Forum

please

Context: Indi's thread regarding the starting position. Martinaxo made the suggestion for 1st: +2; 2nd: 0; 3rd: -1; 4th -1 tl;dr In Martinaxo's rating system, second and first will just team to the end, and dramatically change FFA Note: this is a partial rehash of arguements I have made before I think the best way to make this arguement is to use an example. Blue: Strongest player Green: Weakest player Yellow: In between Let's say green is really weak and green and yellow have just enough to match blue if they play very well. What will green do? Will green take the risk of losing, and gamble that yellow is smart enough and he somehow wins the endgame? No, he will throw the game to blue. What about a more balanced game? I will posit, and this, if my memory serves me, is what happened the last time (2019?) we had a similar rating system, green and blue will team and then divide the spoils. If the weaker player loses, no problem, as he still does not lose anything. Players will play it safe, and rarely betray and risk third. Is this change bad? I don't know if this would be better than the current rating system, but I argue that we should not change to this until will understand its effects. We don't comprehend its effects, and as such don't know enough to be able to tell if this is the direction we want to go. As such, I oppose this idea currently, and argue that we should stick with the current rating system or go back to 3 0 0 -3

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29877202

I know this isn't big for most of you but I just crossed 2000 rapid ffa! Here is my terrible game that got me over 2000! https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29891863/106/2

WILL SOMEONE P L E A S E V I E W THIS AND SEE WHAT IM MEANING BY MY DEVICE BEING HACKED? Yo, the opponent on my left showed as if his time elapsed, watched over min go then freezed, so I refreshed and it showed my time had ran yet still very little was left and you can see lol I was pissed…… ..this is posted in notes, and now I’m getting the link that’s another post in notes brb.. …. Even read what’s in chat ! https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29888319

I'm so sorry green https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/29851548

where is the link to the 4 player leaderboard?

I've seen a post today about how many 2400 + players there are. If I understood it correctly a world championships might be coming up soon. I'd like to offer a suggestion for the tournament : why not have a class tourney ? The 2400 and up play in their own class. Then have the 2200 - 2399 players play each other in that class, and lastly 2000 - 2199 playing each other. To qualify you need to be above 2000. Three tourneys run at once shouldn't be a problem. I volunteer my services, back in the 1980's I used to be an organiser for local Swiss tourneys, so I have experience at the setup and running of it.

R-0,0,0,0-1,1,1,1-1,0,1,1-0,0,0,0-3-x,x,x,yR,1,yB,yK,yQ,yB,1,yR,x,x,x/x,x,x,yP,yP,yP,yP,2,gP,yP,x,x,x/x,x,x,5,yP,2,x,x,x/2,bP,4,yP,3,gR,2/1,bP,2,bN,7,gP,1/bB,yN,1,bP,7,gN,gP,gB/1,bP,9,gP,gQ,gK/bK,bQ,bP,5,rQ,5/bB,bP,10,gP,gB/bN,bP,9,gP,2/bR,2,rN,rP,5,gN,1,gP,gR/x,x,x,4,rP,rN,2,x,x,x/x,x,x,rP,1,rP,rP,1,rP,rP,rP,x,x,x/x,x,x,rR,1,rB,1,rK,2,rR,x,x,x

!!! it happen to me several times that a player type "/stop chat" at the first move, when any message is written. When we block the chat, is because there are teamming but here none has written any messages, and the chat is blocked by somebody without any logic reason It is happened to you also? I whant that this abitude stop and that we type "/stop chat" only if there are teamming

@spacebar We have a feature request that would work well with the upcoming World Championships, and it would be a welcomed feature by the 4 Player Chess League, where we schedule games every weekend. When inviting 4 players to a game, if they're not online at the same time, it's been challenging to start multiple games at once since we can only start 1 game at a time. It would be great if we could create a game, invite 4 players, and have the game start "Now" or have it start at a scheduled time when all 4 players click a Join Button. This game then shows up in the Lobby at the scheduled time, and the 4 players will see the "Join" button to start the game. This way, we won't have to wait for players to be online, and multiple games can be scheduled ahead of time. Just something simple like WordPress uses would work great.

In Chaturaji variant, I always get strong player on my right side and other strong player on my left. My front is a typically some new player who have no idea. when that happens my front player will dead first and I can't stop my right side player's attack. I will end up getting 3rd place. This paring system is not random and it is designed in the way that always disadvantage to high rated player. Can someone please fix this paring system.

Game wasn't decided one way or another and server restarted multiple times and the lucky person who had just moved won by all other 3 timing out. I'd post the link to the game but the entire F*ckin 4PC server is down for who knows how long.

must be part of the rules, any player who doesn't play to win, sec and resign will be banned.

The whole tentative or tacit agreement, and common knowledge, that because opposites will naturally gravitate toward acting as a team is not a good reason or excuse for not enforcing some basic fair play in FFA. When two players work together to eliminate another one right at the start of a game, before having had a chance to develop, let alone defend, this isn't a Free for All, it is teaming. I'd like to suggest that FFA's rules be updated with the following: A player may not be checkmated in the first 10 moves if it is the result of two or more players pieces. A player may not be checkmated in the first 10 moves if two or more players have accumulated 7 points worth of pieces individually, or 15 points combined from the player in question. If either rule is found to have been violated, it constitutes teaming, and violates fair basic fair play tenets. Game termination: The two players whose pieces are involved both lose points, and the game ends. Repeatedly ending games like this should have some incremental threshold enforced, such that the person can play Teams, but not FFA for some period of time. https://www.chess.com/legal/fair-play Interesting that the path for "Fair Play" includes "legal." To quote from it: "Do not get help from any other person, including parents, friends, coaches or another player" ... "if you intend to use assistance against your opponent, you must notify them beforehand" ... Obviously with teams, players know they're working against multiple other opponents. In FFA, you're playing against 3 other players, but there is not an explicit or implicit 3-on-1 or 2-on-1. However, the FFA rules say not to report implicit teaming, and only provides for known, explicit reasons and rationale (concrete terms, such as begging for points, or coordination in chat). This is despite the acknowledgment that opposites will gravitate toward acting as a team. The above rules give all 4 players of 4PC, playing FFA, the opportunity to develop and defend into or toward a mid-game, and puts the brakes on players who take advantage of the BS lame-duck, lackadaisical, lassiez-fair attitudes of admins and management. Considering all of the changes made, on such a regular basis, implementing some basic rules to ensure fair play in FFA doesn't seem like it'll make much of a difference. It will upset those who like to take advantage of FFA to act as a team at the start, for a while. Those players will stop playing and be gone, or they'll adapt and get with the program. But I'd wager there will be a great deal many more people who would be happy with improved rules that get rid of or discourage unfair play (implicit teaming, or team tactics) at the outset of an FFA game. Pretend for a moment that instead of 4PC, we just call it 3PC. Or maybe just 2PC. Or maybe that's putting too fine a point on it. Why do we need 4PC or FFA if the objective is to assist each other in eliminating one player right away? So we just eliminate one. Thus, 3PC. And since two players in 3PC will naturally gravitate toward teaming, then we just eliminate another one, and call it 2PC. Or Chess on a larger board.

Let me just say- I'm not trying to make this a cheating forum complaint or whatnot but I must say... I don't know if it's just me but whenever I play 4PC it always seems like my opponent is using a cheating bot thing judging by all of the brilliant moves they make. Is it possible to do such a thing?? (I'm new to chess.com in general so I'm still trying to figure things out... I apologize if this forum question is dumb)

I found Crazyhouse mode in 4pc

(Yes, this is different from my last post, look through the entire thing)

I need 3 players to test a 4pc custom position, help me out with that?