So, there is not only an issue of 'high point count', which you mention, but fact that he was about to mate, and that the other two players have resigned against him. I haven't actually been in this position, what happens now with a double resignation? I'm guessing based on your note that D gets the value only of the last player resigning?
The problem of 'pieces left' is fascinating. Right now a player resigning sort of gets to give only his king to his opponent, but gets to take the rest of his pieces 'home' (ie they are protected from being taken with value).
The most obvious change to the 'resign' rules would be:
a) The player resigning gives up *his entire point value* to the opponent left: ie not only his king but also all of his pieces. This could still result in a 'claimed win', but would require a higher point count.
b) A second player resigning before a previously resigned (or time loss) king is taken (under the old rules) should have the value of his king given to the player that didn't resign (last man standing).
This would seem to reduce a resignation to a mere fact of life, and not a trick.
Discuss: Uncaptured Kings in the Endgame
I just came from a game which I'd report as definite bug along these lines. I played red. Yellow (opposite me) blundered earlier, and both blue & green chose to "go for the kill". Since I had no direct line of attack on yellow to join in, I opted to quietly develop an arsenal, and prepare to unleash fire & fury upon what remained of blue and green. As expected, blue and green annihilated yellow in short order; after the massacre, scoring was
blue: 36
green: 22
yellow: 10
red: 1
However, blue and green now were poorly positioned, had major defensive holes and were in time trouble (10-20 seconds left). I was solidly positioned, aiming at promoting 2-3 pawns uncontested, with nearly all my time left. Even if blue & green conspired to take me on together (definitely "part of the game" strategy; don't get me wrong)... I was ready.
Whether or not it was done deliberately (more on this later), the next event was, IMO, unsportsmanlike: Immediately after capturing yellow, both blue and green idly waited and timed out. Final score (with 2 uncaptured kings):
blue: 36
green: 22
red: 21
yellow: 10
The bug: with two uncaptured kings on the board, the last team standing should be rewarded +20 for both uncaptured kings. Though I'm open to hearing a counter-argument, this just seems blindingly obvious; and I'd present the game I just played as a case-in-point for the change. A reward to red of +40 instead of just +20 would have completely voided this (IMO unfair) strategy.
On the "malicious" note above: it may be that blue & green were unaware of this rule, and their play can be explained logically; "attack yellow because he's weak; then deer-in-headlights frozen because uh-oh, look at red".
However. if blue & green were aware of this rule, they could have been strategically taking advantage of it from the get-go:
A) Identify weaker opener of yellow/red. Assuming this is yellow, attack yellow and ignore red.
B) Attack of yellow will yield lots of points; both attackers should easily gain 20+ point advantage over red. (if any gap remains, quickly attack each other, in yellow territory, until 20+ point advantage over red exists)
C) Once 20-point gap is established over red (who might have 5 queens at this point), both blue & green just time-out / resign, guaranteeing them 1st & 2nd place, with red in a crap-shoot to get 3rd or even 4th.
The tl;dr: With current rules, I feel that with three strong players and one weak, the player opposite the weak player is hugely disadvantaged - with very few strategical options that will avoid 3rd or 4th place finish, assuming other two strong players know how to take advantage of the rule.
@VAOhlman ,
Interesting idea. How about: upon defeat, a player's remaining pieces are instantly repainted as "coins" worth the amount of the pieces that died there. By this variation, the resigned king itself just becomes a +20 "coin". Final winner is awarded all the un-collected coins on the board. IMO, this would cut down on the penalty for "lethal forks", e.g. knight that forks queen & rook that is so debilitating that forked player resigns in response (and forking player gains nothing). It would also ensure that "claim win" would only work once a leading player had established a definitive lead over 2nd place.
One other addendum: I can understand *not* wanting to turn the game of chess into a game of coin-chasing :-); perhaps a more palatable variation of the coin idea is one with reduced value:
pawns/promoted-queens: +0 (just dead pieces)
knights: +1 coins
bishops/rooks: +2 coins
queen: +5 coin
king: +20 coin
If you would add points for all pieces, almost no one would be able to claim win. I usually have about 20 - 30 points + king when its 1v1, and unless the other player isnt comletely pasive until then, you dont have 50 points advantage. And he usually has in game advantage so he should easily win.
It would almost mean playing last man standing, but I would definitely give another +20 if there is uncaptured king.
Yeah, it's definitely a balancing act: I think some points for un-captured pieces would go a long way to reducing the variance and "luck" factor of the game (and ensure that stronger players have better odds of triumphing over weaker players). However, making un-captured pieces worth too much would completely change the dynamic of the game, likely in ways that nobody wants.
I see the current policy of awarding "final man standing" just +20 for just one king is one extreme, and the alternative of awarding all points of all un-captured pieces as another extreme, I suspect there's an optimal solution somewhere in between those.
@VAOhlman ,
Interesting idea. How about: upon defeat, a player's remaining pieces are instantly repainted as "coins" worth the amount of the pieces that died there. By this variation, the resigned king itself just becomes a +20 "coin". Final winner is awarded all the un-collected coins on the board. IMO, this would cut down on the penalty for "lethal forks", e.g. knight that forks queen & rook that is so debilitating that forked player resigns in response (and forking player gains nothing). It would also ensure that "claim win" would only work once a leading player had established a definitive lead over 2nd place.
This is sort of what I was suggesting.
As someone who is around 1650, I agree with @warelephant . Adding 20 points for all enemy kings in the end makes sense to avoid double resignation (which does happen).
Simply adding 20 points for a king changes the game dynamics a little bit. Assuming the last person simply gets the points for the king(s). If there are three players and one of them (lets say red) resigns/runs out of time, then the game immediately changes into a 1 vs 1. If one of the two players (lets say yellow) has a better position, he can mate (lets say blue) and get the points for red as well.
Now if yellow doesn't get points for the red king he might consider capturing the red king first, which leaves blue some time to improve his position or even as well fight for the red king.
I know this example might not occur so often and the resignation problem somehow has to be solved. But awarding points to the last player takes away the nice dynamics of playing not only against one person
It has already been suggested:
SUGGESTION: leftover kings are rewarded to the player last standing
Almost everyone agrees that it would be a sensible improvement of the current system.
I agree. This would be a very good change to see in 4 Player Chess. Double-resigning can be frustrating under the current rules. Awarding the last man standing the value of both kings would make sense.
big time
...the resignations as well!
I porposed the same thing a few weeks ago. I entirely agree. the points for any deadking left on the board when the game ends should go to the last reamining player
2nd that
Come on now, we all like some drama! The dead kings are funny decoys. What about a rule about the king only being allowed captured after a set number of turns for each player? 
Let us say that there is a counter on the dead king, counting down from 5 or something, and then everyone have a shot to get there if they please. (Yes a very radical solution)
So after 5 moves the dead king should just become gray? I have a more explosive idea. After 5 moves the fatally wounded king would detonate, killing every live piece in his immediate vicinity. The points of the pieces killed by the explosion would go to the owner of the detonated king.
EDIT: Oops! It seems I misunderstood your suggestion!
Hi all,
Just thought I'd put forward a suggestion that has probably also been mentioned elsewhere. In any case, feel free to discuss.
Background:
As a player rated close to 1700, any mechanics that increase variance tend to annoy me. Chief among these is when the timing of a resignation changes the outcome of a game. There are many cases to consider, not all of which will have an easy fix, but I think there is at least one which could be fixed with little effort, and would be considered by most to be a quality of life improvement.
The case with an easy fix:
The points for uncaptured kings should go to the last remaining player in the case that all other players have been removed from the game (for any reason).
The case with an easy fix, example under current ruleset:
In an endgame, the following situation may arise:
Player A: 50 points, low piece count
Player B: 40 points, dead
Player C: 60 points, low piece count
Player D: 15 points, high piece count
Player A is about to be mated by Player D and resigns. Player C immediately resigns, and Player D is left in 4th place (35 points) with a high piece count. This happens more often than you might think, and I have been on both the receiving and giving end of the deal. Under the proposed change, Player D would also get the 20 points for Player A's king and finish in 2nd place (55 points).
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think the way the game deals with this example right now is a logical extension of the "Claim Win" philosophy (a philosophy which I happen to agree with)?
2. Would the proposed change work as intended, or create new arbitrage opportunities?
3. Can you think of any other changes that would be clear-cut cases to reduce resignation timing variance?