Alternate to the point system - Last man standing with some basic rules? (FFA)

Very simple:

• The player who gets checkmated (/ resigns, ragequits, loses on time etc.) first, will be the last (4th), whatever happens after that.
• The player who checkmates two other players wins the game (1st), the game ends after his/her second checkmate. So the fourth, untouched player is forced to stop this checkmate, in order not to lose.
• When there are only two players left - last man standing. (With the normal drawing rules) (Without that shitty claim win button)
• The player resigning or losing on time.. loses more points after a resignation that after a checkmate. So resigning after a blunder or in a losing position would be worse than carrying on the game.

What do you think?

If you insist on the score system, the just consider the fourth 'suggestion'. This could be useful in 2v2 too.

 Do you really want the strategic implications of your proposal?

You would not only strongly discourage players from attacking,

you even would strongly discourage any player from being the first to checkmate anyone, because according to your suggested rules, this would automatically trigger the remaining two players to be forced to team up against him?

Are you sure you are understanding the strategic implications of the current rule incentive system, and are you sure you are aware of the strategic implications of what you have suggested?

Is your aim to make this a game where nobody dares to start attacking, and nobody dares to be the first to checkmate anyone? Is your impression really that the majority of players will want to play slow and passive games rather than interesting active attacking games?

I think that current system is perfect. You need to use diplomacy (unspoken of course) and chess skills to win.

I prefer FFA the way it is.

There are so many reasons why last man standing doesn't work best to stick with the current system. PS the claim win button is the same as resigning just named differently. 

My problem with the current system is that it discourages long term strategy in favor of cheap attacks intended at short term gain in the hopes of ending the game before their opponent(s) can retaliate. I guess I'm a bit biased because my strategy involves coordinating my entire army for attacking after everyone else is weakened, but it is still annoying when I'm down to me and one other person and the other guy just decides to quit while he's ahead and leave me in third place, even though I'm the only remaining player and should have "won" by that virtue alone. So yeah, I would totally support a "last man standing" rule that involves automatically giving first place to the last remaining player. Would it cause players to play more defensively? A little, but it would also make the game more strategic, which is the whole point of chess. 

All that said, the rest of your proposal is unnecessary and would take away from the game.  

There are plenty of long term strategy with the point system. As long as you checkmate at least 1 of the first 2 players that gets eliminated it is very rare that your opponent will be able to claim win. This just means you could be more or less desperate to get the second checkmate if your behind in points.

Cheap attacks tend to not work at the higher levels.

I actually like a last man standing system, and I think I understand well enough the strategical implications... in a last man standing I would not be worried to sac a queen just to weaken an opponent's defense, since if you have less material you won't be a target like in the points system, where the other guys have a "prize" to kill you... in a last man standing the one with less material might just be seen as the "less dangerous". Expecially when 3 players are left, the leading one has to face a forced alliance between the other 2, so one has to think twice before to kill a player at the implications. I don't think the game would be slow or passive with good players playing it, and I think there would be less "bugs" than in the points system

also the prize for second place is a problem to the game atm in my opinon... I think that 2nd, 3rd and 4th should be treated equally