Forum

wosmw

https://www.chess.com/variants/4-player-chess/game/77871608

Almost all custom variants have ferry pieces. But how do you use those?

Just suggesting to add more timer options such as 6,7,8 and 9 minutes. I've been wanting to use some different timers to play with but it's not possible and think these could be good additions to help find an optimal FFA timer. 

Summary: Teaming, including teaming in chat, is not only *allowed* but *expected*.Arrows are public. Players can send private arrows and chat messages.Note: Private chat is not saved or moderated. Chat cannot be disabled (click the speaker for muting) Hold keys 1/2/3/4 pressed to draw arrows for Red/Blue/Green/Yellow only (and the spectators). Type /r (/b /y /g) and then your private message to Red/Blue/Yellow/Green (to multiple: /gb etc). If combined with anonymous, chat is not disabled, rather the players can chat as 'Anonymous' (in player's color) Introduction Four player chess variant ‘Diplomacy’ is based on the Avalon Hill game of the same name. It was initiated by VAOhlman, for two reasons: 1) Because there were innumerable reports of players ‘cheating’ by teaming and the more that VAOhlman analyzed the rules and the game play the more he became convinced that 4pc FFA would inevitably be plagued by these problems… as long as ‘teaming’ was considered cheating. 2) He liked to play the Avalon Hill game ‘Diplomacy’ which was predicated on the exact opposite premise: that ‘teaming’ was not only to be allowed, but to be encouraged. Concept In 4pc Diplomacy Variant players can, quite naturally, team up with other players; for one move, two moves, till a certain time, whatever. In order to facilitate this the rules for teaming were obviously eliminated, and a system of ‘private’ chats and arrows were enabled. These ‘private’ chats and arrows are just that, no visible to anyone outside of the person you send them too. They are not moderated or kept in the archives. In addition there are public chats and arrows. With the right settings even the spectators can join in and kibitz. Recommended Settings 4pc allows for a huge range of settings. Some recommendations for these: 1) Solo play will produce a better effect for the type of game play that the diplomacy variant is meant to produce. No player should be shooting for ‘second place’. 2) Especially for weaker players a longer time frame should be used. The standard one minute doesn’t really allow for much discussion. This isn’t to say that quicker time frames, with the necessity for really quick diplomacy, might not be helpful. 3) Spectator chat allowed. Doing this will sort of allow the spectators to be part of the game, adding a fun element to the game. Teaming Teaming in the diplomacy variant can be simple or complex, one move or multiple. For example: Pointing out moves: Blue says to Red ‘xb3’ Red looks at the board and realizes that his bishop can take Green’s queen at b3. Why would Blue tell Red about it? Maybe cause Blue is busy attacking him? Maybe to distract Red. Red should know that Blue obviously thinks it would be good for Blue to have Red take the queen.B but that doesn’t mean that it is bad for Red! Combination Moves Blue says to Red ‘xb3 xc3’ (by means of private chat and arrows..) Red looks a the board and realizes that if he takes b3, and Blue takes c3, they will have a mate on Yellow. Blue would get the mate, but Yellow is really bothering Red. So… do it, or not? Red has to decide. Truce Blue chats to Red, “Hey, let’s have a truce until we mate Yellow.” Red thinks about that. Yellow is getting pretty strong.. Blue chats to Red, “Hey, let’s have a truce until it is just the two of us are left…” You get the idea. Full Blown Teaming Two players discuss and team up in order to win.... until they don't (see 'Backstabbing') below. Backstabbing Backstabbing is a core idea of Diplomacy. But very, very dangerous. Teaming relies upon trust, and winning depends upon gaining advantage. Backstabbing (saying  or implying you are going to do one thing, and doing another) gains advantage, but destroys trust. So… your choice. Moderation VAOhlman is the moderator for the diplomacy variant. Questions, suggestions should be posted here. Complaints about player behavior should be sent by IM to him.

Hey where are all the diamond wall players gone?

I offer to ask questions about the 4 Player Chess rules in this forum topic. The 1st question is: What are the conditions for the end of the game? (How/When does the server decide that it is the time to stop a game?). Full list of the conditions, please. Including checkmate, stalemate, etc. For example, I just played a game which was finished unexpectedly. Only 2 player left: me and blue. I had a king, queen, rook and 2 pawns. Blue had a king and a pawn. I had near 40 points, he - near 50. I expected to checkmate him, get +20 (60 in total) and win. But when I ate his last pawn the game ended and we still had 40 and 50 points, so he won. He did not time out (me too), he did not resign (at least there was no message about that). So, what happened? Is it a bug or a feature? If it is a part of the rules, please explain them and publish.

I would like people who play 4pc to after every game please please show it to us and we will give our advice!

Had you played Samuel

Has anyone seen a 4player game with more than 200 points? And if so can you link the game thx!!

Let’s have 4pc teams chess hyper tournament

I was wondering if the administrators have considered changing something in the FFA mode to change the dynamics that cause being green means losing 99% of the games

As a CGA team (Custom Games Admins), we've decided that it might be time to have a talk with all of you eager position-creators. We love your enthusiasm, and have been impressed by the creative arrangements you've come up with thus far. However, it seemed necessary to point out a few key things we like to see to approve a custom position. These are all mostly subjective, and are certainly not requirements per se, but are given to you as guidelines. Just like any guideline, there are exceptions, and breaking one or two with a justifiable reason doesn't mean your position will be automatically declined, but that said, if we can't see a reasonable justification for why a guideline was ignored, it will be. Positions should be balanced and fair. Quick or forced mating lines after two or three bad moves from any player should not exist. There are some cases where a position is meant to be played by players who already know what they're doing, and will be expected not to blunder in the opening, but in general, custom positions should be able to be learnt on-the-fly. Symmetry is a good place to start, but is not a requirement for this principle. There are plenty of ways to design an asymmetrical position in which play is balanced for all players. No one player should have an easier time attacking or defending than any other player. Having too many capturing or attacking moves available on move #1 should be avoided. In general, a minimal amount of developing moves should need to be made before any player can launch an attack. Positions where players can make attacking moves from the start against one or more opponents tend to lead to a game that's too chaotic. The goal of any position should be clear, and achievable (get the king to the hill, land 3 checks against the player to your left, control the centre, etc.). Typically attacks aren't just one move; there's some initiative built up with a building series of attacking moves. If a player has to deal with this from one or more opponents from the beginning, it makes the goal of the game unclear, and un-achievable. No one wants to lose rating because he was randomly assigned to play as Green, and got attacked three ways before even having the opportunity to make a move. Having a position where two or more players can "gang up" on another in the opening should be avoided. If two or more players can attack another opponent from the beginning, it leads to a position that's farmable by a particularly nasty form of cheater: the pre-arranged teamer. This strategy is clearly forbidden by the rules of play, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The CGA team has a responsibility to actively discourage pre-arranged teaming by rejecting positions that are ready-made for teaming. Attacking ideas shouldn't be served up on a plate, but a position where setting up an attack takes too many preparation moves will be boring. Good custom positions will give players the space they need to mount some threats. If things are too "blocked-off" and a player needs to go the centre to even interact with another player's pieces, the opening won't be exciting enough. Defensive fortifications should be easily achievable. In the same way that there should be a clear avenue of attack for aggressive players, there should be ideal ways to parry those attacks for defensive players. If fortresses are attainable, there should be secondary ways of winning besides giving checkmate. i.e., king-of-the-hill, by point-spread (+40 or oxN are good gamereules which can be used to encourage this). Players' available moves should be plentiful. Positions with too few pieces, or too many walls will limit where and how players can move, leading to repetitive games. One reason for classic chess' enduring popularity as a board game is that it's so open-ended. After just three moves, there are already over 120 million different games that could have been played. Creators of custom positions should consider how much variation exists in a custom position. Each piece added to a position should have a purpose. Positions where pieces exist solely to be traded are dull. Consider why a piece was specifically chosen to occupy a square. What properties does that piece have that can't be served by lower-valued piece? How can that piece be used most effectively from it's given position? These questions should have clear answers. The goal(s) to winning a custom-position game should be reasonably simple. Examples of game-winning ideas include, finding a forced mate, getting your king to the centre, checkmating at least one opponent for a guaranteed first- or second-place finish, etc. If one avenue to victory goes astray, there should be secondary goals that players can achieve. As mentioned above, these are not rules, but rather guidelines. I'm sure there are many positions which have already been approved that break one or two of these principles. But in general, these are the aspects of custom positions which make the games fun - and that's what it's all about after all right!? I'm appending an article penned by @GustavKlimtPaints regarding the final step before submitting your newly-created custom position: TESTING. It's important that after you find a setup you like for a new custom position, that you verify all of these guidelines hold up. The only way to do so is through extensive gameplay with computers, and players of varying strengths. We get frustrated when looking at a position where there's an obvious problem that could have been avoided with minor tweaks, and you may be blind to these if you're only playing through the games quickly to meet the five-game requirement for submission. GustavKlimtPaints wrote: People are interpreting the minimum of 5 game examples for their custom variant positions way too literally and minimally. You really should be doing loads of testing and convincing yourself the position is worth playing and people would have fun with it. Making up a position and posting 5 games with a computer opponent that reflects almost nothing of what the position will look like in play is really just a waste of everyone's time. Play dozens of games and get some people to be interested testers. If you can't get interested testers, well, you probably wouldn't have people wanting to play the position later anyway. The game examples posted should really be QUALITY games of what you think the variant will look like in real games. I'm kind of tired of seeing people flood the forum with their CG positions seemingly without having played any actual games with players and expecting their variants to be listed. Please stop wasting the CGAs' time (thankfully I'm not one of them!) and instead put in some time and effort of your own. A good way to try to find players to play your position is to go into some variant game with spectators and ask around.

when the pawn get promoted, I cannot seem to reliably(sometime works, sometime does not)  pick piece other than the default queen. What is the proper operation on the mouse??????!!! So frastrated!!!!!

b

A

???

please kick me out

In 4PC teams what are you suppose to do when everyone moves there king pawn on square up, and then red takes blues king pawn, and yellow takes greens king pawn? Please Help.