Dead King Walking (used to be a 4PC Variant, now is a part of standard rules)

DKW is now enabled (included) by default.

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/changelog-1

I haven't played 4PC for a long time, came back to this and didn't read the rules properly before playing. The first game I thought it was a glitch and moved my queen next to it to try and take. The king took my queen and after that I sobered up but still lost the game. I got the hang of it after though. 

Although the first game with the rule there was kind of rocky, I'm actually glad for it, and I think it makes 4 player chess better. Before whoever could take the king was largely on who had the luck to be next to the player who resigned, and a 20 point difference could make or break the end results. 

Now, with this rule, whoever is adjacent to the resigned player would still be lucky, but it takes slightly more to checkmate. (2 pieces, plus the wandering part). Which hopefully means players focus more on the game and leave the kings later, or have to use more tact to checkmate. Which makes it a little less on luck, more on skill and fairer for everyone. I'm all in favour of this, even though my start with it was rocky XD

Why should I know check- means checkmate and not just check?

Also I don't like the update forcing to play DWK by default, IMO would be much better adding a penalty for players who resing or lose on purpose. That just forces players to play the whole game but doesn't change the whole game itself.

changed to "checkmated or stalemated"

Just came here to post that I think this rule is terrible. I've been a 4PC player since the beginning. This is absolutely terrible.

should dead kings NOT count for doublechecks? i feel like they probably should not.

should doublechecks be worth less?

Dead kings counting for double checks could become problematic because it allows two players to point feed each other when it's only the two of them left (most relevant for non wta).

Before, when a player was far ahead on points, he could resign to deny points from double checks. This doesn't work when the dead king counts for double checks anyways. I feel like this is an important aspect of the point system and the game. 

The update has already brought many changes to the game that people need to time to adjust to. I suggest not letting dead kings count for double checks and leaving the 5 points for double checks as it is. 

This is a hard one, I want to like it, but it very very silly that someone can be one move away from mate and resign and the mate is no more because the king suddenly allowed to take the grey pieces that used to belong to that very king.

I just like to say also that I think this rule is terrible. I've have been a 4PC player for a while and agree with GusAndWerm : this rule is absolutely terrible.

> Just came here to post that I think this rule is terrible. I've been a 4PC player since the beginning. This is absolutely terrible.

Can you describe why it's terrible? Is it because DKW reduces luck or something else?

Personally, I like DKW, since it reduces the chance to gift away the king and provides the challenge to players.

> This is a hard one, I want to like it, but it very very silly that someone can be one move away from mate and resign and the mate is no more because the king suddenly allowed to take the grey pieces that used to belong to that very king.

Sounds reasonable. I think it might be better to forbid the dead king to capture its own dead pieces. But this will cause another problem: one player deliberately resigns into a stalemate. What do you think?

I'll clarify my post above. 

I've been a 4PC player since the beginning (started on another account). I've been through the changes that the main 4PC variant has gone since its inception, and they all made sense. Each new rule was implemented to improve some part of the game, and it did exactly that. 

With DKW, I understand that the goal is to make the game less dependent on luck. When a king used to be available, the closest person to it was "lucky" and got the 20 points. 

But I disagree that there was even a need to make a change in the first place. With the old way, the most skilled players would be able to position themselves to have a chance at any dead king. There was some "luck" involved, depending on how close you were to a recently dead king, but if you were a capable player, you were ready for any dead king. 

Before this rule change I was in the 1600's and moving forward in rating. The game was systematic, predictable, and logical. It was possible to win consistently because the outcome was no based on chance but on skill.

Now? Pure luck. Randomness has no place on a chess board, 4PC or not. Not only does it prevent this game from being implemented on a real live board, it takes away the beauty of chess - both regular and 4PC: the fact that with rational planning, you can foresee your moves and your opponents moves. 

And to those who argue that there was already randomness in 4PC: there is no randomness. There are only players of different skills and with different goals in the game. You can indeed predict the game once you've played enough. Your rating does not depend on others in FFA. You build your defenses correctly and you can outlast any silly player moves. 

And a final note. If this rule was intended to make it fair for others in games when people disconnect, I'll say this: You will always have disconnectors. You can't change the rules of the game to deal with them because the game must live on in other scenarios, where disconnectors are not a problem. Changing the rule just because of disconnectors would change the game in cases where there are no disconnectors. I know this is obvious but it's a bad consequence, imo.

Find a better way to deal with disconnectors. E.g., suspend them with repeat offences. OR make the king worth less in cases of disconnection. There are other ideas and I'm willing to assist in the discussion. I just can't stand this rule. 

> because the outcome was not based on chance but on skill

Huh? More skill is required now, no?

It's not quite that simple anymore to get lucky just because someone disconnected.

> Not only does it prevent this game from being implemented on a real live board

why not? you can roll a dice etc to pick one of the 1-8 legal moves

>Randomness has no place on a chess board

What about points? and winning by resigning?

i find in the end it's not so unlike players who would just continue to move around hoping for a miracle, a fairer way to deal with the situation. a real fight for the +20, plus a real possibility that the +20 will end up getting shared.

Winning by resigning isn't randomness. It's also skill (knowing/being able to manoeuvre into a position where the "right" player takes your king).

Before you where able to "check" (or defend) the dead king and have a chance to capture an enemy piece if he decides to capture the king and improve your position or viceversa (if one player had 2 pieces attacking the king, then probably deserve that king).

Fights for the dead king usually came with players making mistakes in order to take the 20 "easy" points (so you had a chance to take profit of a dead king even if you can't take the king).

Also besides disconnections in early stages and odd positions, usually the player closer to the dead king was the one who was attacking the king before the player left.

There is many ways to reduce the randomness of 4PC, some examples:

· Forcing (encouraging) players to not resing by adding a penalty.

· Unable resing button while in check (if more than two players alive).

· Penalty for time out when more than X seconds (15 for example) where left in the time bank before time out.

· King moves randomly only one time, when time out while in check and more than X second (10 example) where left in the time bank before time out.

Not saying this is the ultimate way to improve 4PC reducing randomness, but in my opinion DWK is worst, why:

Adding a random moving dead king is not the best for reducing randomness, clear example is if two players left and they are checking each other, king can take pieces of only one of the players attacking him, for example blue, while player its in check, and move away from the pieces of the other player, for example green, when this one is trying to get the king but blue check X followed times. Also king can randomly move to a player site and help him with 20 points (similar problem as before) or put him in troubles (new randomness problem).

> And a final note. If this rule was intended to make it fair for others in games when people disconnect, I'll say this: You will always have disconnectors. You can't change the rules of the game to deal with them because the game must live on in other scenarios, where disconnectors are not a problem. Changing the rule just because of disconnectors would change the game in cases where there are no disconnectors. I know this is obvious but it's a bad consequence, IMO.

Why are you afraid of changes? DKW tries to make the game fair. Disconnections / Resignations are unpredictable and can happen because of any reason. We shall try to deal with it in every game.

In addition, when 2 players are teaming, the one with higher score may resign and gift their king to the other. DKW actually prevents such situations. Though DKW is some sort of randomness, it nullifies some other sort of (usually bad) randomness, including gifting the king / prearranged teaming / etc.

> Find a better way to deal with disconnectors. E.g., suspend them with repeat offenses. OR make the king worth less in cases of disconnection. There are other ideas and I'm willing to assist in the discussion. I just can't stand this rule. 

Sometimes disconnections are caused by server issues and lags. On such occasion, it's obviously not the player's fault. Why do you want to punish innocent players? Just because they have bad connections?

If you make the king worth fewer points, consider the following scenario:

Red has 55 pts while Blue has 40 (yellow and green are mated). When blue is about to mate red, red resigns and becomes 1st. Is it fair enough?

Currently, I think DKW is the best way to deal with resigns / disconnections. If better ways are discovered, they may replace DKW in the future.

> Currently, I think DKW is the best way to deal with resigns / disconnections. If better ways are discovered, they may replace DKW in the future.

Well said.

Changing the rules of the game itself because of disconnectors is the wrong way to go about it. It's that simple. Such a thing has never been done to other games because the notion is ridiculous. The only reason it's been done here is because the game is nascent, which is even more dangerous: are you willing to change the rules forever because of disconnectors?

My suggestions:

1. Games disconnected by lag or by the server should be canceled. 
   Reason:
   The players aren't at fault and shouldn't suffer the potential consequences. Getting a disconnected king isn't fair for anyone. 
   Easily implemented? Yes.
2. Require a higher standards for user connection speeds for rated games
   Reason:
   This way, you will reduce the chances of accidental disconnections during rated games. It's fair to the other players who would otherwise risk having that player disconnect. Users with slower speeds may gripe, but that is not the administrator's problem. Maintaining a well-run game will, in the long run, bring in more users compared to allowing users in with slow speeds who can ruin the game by disconnecting. Users with slower speeds can't experience a lot of the internet properly-- it's not a novel experience for them (unfortunately).
   Easily implemented? Yes.
3. Users who disconnect on purpose and/or ruin the game on purpose can be booted out of the game if ALL THREE other users vote to boot them. Example: red is playing irrationally and is talking trash. Yellow, green, and blue all click the "boot" button next to red's name (the "boot" button resets each turn). Red then gets kicked out. His pieces are grayed out. His king is grayed out and worth 0 points. Red loses rating as if he lost the game, deterring repeat offenses. The other players are rated as if red was never in the game. 
   Reason: 
   This is a common implementation in other online group ffa games and has been proven to work. It is fair because the user gets kicked out only if there is unanimous approval. It deters repeat offenses because of the rating loss. Moreover, it solves almost all disconnection issues except for when a player disconnects without any prior clue.
   Easily implemented? Yes.
4. Give disconnectors a three strike policy. Users who disconnect on purpose three times (this is different from being kicked out-- this is if they disconnect before being booted) are permanently banned from 4PC. Their king is still worth 20 points as it is normally.
   Reason:
   This will limit disconnectors in the long run without affecting the game. You'll always have disconnectors but with all these rules implemented you can easily limit the impact while keeping the game the same. 
   Easily implemented? Yes.

> Changing the rules of the game itself because of disconnectors is the wrong way to go about it. 

Is it wrong just because you think it's wrong?

> are you willing to change the rules forever because of disconnectors?

I believe admins and devs are looking for better ways. DKW is only a temporary solution. If a rule change is necessary, they will certainly do it.

> Games disconnected by lag or by the server should be canceled. 

How to distinguish lags from deliberate disconnections?

Accidental lags, or deliberately closing the browser upon losing, both result in the same thing - the server cannot reach you in time. How to distinguish?

> Require higher standards for user connection speeds for rated games

You know, many users have unstable connections. Now it could be good, in the next sec you can get disconnected. What sort of standard? 

In addition, this will continue to reduce the popularity of 4pc, as it prevents most rated games.

> Users who disconnect on purpose and/or ruin the game on purpose can be booted out of the game if ALL THREE other users vote to boot them.

Once again, how to distinguish unsportsmanlike resigns and server issues?

What if 3 players team up to abuse the system? Pause the game to wait for admin reviews?

What if one player is about to mate the jerk? Should they lose the precious 20 pts?

> Give disconnectors a three strike policy. Users who disconnect on purpose three times are permanently banned from 4PC. 

WHY?

STILL, how to identify deliberate time-outs?

You thought they were EZ to implement, but still, life is hard, and many things won't work as you expect.

yep its brilliant keeps the game alive and kicking...but you could do away with the resign option altogether...as far as disconnects go...i will get back to that

you could always go temporal stasis style and do away with the timer button!!!