2nd still loses rating and thus people are not encouraged to accept the 2nd place too easily. And in the same time, it is not the abrupt Solo 3 -1 -1 -1 which, I know, shocks many, especially the players who are under 2200 and in fact they are the majority... d) I remind that 3 years ago we had a very simple formula like 3 1 -1 -3 (I'm not sure), and it was then added the rule according to which if all players were above 1600 I think (which is today 1800 as +200 were given to all) were automatically Solo, or Winner Takes All as it was called then. This level corresponds today at least to 2100-2200 because of the inflation. Maybe we should revert to such a simple system. But I think that if we do, it should be applied if there are TWO AND MORE players above some level (and not "all" like it was the case).

It says that a one-piece zombie is stalemated when you capture its royal piece. Shouldn't it say, "*USER*'s royal captured!", not "*USER* stalemated!"? (S in notation, if you are counting an action, not the piece [the Dababba] means stalemate) And same happens on Capture the King/Regicide. Here it is before the capture: BEFORE: AFTER:

Deccodude and MDAWG_2019 will not attack one another, they play together until the other two players are defeated. They also play long after the other two players are gone, double-checking kings to run up their scores.

I told you guys, I am done trolling and this is proof. I propose a game called " FFA - No Opposites " be created. The enforcement would be uniform, for players who are chronic offenders as well as people who consistently waste admins time. Opposites can be claimed when a player is being cut to pieces by 2 players in successive moves. Yes, in some games this would mean banning play in the regular game that is perfectly legal by all standards to help catch the cheating players. And the game would go through some " teething pains " but the upside would be more players being able to stay in games longer, and thus get more playing time against live opponents. I believe the quality of lower rated players would improve under such a system. I know my haters are going to tee off on this, but I don't care. I honestly believe it's a helpful idea.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I literally just had this happen to me not 15 minutes ago. The guy put me and the other player in check with the same move 9 times before mating us both with his 10th. As soon as someone teaches me how to load a saved page I will post it. It is an honour to lose like that.

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30131424/105/4 lmfao I have no words

I wanna know which variants you don’t like.

It's upsetting to see how much the inflation of ratings made a formerly (2018-2019) very correct level of 2000-2100 totally irrelevant, far too weak. People there quite often are not aware about the FFA basics (like https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/basic-ffa-aspects), attack you sometimes, or simply... fail to take obvious mates. In this example (https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30120493) my opp TWICE preferred deliberately not to mate a side (certainly not willing to lose his Q, which is in most cases a naive approach to FFA). The second time upset me most because I saved the guy from mate just before, sacrificing my development. Ok, he got his 4th place well deserved, but my side I lost because of him (I was of course supposed to be 3rd, finished eventually 2nd by mere accident, as red resigned by mistake, he shouldn't have). In many cases in games under 2500 in fact it's not worth to help the opp because he doesn't even understand sometimes that you're saving him. In one recent case the guy in front even ATE MY QUEEN that went to save him from mate (!!!) and I finished 4th then (and he was of course 3rd, because https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/to-betray-too-early-means-3rd-place-in-95-of-cases). Once I'm back to 2500-2600, I'll avoid playing games under 2400, it's mainly BS unfortunately. This beautiful game is only interesting and fair above this level (currently), otherwise it's rather frustrating.

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30125425/22/3

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30080655 check it out

a game filled with lots of blunders! I honestly got lucky but really pround of it. Is my opening OK? Im green https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30079820/1/4

I've reported so many times were I've lost rating due to lag or disconnects, not a single time did I get my points back. And just now the server disconnected and lost a solid 40 points. And that's not even the worst part about it. I might just straight up abandon 4pc and variants until the server is actually stable, and if it's not for a while, oh well. I'm getting sick and tired of losing rating to lag and not getting any rating back whatsoever. Not a fan of playing on some half done server because some idiots wanted a merge.

this is prolly my best game, and I'm saying this after having many good games https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29769262 check it out

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30032043/58/4