Forum

It is totally clear that the overall arena system as for qualifiers is not adequate. Many threads have been done about that. But it is also clear that the Great and Wise Organisers chose it because it's much easier for them rather than organising matches manually like 2-4 years ago. Also, there is a clear contradiction between the need to ensure the best players be in the finals (=goal of any selection and qualifiers everywhere) and the need to enlarge the base, to increase number of the games, to let a chance to everybody, etc. And it's tricky. If you allow everybody, it creates a lot of lottery (unless arenas are very very long, 6-24 hours). If you don't allow everybody, it reduces the number of the players. If you let all the players together, it makes it almost impossible for the average (even rather good) player to qualify because only one is selected per arena. Etc. In addition, as for the semifinals, to have to select only one winner per batch creates distorsions because if you have 2 very strong players together (who normally should BOTH be in the finals), you are not sure to have really the best 4 players in the final (classical issue, that can't be solved totally, but can still be diminished a lot, cf. below). So being professionally involved in high level problem solving and used to optimisation under constraints, I had to invent a different system that would satisfy all levels' players and the admins as well, and wouldn't significantly increase their workload. Of course it's too late for 2022, but I submit you this proposal for 2023. As result of a lot of analysis of what happened in 2019, 2020, 2021 and currently in 2022. The championship is organised in 4 stages. STAGE 1 The organisers announce the date and the OFFICIAL BEGINNING of the championship. It's important because some players will be selected directly. So for instance at UTC+00 on 25th of May 2023 Luke will select the 10 highest rated players (OR 9 if the incumbent Champion is not among them (whatever the reason: he was not active or is rated 14th for example...). These 10 players will not be allowed to take part in the qualifiers (if they do even inadvertently, they are DQed). The other players, regardless of their rating (!), are allowed into arenas. The arenas are only organised during ONE week-end; there are 8 arenas with the duration of 4 hours (and 2 hours between them). I.e. Sat. and Sun. 0:00 UTC, 6:00 UTC, 12:00 UTC, 18:00 UTC. No limitation of participation of any kind. If someone is crazy enough to take part in all of them, he may. The top 7 players in each arena are given: 60, 40, 28, 20, 14, 10, 7 points. The results are summarised, and then 22 players with most points are selected for the Stage 2. So someone who will have reached the 2nd place 3 times will be selected (whereas today he is not at all...). (Because of the duration of the arenas and the fact that 7 places give points, and because 22 players are selected overall, and because the strongest 10 players will not be able to take part, statistically all the distorsions would disappear and we shall really have the 22 next strongest players selected). STAGE 2 The 32 players are put into two arenas A and B of 16 players only allowed (they will have to give their preferences as for schedules, and the organisers will choose the appropriate time in order to really suit all players). The duration will be 5 hours; after that the 8 first players are selected in each arena. If someone of 16 is not present, it's not a big problem. (NB: I am not aware; if currently it is not feasible technically to only allow SOME players into an arena - without having to invite them, in order to reduce the workload! -, Space will have to develop that feature within one year ) 4 other players (Nr. 9 and Nr. 10 in each arena A and B) will be put on a reserve list (to address the problem of no-shows in the Stage 2). They will have to be present during the semi-final if they want to have a chance to play. STAGE 3 : Semi-final 16 players are put into 4 groups of 4, classically, and play until someone reaches THREE victories, and thus qualifies for the final. Not less. In case of total or partial no-show, the player is replaced by a reserve player; if this reserve player manages to win 3 times himself, of course he passes to the final. NB: if for instance 3 games have been played, a player disconnects (power shortage for instance) and is replaced, but comes back for the next game, he is allowed to play again. After the stage 3, 4 other players (Nr. 2 of each group!) will be put on a reserve list (to address the problem of no-shows in the Stage 1). They will have to be present during the final if they want to have a chance to play. STAGE 4 : Final 4 players play together until someone reaches FIVE victories, and thus qualifies for the final. Not less. Similarly to the previous stage, in case of total or partial no-show, the player is replaced by a reserve player; if this reserve player manages to win 5 times himself, of course he is declared champion. NB: if for instance 3 games have been played, a player disconnects (power shortage for instance) and is replaced, but comes back for the next game, he is allowed to play again. I firmly believe that with such a system: - there are no more distorsions, - luck factor is definitely eliminated, - everybody is given a chance, - we are sure to have the best 16 players in the semi-final and the best 4 players in the final, - there is not too much work for the organisers as most of the selection is still done during the arenas, but without the current defects.

I have already reported these players, but I would like to share this story, because everyone should know the disgusting way they cheated. They are some of the highest rated bullet 4pc players. I just realized after a few games that these 3 players were teaming against me. The game mode I was playing is FFA bullet (15 sec each, no delay, no increment), anonymous mode. They were using chat after games in Spanish language (what I don't understand), but I didn't really care, until they made a long talk, laughing. I was interested what they are talking about, so I translated their messages (with google translate. Click on the links to visit the games if you want to read the original conversation.) and found out that they were just teaming on me (3 players: LucianoBonfico, carlosgabriel1234, pepeOzitt2). So I went back on all games played today, and here are my results (going from games oldest to newest): At game: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=2702366 where carlosgabriel1234 writes on chat: "I attack patrik and you attack me. I mean they want me to win?" Well, this doesn't really make sense, but it will add up with the following 2 games: Game https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=2702382 where again carlosgabriel1234 writes (he is a spectator only in this game): "pepe why do you let patrik win? you don't know how to identify his opening of the horses or what?" (pepe is reffering to pepeOzitt2). That opening of horses is just the way I start every bullet game. Just move out with both of my knights. So it seems that they just identified me by my opening and teamed on me. And the last game I brought here is where finally all of them talks and basically just makes a confession (they didn't think that I will translate it): https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=2702403 carlosgabriel1234: good carlosgabriel1234: again last LucianoBonfico: Come on baby LucianoBonfico: hahaha carlosgabriel1234: that will hurt pepeOzitt2: hahahaha LucianoBonfico: I got it from Ijo LucianoBonfico: Come wit daddy pepeOzitt2: it's going to go carlosgabriel1234: xD carlosgabriel1234: sure pepeOzitt2: don't tell him anything pepeOzitt2: let him come to play pepeOzitt2: with the best carlosgabriel1234: it will scare carlosgabriel1234: xDcarlosgabriel1234 just celebrates that I became last place, LucianoBonfico just throws some insults and I don't know what that "I got it from Ijo" means.(Original, spanish version is "lo tenqo de ijo").and pepeOzitt2's comment: " don't tell him anything. let him come to play" just verifies the factthat they pre-arranged the teaming and wants to beat me with this cheating in more games.By being the highest rated player, I lost lots of rating points by these losses.It is unacceptable to unfairly team up and steal rating. Most of the players play fair, but cheaters like this ruins the fun.And even after blocking them, it is still possible to get in the same game in anonymous mode.I hope they will be banned and don't ever have to play against cheaters.

What is crux for FFA puzzles is that any player can throw the game in the favor of an another player, as such making most of the positions practically unsolvable, hence FFA puzzles are usually too easy to solve, and are never complicated. As such, I wanted to amend this issue by introducing the following FFA puzzle classification format: a. Constancy. This defines how well should players play in order for the key player to win. 1. Fixed Constancy. This means no matter what the other sides play, the key player will always win, and there is absolutely nothing the others can do about this. 2. Irresolute Constancy. This means that the key player can always win given that at least one player will not throw the game but instead try to maximize the winning their winning chances. 3. Practical Constancy. This means that players will only throw the game when they cannot maximize their winning chances, but otherwise will play optimally as to halt an immediate win / advantage. 4. Deterministic Constancy. This means that every player will play optimally and will not throw the game as long as there is a very slim chance of winning, i.e. imagine a 2700+ game. b. Goal. 1. Victory, win by force, quite obvious I assume. 2. Practical Victory, a victory that can be prevented only by extreme teaming play or by extreme throwing. Extreme here counts as an incredibly accurate move sequence that players would cease to even think of in practical games, to see this idea one must see all the attacking idea aforehand. 3. Practical Edge, obtain a non-winning advantage that in a real, live game the key player would be definitely able to convert against players of the same level as the key player. 4. Practical Advantage, obtain a certain advantage, i.e. eliminating a flank as to secure one's own comfortable gameplay. No one guarantees the key player will win against same-strength opponents, but they must be equal at least. c. Any FFA puzzle that has a line that ends up in a forced king-making or encourages one to throw as one cannot change the game outcome is considered as "practically invalid". d. It is assumed that all the players are of the same level for practical constancy and deterministic constancy. Let me take the following example puzzle: [StartFen4 "Y-0,0,0,1-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-32,41,39,0-0-{'royal''h2','a7','h14',''),'pawnBaseRank':3,'noCorners':true}-x,4,X,1,yW,X,3,yU,x/1,x,x,2,X,yU,yK,X,2,x,x,dU/1,x,x,3,X,X,3,x,x,1/2,dγ,1,dα,5,yR,dγ,1,dΔ/4,bK,1,bδ,2,yN,2,dC,1/X,X,bU,1,bY,bδ,2,yδ,yM,2,X,X/2,X,bR,3,dI,3,X,dY,dW/bW,bN,X,2,rδ,2,yG,1,yδ,X,dK,dK/X,X,1,bδ,2,rδ,rN,dF,1,dδ,1,X,X/2,bγ,1,bδ,2,rδ,1,rγ,rγ,dδ,dC,dN/bC,5,rK,rY,1,rB,2,dγ,dR/1,x,x,3,X,X,3,x,x,1/1,x,x,rR,1,X,1,rW,X,2,x,x,dU/x,4,X,2,X,4,x"][Variant "FFA"][RuleVariants "AllowPassing Anonymous BarePieceLoses PromoteTo=M Prom=10 Sideways"][CurrentMove "0"] Yellow to move, Irresolute Constancy, Practical Victory, Blue to win. Difficulty: pretty difficult.

2200s BAD, me 2500/2600 after 3000+ games GOOD, now Im going to bongcloud, sac a piece and resign at move 3, ragequit cause I blundered 1 of my 3 queens, or even better, sac everything on my side cause the top player has a streak that I can't match so why not destroy a random player's hope. Don't blame me, even if I, the 2500 genius, don't ruin the arena, the 2200s will ruin it.

I have seen a lot of people in time trouble (including 2 game deciding timeouts, today, out of three games I played) 1/10 or 10 minutes are possible solutions

Whats the hell???!!! Why ban me? Yes, I am true_Kotenka. And what??? Look at the leaderboard!!! Goldnandrew and goldnandrew1. Same person. Why not ban??? Luke e4bc4, whats the f**ng hell??? I want change login too. I never play both logins in one game. Why goldnandrew can do it and I cant????????????

There are 3 types of 4 player chess being played in 2 categories. You need to create the 3rd category to stop all the nonsense and make FFA fair again, cause the cheaters have overrun the place like vermin. The 3rd category would be called " Hybrid " Teams until the first player is eliminated then FFA for the remaining 3. It's not " alliances " it's not " opposite cooperation " IT'S CALLED TEAMS !!! Teams are illegal in FFA. If you create Hybrid, you give the cheaters a place to play legally, and you allow true FFA play on the FFA boards. Someone recently asked me how I possibly could get my rating ( presently 1975 ) without playing teams. I'm a very good 4 player person, that's how. PLEASE create the Hybrid category. It would end all the arguments on the FFA board. And I repeat my main complaint here : FFA does not spell teams. The very fact that I have to say that at all is ridiculous. People who play this game are grown men and women. They surely have the intelligence to figure out a 5 letter word. Or do they ?

Time to check how well do you know the math part of 4pc game. Note: in questions meaning single player's turn, doesn't matter in ffa or teams (for ex. single red move - quartermove etc.) All proving positions should be theoretically possible to get from the starting position, gameplay quality doesn't matter. 1. the maximum number of points theoretically possible to receive in ffa for 1 move? 2. the maximum number of enemy pieces, that player can take per 1 move in ffa/teams? 3. in standart team mode (not CapK or antichess) can player capture right side player's king (for ex. red CK green) with legal previous gameplay?

I HAVE AN IDEA FOR A NEW FAIRY PIECE: THE CAMELZON. IT LOOKS LIKE A CAMEL WITH A CROWNN ON IT. CAMEL+KNIGHT+QUEEN 20 PTSLOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS ^_^

There are so many new pieces that now only "U" is vacant! We may have to start using 2 letter notations, ar special symbols like ∫ or π

In this game, I was trying to castle, but it wouldn't let me, instead I ran out of time trying to castle. It is legal to castle here and it needs to be fixed https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=4317307-94

this game is faa

PNG4: [StartFen4 "G-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-68,49,59,42-0-{'royal':('f4','c9','f8','i11'),'lives':(3,5,2,5)}-4,X,9/3,X,10/14/6,gK,1,gK,3,X,1/4,gK,X,X,X,X,gK,3,X/2,bK,1,X,3,gK,X,4/4,X,yK,3,X,4/4,X,2,yK,rK,X,4/4,X,rK,3,X,4/X,4,X,X,X,X,5/1,X,3,rK,1,gK,6/14/10,X,3/9,X,4"][Variant "FFA"][RuleVariants "DeadKingWalking PointsForMate=40 EnPassant KotH 5-check Prom=4 PromoteTo=K"][CurrentMove "0"] Difficulty: Easy Goal: KOTH Disclaimer: This was originally played in Solo. Assume that Red will fight to the end. Game: (Will be revealed after first correct answer)

I claimed my win... BUT I DIDN'T GET MY WIN!!! Green+9. https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=11721254 May you plz fix this glitch?

Maybe I am easy to please but despite all of the grumbling lately (legitimate and illegitimate), I still find myself in deep appreciation of this game 4PC (I play FFA). It is deliciously complex with wicked tactics and changing strategies. It can be frustrating, yes. No matter how good you are you cannot win them all. But as you advance up the ranks you discover more layers of complexity to master. And since nobody can win them all you always have a chance no matter who else is on the board. What fun! Can we just take a minute to appreciate the fierce competition in a fast-paced game that is crazy fun to play?

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.