Forum

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

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

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.