Well, that's just another element of strategy. The more powerful players need to be defeated. If you're that much stronger, you have to deal with it by outplaying your weaker opponents. Also, ganging up (and being ganged up on) is what makes Four Player Chess so special. Being able to see ratings adds the strategy of whom you should attack. That's not a bad thing.
ganging up should be banned, a removal of those doing, in the original 4 player chess, and allowed only in the new coming team setup of this, seriously.
Removing the user’s name would easily stop those who attempt it prior the game.
thats not strategy, it’s cheating.
How the hell is that called a game??
ganging up should be banned, a removal of those doing, in the original 4 player chess, and allowed only in the new coming team setup of this, seriously.
Removing the user’s name would easily stop those who attempt it prior the game.
thats not strategy, it’s cheating.
I see what you mean, pre-planned team-up. I thought you only meant team-up in the middle of the game! My bad. As to anonymity ... I suppose that would be wise. Leaving the ratings might be alright, though. The person one cheatingly teams up with could have the same rating as someone else, and thus cheaters could be backstabbed by those they thought were their partners in crime, if they mistook their rating. 
I would like the ratings to stay so that you can judge which opponent is most dangerous.
Well, that's just another element of strategy. The more powerful players need to be defeated. If you're that much stronger, you have to deal with it by outplaying your weaker opponents. Also, ganging up (and being ganged up on) is what makes Four Player Chess so special. Being able to see ratings adds the strategy of whom you should attack. That's not a bad thing.
spot on!
I never said remove any ratings, just the username so it’s anonymous.
I agree on the anonymous feature, and to be able to see ratings is not another element of strategy.... it's like if you made Carlsen play vs another 2500 GM a pawn down, saying that he is a stronger player and he should demonstrate it: this way you "bilance the game", and let's say they will score 50% each, Carlsen rating will go down and the other GM will gain rating... why doing this? and btw if 2 lower rated team vs the higher rated is much worst for him then only being a pawn down in a chess game
Veni-vidi-vici, it is not a "pawn down". It is like if Carlsen will make a move and then his opponent will make 2 moves and so on. How soon will Carlsen be checkmated? Even if his opponent is a club player?
Ganging up on whoever has more pieces is a natural part of the game, and the alliances will be fluid and change multiple times over the course of the game. Ganging up on the stronger player to eliminate them and result in more points for everyone else is a different matter entirely.
yeah, but those that prior any connection to play who formed an alliance with such goofs wouldn’t be able to were we not able to see the opponents’ usernames, only ratings of each player to remove those cheaters, which is a great idea.
not entirely, as it often coincides. a stronger player will often gain an advantage (material or positional). as long as ratings are visible, you have to accept the preference to beat a high rated opponent. personally i enjoy the dynamic, being the guy with nothing to lose, or the guy who has to fear getting ganged up on.
like the outcome? (btw. blue just mated green by pulling his rook back from green's g2 aka m5!)
On the other 4 player group’s Notes this recently (okay, lol not recently) was posted;
lazarus_low 28 days ago
I suggest that all players be anonymous during the game. That way collusion is impossible
ChessCitizen 28 days ago
@lazarus_low thats a very good point actually, there seems to quick be situations of ganging up on someone. Especially with checks
I do think this is a very good idea and would eliminate much unfortunates presently going on, and then after the totals appear from the finished outcome then we see who played, won, etc.