Forum

Me be like: AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

Do you take into consideration which order your opponents make a move? Well, you should! Positioning matters in this variant. First off let's talk about the person sitting in front of you. He is your best friend. Since he's pieces are far away from yours they rarely make contact with yours in the opening. In addition you both have the same enemies on the sides and if any combination happens against an enemy on the side, he is the most likely to help you. You also don't want anything bad to happen to your friend since you are unlikely to be able to join the party and get points from him. And you don't want your enemies to get free points. Next we have the player to the right. He is a backstabber. If any other player checks you or make a move you need to respond to (like trading a piece), he will always be there and try to take advantage of it. However you should not fear him, he should be the one fearing you! If you initiate a trade or create a threat against him, then your best friend are ready to backstab him before he can respond. Whether you want your best friend to get points this way is up to you, but the backstabber should definitely fear you. Finally we have the player to the left. He is your worst enemy. If he creates any check or threat against you there are 2 players after him that could take advantage of it. If you create a threat or check against him he can respond immediately without any other player taking advantage of it, unless they managed to predict your move. It's true the backstabber are the one most likely to gain from this, but you should fear the cause which is your worst enemy instead of the one dealing the damage. Also keep in mind that you want to be able to backstab your worst enemy. Any thoughts on this view of positioning? Obviously the player I called best friend is also an enemy at the end of the day and this is a simplification of the players roles.

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-rg/game/78999637/1/1 I (red) could not castle here - even before move 11. Also, the king seems to be in the wrong place. Is this a bug?

I've recently started playing 4PC, and something that has continually confused me is opposite cooperation, so I had a few questions. I understand the basic premise behind cooperating with your opposite in the initial 4 player stage (at least I think I do)--your opposite is farther from you and cannot immediately attack you, whereas the players on your flanks can immediately create threats, but the extent players will go out of their way to protect their opposite sometimes seems a little silly and pointless to me.  From my understanding--and maybe this is completely wrong--the goal of the 4 player stage is simply to eliminate one of the players, and this is why teaming up with your opposite can be incredibly useful. However, in my very limited experience, the player that gets eliminated first generally has little bearing on which remaining color ends up winning the game. Theoretically, this assumption makes sense, because once in the 3 player stage, the fundamental strategy is to maintain a balance of power between the players. If on player becomes too powerful, the other two will coordinate attacks to weaken that player, and this will constantly repeat. The main benefit of eliminating the first player is to increase your own chances of getting first, and this increase in winning chances is completely independent from whether the eliminated player is your opposite or not, so why is it that opposites in the 4 player stage will sometimes blindingly cooperate? For example, I have seen many instances where a player is about to be checkmated, and their opposite saves them with a check, sometimes sacrificing a bishop or even a queen. Why are moves like these that save one's opposite at all necessary? What substantial difference is there if your opposite is checkmated vs one of your other opponents? To me it simply seems incredibly pointless. From my understanding, checkmating a player is almost always necessary to meaningfully progress in the game, essentially eliminating the weakest link, so why is it that players will team to directly prevent checkmate? Here are a couple of games to illustrate my point. In this game, played 12. Qxh13+, setting up a mate on yellow if red plays 13. Qxg12#. However red declines to play this, and it seems to me like this was mostly based on the sole fact that yellow is red's opposite.  https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/79427307/306/4 In this game, blue could have played 8. Qxn9+, allowing yellow to play 8. Qxn6#. This seems counter intuitive, because generally opposites cooperate, but this seems like a perfectly valid move for blue to play. If blue could set up this same mate on either red or yellow, they would play it without so much as batting an eye, so what is the difference that makes checkmating an opposite so horrible. https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/74495770/30/1 Obviously I understand the frustration that comes when an opposite or opponent  doesn't play a move that I expect or think is best, but I believe that it is simply naive to ALWAYS trust and play for your opposite. In these aforementioned games, there are clear checkmate opportunities, so why are they ignored? Sometimes, it seems completely beneficial to play against your opposite, so why is that viewed with such a negative connotation of an unforgivable "betrayal"? On what basis can any player fully trust their opposite to save them than general custom and accepted play? I simply don't see how letting your opposite get checkmated or even actively checkmating them is any different than letting one of your other opponents get checkmated or actively checkmating them.  Obviously my 4pc experience is incredibly limited, so I am genuinely curious about the answers.

I think it would be a great idea to introduce a 2nd teams game mode, where you can control both sides of the same board by teaming with yourself. I know that it's against the rules to partner with yourself on two different browsers, but how about introducing an entire new mode where that's the point? Personally, I find myself victim to many a player who deems their moves 'better' than mine, and sometimes these moves lose the game. Yes, they could be good moves, but more often than not (admittedly, some phenomenal moves are sometimes played), they're worse than the move I had in mind. For me, (and I'm aware that this will not be the case for all of you) I enjoy teams mode because it's a true judge of skill rather than luck, like FFA is. I don't play for the reason that I get to play with other people, because there are very few people who I enjoy playing with. The reason, as aforementioned, is because it's fairer than FFA. So, why not introduce a game mode which reflects truly a player's skill level? I'm called upon lots and lots for "blaming other partners" when I lose a game. But usually (not always, I'll admit), I'm in a perfectly valid position to do so. To introduce a game mode where no such accusations could be made would be wonderful, especially for the people who play it for the game (as I do) rather than for the social aspect (like most people <1600 ish) Please let me know your thoughts on this. ~Tom

Hi I Ma New To This Club

Recently I have been playing Settlers of Catan online. As I have been climbing through the ranks and playing more high-level games, I noticed that games became much more cooperative, with players being incredibly active in the chat with advice and deal making with other players being commonplace. Players who got lucky with the dice would be actively restrained by the other three, stopping him from running away with the game. This got me thinking: Why isn’t this same free communication allowed in 4pc? 4pc has become very boring as of late. Game after game of mind-numbing 3p stages that last forever and are often decided by dumb luck. Also, with this garbage modern setup it is very easy to get screwed over by your opposite. The beauty of 4pc lies in the 4p stage, and the longer this stage lasts, the more enjoyable the game. Allow free chat during games, and the 4p stages will last longer and become far more interesting. Players will advise each other, tell each other moves, and determine who is the strongest player. Now you might think that this would cause the game to become more like teams, but the thing is, checkmate should not be the goal. There are so many scenarios, at least in my games, where I am hesitant to let my opposite mate someone, allowing them to be in a very strong position to win, and I wish that I could turn against them without pushback from him and the other players. With free chat, the goal would be to bring the strongest player down to the other player’s level. Instead of instantly mating players, the goal would be to weaken one player, and then move on to another. For example, red and yellow take blues material without mating him, then they move onto green and do the same, and then all three players attack either red or yellow depending on who is stronger. This is just one possibility – there could be games where rg teams up on by because of the circumstances. These scenarios can only happen with free chat because players are allowed to propose to team on another player without making actual chess moves. And the 3p stage will become more interesting and will take less time, as players will actively take down the strongest player. There will also be times where it is not entirely clear who is the strongest player, and that will lead to discussions about who to target, adding yet another level to the game. The pros to me with this idea highly outweigh the cons if there any cons. I think this should at least be tested. Obviously, we can still have anon games with no chat allowed. Anyways, I’d love to know your thoughts! Here is a game were it was clearly advantageous for all 3 players to target the strongest player, but because chatting is considered cheating, this was not possible. https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/78553959/226/1

Dashes, is it possible (do-able) to add a neutral enemy piece? Sort of like a Grey Army, A.I. controlled piece that would attack any nearby human player pieces that step in range of an attacking square. For example, imagine a grey knight that sits in the center of the board. It attacks any nearby player piece that either steps on or in range of an attack-able square. A knight can jump to one of eight squares. If a human player's piece is two knight jumps away, then the Grey knight hops to one of its attack squares and threatens the human piece (perhaps a customizable menu can allow a map creator/board creator to select which one of the eight squares can be the "designated attack-able square"). If the human player’s piece remains on the square that is being attacked, then the grey knight will capture it. After which, the grey knight will return to its post. If the human player's piece has entered one of the Grey knight's immediate eight squares, then the Grey knight captures the human player's piece. The grey knight would be immortal and could not be captured. This feature would create scenarios, in custom games, in which 4 human chess players have to figure out how to work around the immortal Grey pieces (a Grey knight, a Grey rook etc.) I thought about this after spectating several custom games in which human players navigated their kings with check counters through what appeared to be a maze. This suggestion could create interesting maze problems in which two players might have to work co-cooperatively in order to get their kings with check counters past a Grey knight guarding a particular passage. And at the end of the maze? In the final room, the Grey queen awaits weary maze runners … The Complexity of Turns It would always be the Grey Army’s turn to act (this is important because several human players could be located in different parts of the maze. And the Grey pieces need to be able to simultaneously attack several human player’s pieces as soon as they are in range of attack-able squares), but after a Grey piece leaves its post to deliver an attack, then that particular Grey piece would experience some sort of cool down, eventually returning to its post. In this manner, players would need to calculate in order to figure out ways of sneaking past either stationary or patrolling Grey army pieces.

I made a custom game. The zombies are'nt smart, so you can lure them towards the enemy royal.

Does anyone think when you lose in teams, there should be a button that one of the partners could take the blame.  If they clicked the button, they would take the rating there partner has lost and lose it for themselves.  This would be so much better, as a lot of the time, you lose rating due to your partner resigning (due to having to go).  It would also be good so that one of the partners could admit it was there fault.  So an example would be if it was 2100 and 2200  v 1900 and 2400, the second team loses, due to the 1900 moving way to fast, and the 1900 thinks its themselves fault, and takes the blame, taking both ratings.  Also, if someone disconnects, and comes back after 30 minutes, the button should still be available.  Anyone think this will work?  Or is there a major issue?

ㅤ

It would be best if u include a game or screenshots please  

Does one team have a better/less chance of winning than the others?

When 3 other decided attack you 

The king with the number on it has vanished and been replaced by a standard king. any chance this bug can be fixed?

Does anyone think when you lose in teams, there should be a button that one of the partners could take the blame.  If they clicked the button, they would take the rating there partner has lost and lose it for themselves.  This would be so much better, as a lot of the time, you lose rating due to your partner resigning (due to having to go).  It would also be good so that one of the partners could admit it was there fault.  So an example would be if it was 2100 and 2200  v 1900 and 2400, the second team loses, due to the 1900 moving way to fast, and the 1900 thinks its themselves fault, and takes the blame, taking both ratings.  Also, if someone disconnects, and comes back after 30 minutes, the button should still be available.  Anyone think this will work?  Or is there a major issue?

After having played 4p chess A LOT, I see that in FFA (contrary to Solo), it's strictly counterproductive to betray the opposite in the 1st stage (with all 4 neighbours still alive). In almost all cases it means the 3rd place afterwards. Just an example: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=2740028 (OF COURSE I saw this possibility beforehand, but I couldn't expect such imbecility from a guy with almost 2000 points of rating in FFA and 2630 games played!). To weaken the opposite, to attack the opposite, even to kill the opposite is just STUPID. Ok, you get 20 points, but afterwards in most cases you are taken between 2 guys who will kill you eventually. And even when they don't, you are likely to finish maximum 2nd. I think I've only seen 10-15 games (out of several thousands) where you finish 1st after having done that. The only (very marginal) exceptions when it could still be worth, it's when you still have 4 players; one of the flank players is almost dead, the other is rather passive and doesn't have a lot of points, let's say under 10, you have already let's say 35 points and the opposite is a strong (dangerous) player: so you eliminate the opposite, get to 55 points, kill the weakest flank player and thus with 75 points claim the win. (And you will notice that I haven't even spoken here about the FUTURE consequences: players who do that usually are not assisted correctly by their opposites in later games, at least by those who have a good memory or take notes).

Jeevan

Lhih pio gash 

wosmw