Forum

Hello everyone, I think that Martin's efforts to make a Performance Top 100 is a really cool idea and I definitely appreciate the effort to begin putting this list together. (LINK: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/performance-top-100-of-the-best-players-in-the-world) That said, I think that some of the scoring in this list is a bit inaccurate. For example, I was given a rating of 75 for tactics, but I think that tactics are one of my stronger abilities: I have consistently tactically out-maneuvered numerous names on this list with tactical scores in the 90s.I think these inaccuracies extend to numerous other names on the list. My suggestion is for the list to be redone via the consensus of numerous high-rated players from both teams and FFA.

First of all thank you for the congratulations however I am afraid I will be stepping down from my qualification and handing it over to empty_k3. 4PC has undergone many changes recently that have resulted in many conflicts within the community of which I have been very vocal and involved with and I dont want to add further to it. Unfortunately my play in this arena has been compromised because I was told accurate information on the names of anonymous players which I did not ask for which would have affected my play. These arenas are determined by luck enough already that the idea of having some unfair advantage doesn't sit well even if I don't think it actually affected the outcome.I hope you all forgive me for my indiscretion and I look forward to hopefully qualifying in one of the following arenas, if not I'll see you in the commentary booth.

The first 3 qualifiers were done on the test server. Abnormal for many reasons (and the Championship obviously should've been postponed because of the main server instability until it's been solved...). Many players under 1500 took part, etc. but well, that was the director decision, I won't discuss it even if it was very questionable in fact. Whatever. But as for qualifier 4, it was moved back to the main server and it was announced that only 2200+ players, and players with accounts older than 1st of May 2022 would take part, etc., cf. the rules. AND: the director didn't respect the rules that himself has decided. That's definitely unpleasant. Because many games (because of too many noobs involved) were in fact very fast and gave free points to some lucky players. Whereas I could only play 6 games of which only 4 serious, and could only win three times, stuck in long games against very strong players. As a result, finished very modestly 5th. I believe that is very unfair.I'm happy for MoreMao, but in most games he played there were several 1600, 1700 players; it is obviously much easier to win like that than when you have only 2500+ players in front. It's about TIME also: when you have strong players, the 2nd stage of the three is often very long and you spend 30 min. of your precious time with no result. Whereas other players by simple luck have time to play many times and gather enough points to qualify. Rather frustrating. As I told already many times here, the result should be only due to the skills of the players involved, not to simple luck (how many noobs you have around the board and how they are distributed around). Look, Rojitto, Radon, Jbolea, Empty, ChaCha couldn't qualify so far no finish in top 3 for some of them, it clearly shows we have a problem. The result should be logical, not a lottery.

Just qualified in the 6th W4PCC Qualifier Arena. Joined halfway through the arena; played c9 Kb9, f12 Kf13, or l6 Km6 in all of them and still went 3/4; enough to qualify. My games weren't won with any particular exceptional skill either, mostly people resigning. I'll link the games below if you want to judge for yourself how low-skill they are. Game 1: https://www.chess.com/variants/old-standard/game/27296176/94/3 Game 2: https://www.chess.com/variants/old-standard/game/27296414/174/4 Game 3: https://www.chess.com/variants/old-standard/game/27296661/164/3 Game 4: https://www.chess.com/variants/old-standard/game/27297032/199/2 There are multiple problems with the arena format as a qualifying method. Since arenas allow you to play as many games as possible within the allotted time frame, they fuel gameplay and arena strategies which attempt to balance time (in the arena) with winning. I've had multiple games, in both this arena and previous arenas, where players will resign prematurely in order to get out of a game. They do this is in positions where they might be varying levels of inferior to another player because they are making a calculated decision that their chance of winning isn't worth the time they would have to expend to do so. You also get players attacking someone relentlessly in the hopes that nets them a quick win, whilst ignoring other players. It ultimately doesn't matter how correct, good, or successful these strategies are, but the fact that they exist and are quite prevalent highlights issues with the arena system. After all, we are talking about qualifiers to the championship, so you should expect a format which promotes high level play, right? Listing the arenas as casual also promotes the sense of each game being unimportant. Players can resign or have suboptimal play (see above) because there is no consequence for doing so. While making it rated might not necessarily completely solve the issue, it would provide a deterrent to avoid those sorts of gameplay. Another issue is the disparity in skill level. A good player who gets into games with relatively unskilled players can patch together multiple quicker wins than a group of great players who are stuck in a long game with each other. Making the cap 2200+ can only do so much to curb the problem. The streak system only exacerbates the issue, allowing that player to create an insurmountable lead. With pairings being random, it's no wonder players regard winning an arena as coming down mostly to luck. Random pairings and skill disparity is a flaw systemic to arena systems, but how Solo games are played makes the issue much larger than in teams, for example. In teams arenas, arenas can still be won by someone stringing together large numbers of wins versus inferior competition, but games in teams are much quicker, and there is no element of chance in teams (you can't get screwed over by a player making one bad decision at the end of a long game in the 3pc stage). However, Solo games take much longer, especially as the skill level rises. This makes that random pairing system much more of an issue, since you don't have chances to play many games. You could make some changes to the arena system to try to fix these issues. You could make the arena longer to allow players in longer games more time to catch up. You could remove the streak scoring system. You could further raise the minimum rating level. But ultimately, the arena system itself seems incompatible with Competitive Solo games, and I would love to see a different format chosen altogether.

Ok, so the server got fixed (not really) I just lost a game due to disconnecting (more than twice). (I lost 11 points for my bullet rating if you can restore it) This brings me to another issue, when I went to the archive to look for the game to take an ss, it's busted and It only shows bullet arena games for me, and when I try to clear the filters, it doesn't work.

answer pls

I participated in almost all arenas except the 00:00 AM ones, I also highly suspect that someone has been cheating today, but whatever it just succ for those who actually came to play seriously, but they got disturbed. Anyway, I got some great experience playing the qualifier #8 where I got a nice winning streak, I wasn't expecting this at all, especially when I saw who my opponents were (a1t19 , carlos and typicalmove) those games were really hard I still can't believe I won 3 games in a row. I won't be playing next week, good luck to all the participants.

This is an answer(s) to any complaints about the first three qualifiers. 1. Luke couldn't postpone the qualifiers because he probably had already told @icystun that he would have the world championship cycle before icy went sailing. (June 26th or so). Would you rather have rojitto, Radon etc..., or the world champ himself. 2. Why were the qualifiers not 2200+? Maybe because Luke wanted to let the weaker players have a chance, to grow the playerbase. Or maybe he simply couldn't enforce a rating requirement on the test server, I don't know. But I think it was interesting and I personally found higher rated games easier to win. 3. All players that qualified in these arenas are as much qualified as anyone else who will qualify. They didn't cheat, hack or hypnotize. They simply played an arena that was setup by the director, and won.

Have you ever tried to join a game only to see a player has blocked you? My main issue is the fact that some people block without a solid reason, and it affects my ability to join certain queues. Just now someone blocked me after getting 3rd place. This might sound like I'm just complaining, but this is just an issue for multiple people. I won't say who blocked me because that isn't allowed here.

Ok, so we all know by now the Leaderboard was removed right? To fix lag I think? So here's the deal: It made the server worse. There are several other minor bugs. Sometimes you don't actually gain a rating when winning a match due to a bug. The disconnects are more common. I don't know how many more players we're going to lose because of this. Variants is heading towards destruction with these unnecessary changes.

Fsr i am winning but not getting rating but those who lose, lose rating . can i get my rating bcs i won but it said i din't - https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27254067/23/4

Some people might know that if you simply type /all in chat in a teams game and send it, everyone gets a message like this: (Player name): (Everyone): and thats the whole message that appears, now it looks false if you never have seen someone do it, it is only possible in teams mode, sodont attemptto replicate it in ffa, unless it id diplomacy mode, whaere /r, /b, /g and /y can do it as well. https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27230997/3/2 this match has aninstance of anempty message.

I got on here the other day and old standard was back so I played a few. Now its back to new standard? Do the admins have any sort of plan? Why do they make changes people don't want? Then flip flop? Now there are votes to change to newer starting positions? All the while this forum is full of complaints and there seems to be a lot less people playing.

so, you've lost nearly every piece. You got 3v1ed and those damn bishops are zipping through and killing you. Do you give up? Hell no. Everyone, take a look at this game where I ended up prevailing after such a scenario happened. Always remember to NEVER GIVE UP https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27142544/177/4

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27188557/137/4 Figure this out lol. Lets see how many people will make fun of me.

Why are titled players allowed to have a alt. If you go to report and press "multiple accounts" it says "The player uses multiple accounts without permission from Chess.com. Note that titled players are allowed to have a secondary account and some players may have requested permission to use a secondary account for e.g. blindfold games or a speedrun."

I think 4 player chess would be more balanced if blue and greens queens and kings were switched. [StartFen4 "R-0,0,0,0-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-3,yR,yN,yB,yK,yQ,yB,yN,yR,3/3,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,3/14/bR,bP,10,gP,gR/bN,bP,10,gP,gN/bB,bP,10,gP,gB/bQ,bP,10,gP,gK/bK,bP,10,gP,gQ/bB,bP,10,gP,gB/bN,bP,10,gP,gN/bR,bP,10,gP,gR/14/3,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,3/3,rR,rN,rB,rQ,rK,rB,rN,rR,3"][Variant "Teams"][RuleVariants "EnPassant"][CurrentMove "0"]

We can experiment with O(-x2) and/or O(-x10) It only works for the 4 player stage, so idk if it's possible to make (the default version of this option) to last only until someone reaches 20 points or until we reach the 40 moves. It's only the question what rating system to use. I would try Solo with either default +20 promotion 8th or +10 promotion 11th I would like to try O(-x10) because you can get your opposite mated with capturing only 1 pawn, so no one would do it for the cost of -10 and not knowing if it will result into a checkmate even.

Im not exactly a good 4pc player lol https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/27140523

In the past few days I have disconnect and lost in at least 5 4pc games. First I get a message asking me if I want to stay or leave on the page. Then all the sudden everyone clocks freeze and reloading doesn't work. I try a lot of stuff and finally I exit and reopen the page. But then I come back to me finding my clock at 0.0 and a message that says "Squealingnickel has disconnected" and another message that says "Squealingnickel has forfeited on time. Is this my connection or is this just the 4pc server because it really needs to stop. Thank you. -Squealingnickel