Forum

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30764763 I didn't even see the mate on red lol

It is quite obvious (I believe) that the quality of the game increase, imagination, creativity, but also frequency and availability of the games depend on the NUMBER of the players involved. It is equally obvious I think that the number of the players naturally is diminishing (deaths, disgust for the game, lack of time...) and we therefore continuously need new players. Finally, new players (who arrive often) need to STAY with us. And that's where we have a problem. It's been probably at least 3 years I've been advocating here for a drastic LIMITATION of the access of the new players. I strongly, very strongly believe that players with less than maybe 50 or 100 games shouldn't have access (joining) to games other than Standard Rapid FFA or Teams. Currently a lot of curious players come, join just any game and find themselves for instance in something dramatically different from standard (War for Throne for example, or King safety) or in antichess or in hyper... I think they SHOULDN'T have access to blitz/bullet/hyper neither. Come on, they're discovering the game! They have FIRST begin by something basic, with no critical time constraint. https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30133914 Why do I strongly believe such a limitation should be implemented ASAP? a) many of them come, are killed within seconds and then never come back (disgusted), and even are able to communicate saying that 4p chess is nonsense or BS. It's clearly very bad from marketing point of view and doesn't contribute to promote our beautiful hobby, b) it's not good neither (from marketing point of view) that newcomers judge about 4p chess GENERALLY after maybe just 1-2 games in some weird variant, c) if we want people to stay, they should first understand the main game, and rather calmly, without time pressure, hence Rapid and Standard FFA or Teams, d) it is clearly very unfair for their opps, for whom it becomes much more complicated to win.

As Season 1 of the 4 Player Chess League is coming to an end, and as the Playoffs are set to begin, we'd like to get everyone's input on how you'd like to see the round of 16 games structured. The Playoff games are going to maintain the FFA Points system. The Round of 16 will feature the Top 4 finishers in the League, in 4 separate games. To win your bracket you must reach 7 points to put the Lobby in Check, and then win a game to secure the Victory in your Group. The 4 winners will advance to the Finals. The 4PCL Team has 2 ideas on how the Playoff Games will be structured and we need your input, to cast your vote please visit: https://4playerchessleague.com/ffa-playoffs-format/

Whatever changes were made here, I now can't see challenges from others even though they are switched on in my settings (see screenshots attached). That's pretty frustrating. Pls help me here.

I just think it would be interesting to be able to see past leaderboards. Like the Teams Rapid Leaderboard for June 13th, 2019 for example. In addition, it adds more 'permanency' and probably interest. The flaw in the idea is implementation+perhaps encourages people to sit on their rating

Prior to the merge, FFA was FAR more popular than Solo. 6 months later, the player base has shrunk, and many are frustrated with the Solo system. We've even gone out of our way to create a League so we can keep playing FFA + Old Standard, but this is not the answer. The question is simple, why can't we have a choice between Solo and FFA? I don't understand the reasoning behind getting rid of the more popular points system, while Solo could've been kept separate with its own rating as it was before.

Yes. You can. According to article https://support.chess.com/article/596-can-i-have-multiple-accounts, multiple accounts are supported. But adding some constraints would be good as per my view. second account can play only -200 < x < +200 rating until they play 'n' number of games. Also it would be good to publish authorized second accounts at some place. Everyday I see some 1500 guys playing like a pro and it would be really hard to gain rating with them. It's really annoying when second accounts come to play and steal a lot of ratings.

It's now more than 6 months (!) since the famous catastrophic merge. Among many unpleasant consequences, the server instability is the most upsetting. Have just finished again 4th because of the disconnection in a game that I was clearly winning. Hence a huge point loss again. I've never asked for any points refunds as it's petty and not needed. But well, WHEN will you fix this problem once for all?! Is it a big deal to buy, install and configure properly a new server?! It's been now long time, and you had ENOUGH TIME to have it fixed. Definitely.

2000+ Teams games take a long time to fill, when will the server be stable enough for us to finish games? https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/30423488/86/4 Since the server isn't stable, and it crashes, can we at least get rating refunds when the server crashes in Teams games we are winning? We're up -10 in this game when the server crashed, but each lost -15 rating as a result. I've easily lost 200 - 300+ Teams rating points due to server crashes. This is getting old now.

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).

PGN4: [Variant "Teams"][RuleVariants "EnPassant"][StartFen4 "4PC"][CurrentMove "28"] 1. h2-h3 .. b7-c7 .. g13-g12 .. m6-l62. Qg1-j4 .. b9-c9 .. i13-i12 .. m11-k113. Ne1-f3 .. Na10-c11 .. Qh14-e11 .. Qn7-m64. Qj4-j6 .. Na5-c6 .. d13-d11 .. m8-l85. k2-k4 .. Qa8-b9 .. Nj14-k12 .. Rn11-l116. Nj1-i3 .. Ba6-c8 .. Qe11-i7 .. Bn9-m87. Nf3-e5 .. Bc8xh3 .. Nk12-m11 .. m7-k7

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.