Checkmating

I think that players should be able to steal checkmates.(This is the main focus of this topic)

Example, Around the board clockwise. 1, 2, 3, 4. Player 2 takes his queen in with the support of his bishop to attack player 1's king. For the moment player one is checkmated(In the current version he is eliminated right now. I am suggesting that you wait until he is checkmated on his turn). Player 3 does his turn and does not do anything relevant to this example and player 4 can capture player 2's "checkmating" queen. If he does not then player 4 still did the checkmate because he did not capture. If player 4 captures and is checkmating player 1(on player 1's turn) losses the game and the person who could have stopped it gets the points and no points for player 2. So the person who could have interfered with the checkmate delivered the checkmate by NOT capturing(including blocking).

Teams were really cool! I think the game is twice as good with teams compared to without.

Keep up the good work!

Wait, you're suggesting that if Player 4 can interfere with the checkmate but chooses not to, that the checkmate is credited to Player 4, even if he doesn't have any pieces anywhere near Player 1's king?  That doesn't seem right.

 Oh boy! This must be the most twisted suggestion I have seen in this forum so far! 

We have considered waiting until the beginning of a players turn before declaring a checkmate. That rule would allow for this, but it would also allow for other players to prevent a checkmate, say if player 4 in this scenario captured with a bishop instead of a queen, thereby taking player 1 out of check. That rule did not make the cut for Singles, but most definitely still in consideration for Teams.

I agree with the bishop capture but if he does not then it would have been his choice to checkmate player 1 because he could have interfered but he did not. I think that if he does not stop the checkmate then he should get the points for doing the checkmate. because it you don't stop it then you are doing it. And I have been in situations when player 4 is checkmating me with a queen the queen is protected by a bishop of player 2's.

Also what happens when player 2 checks you and player 4 takes away your escape square(s). Who did the checkmate? I think that player 4 checkmated player 1 because he was the one who made it checkmate. I think it should be the same for stopping it.

MGleason and the four player chess team, You are making the game up right? There are no rules you have to follow! You can make knights move like rooks and jump over the squares it passed! I think that it would be more interesting if that was so because then when you find checkmate you have to see if anyone can stop it. So when you see checkmate you need to analyse a few more moves just to be safe!

And Skeftomilos, It might seem like a pretty weird rule but I think that it could be quiet interesting to have in games.

I think that anything should be able to happen out of nowhere, because there are so many player it seems as if on your turn you can do this that and that. But then you are checked and then everyone captures all of your pieces. I am okay with the point system that is used right now(for team playing but without team there needs to be a change. Maybe it should be the following). "If a player is in check then taking one of his pieces(no matter the value) are only worth one point".

A resigned player's king should not be worth so much(or it should be harder to take) because when one player resigns then whoever takes the king has a massive advantage. I think that it should only be worth 10 Points and/or you have to capture it with your king.

The idea of getting the points for a checkmate just because you didn't interfere with someone else's checkmate just seems weird.  I know you can make whatever rule you want when you invent a variant, but that doesn't mean that every rule makes sense or would improve the game.

What could be a good rule is allowing you to steal someone's checkmate by capturing the mating piece with a piece of your own that preserves the mate.  That seems reasonable.

I also like the idea of being able to rescue someone else by capturing the mating piece with a piece that doesn't preserve mate; that way, you 1) get the points from capturing the piece, 2) deprive the one opponent of the points for checkmate, and 3) keep another opponent alive (which may be a good thing if you need their help against the leader, or could be a bad thing if they attack you).

However, my preferred rule would be to dispense with check and checkmate and play until the king is captured.  That totally eliminates any difficulties with determining who to award checkmate points to; it also means that certain checkmates can prove expensive if someone can capture your queen with their king before they die.  And it also means that someone may survive being checkmated if the person putting them in checkmate has to deal with threats to their own king rather than capture yours.

What about making someone else's check into checkmate by blocking a piece of the person who is getting checkmated?

@jbesky I am not against wacky rules in general. I can see that many of them could make for an interesting gameplay. There is no shortage of ideas for wacky rules though. People have already suggested all kind of wacky things, like dead pieces worth negative points, or AI controlled zombie kings. Your idea of rewarding players for the non-actions they could have made, but they didn't, is certainly among the wackiest of all! It needs a different kind of brain to absorb it. But before making it a candidate for a 4-player chess variant, could you visualize your rule applied to normal chess? Here is an example of what a game might like:

1. Nf3 +0 points
1. ...Nc6 +0 points
2. Ne5 +0 points
2. ...Nd4 +3 points (black knight could capture the white knight, but didn't)
3. Nc6 +2 points (white knight could capture black pawns at d7 and f7, but didn't)
3. ...Nf3+ +5 points (black could capture 2 white pawns and a knight, but didn't)
4. exf3 +0 points (the capture of the knight is forced)
4. ... d5 +3 points (black could capture the c6 knight, but didn't)
5. Qe2 +11 points (white knight at c6 could capture a queen and two pawns, but didn't)
etc

Is my example close to your idea, or I got it totally wrong?

''I agree with the bishop capture but if he does not then it would have been his choice to checkmate player 1 because he could have interfered but he did not. I think that if he does not stop the checkmate then he should get the points for doing the checkmate. because it you don't stop it then you are doing it.''

i deeply disagree.  Total non-sens. Not preventing a checkmate is not checkmating.   If a player is in standby of being checkmated and you can intervenene and you dont,  the other payer will get the points.   If you dont want him to  get the points for the mate,  than intervene.

i had actually yesterday a situation which was like that: i gave a check to my right and the next player moved his queen to a position which took away the last flight square from the checked king and therefore he was checkmated instantly. the  player to my left received the points. o.k. i can live with the points given to the other player but i would find it correct that the checkmate should be "real" when it is the players turn. because there might still be the possibility that the next player would have taken the queen and opened again a flight square for the king.

also because if we think about it we stop a game (2 player chess) when one player is checkmated but actually in that moment the king is not yet captured. 

perhaps it should be that a game is only lost when the king gets captured so even if the king moves to a square where he is in check, if he does not get captured the game continues.

i am aware that i am just throwing an idea out there which might have drawbacks and flaws and there are surely reasons which might make it unattractive but well, sometimes we just have to try new things. if it weren't for that we all would be playing with our fingers still in the sand and wonder what cool games could exist.

and i just saw now that MGleason pointed exactly the mating by capture out and i feel completely second with my idea...

@mozart5474 your idea is discussed at length here: SUGGESTION: you lose when your king is taken

I am glad those 2 mine ideas drilled your brain so deeply. It shows their potential. From all the variety of the great ideas we have in this forum, you selected and quoted just 2 and both of them belong to me.  I have a good citation index.

By the way, there are new comments in that thread: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/suggestion-capturing-dead-grey-pieces-earns-0-5-points

@Skeftomilos No, only checkmating but it could also be cool if you got points for all the things you didn't do.

And I completely agree with mozart5474. What if one of the squares that your king can not move to are freed up by another player moving a piece?

@BabYagun I am honored that you consider my personal preferences of wackiness to be a good citation index. 

If we want wacky rules, we could have the following:

1. After a random number of moves (3-6), a nuclear missile explodes on a random square.  Any piece on that square is killed, and the square is irradiated for the next three turns; no pieces can move there or pass through.  If it hits your king, tough luck, you're dead.  Then the timer is reset to repeat this after another 3-6 moves.

2. At the start of the game, 4-6 random squares have hidden land mines placed on them.  If a piece stops on a land mine, it is killed, and a new land mine is placed on a new random square.

3. If you get a pawn to the eight rank, you are not required to promote it.  You can keep pushing it if you want.  If you get a pawn all the way across the board, you can promote it to a second king so that you can survive the death of your first king.

4. A computer-controlled knight is placed in the middle of the board at the start of the game.  After the fourth person's turn, it moves randomly.  This knight cannot be captured.  If it accidentally jumps off the board, a new computer-controlled knight will be placed on an empty square near the middle of the board.

5. There are hidden clocks placed on several random squares.  If one of your pieces stops on one of these, you get ten seconds added to your clock, and a new hidden clock is placed on another random square.  There is no guarantee that a clock and a land mine cannot be on the same square.

6. When your king is killed, you get to fire a single nuclear missile at any square you choose; you cannot target an opponent's king.

You know, that might actually be a fun game... but I don't think there's much point in having ratings for it.

@MGleason pretty cool! 

The wacky rule I forgot to include above:

At random intervals, a random piece of a random colour is changed to a random piece of a random colour.  So a red bishop might turn into a green pawn.  If this takes your king, too bad, you lose.  If this gives you an extra king, you've got insurance against losing one of them.

I'm sure we could come up with some more.

2 months ago someone in the chat suggested to add some laser sharks to the board so they zap random pieces. I was inspired by this suggestion  and offered another idea: We should have a huge boss king in the middle of the board taking 4 squares (2x2). Every 10 moves the boss king jumps to some random place and crushes all the pieces below. It can be killed, but it has 5 lives. I believe there were other suggestions too. But my boss king rule is natural. ... For all who used to play arcade games. Do not know why wasn't it tested yet.