Early King incentive???

It was brought to my attention from a different form, that I and some of the guys were talking about making the game a bit more dynamic possibly. More aggressive so to speak. So we came up with the idea what about up to move 25 or 30 if the king is captured or checkmated it is worth 30 or double the points? Because at the moment the double fianchetto, castle and queen promotion late middle game is dominating the boards at the top levels. Could we possibly try it for a weekend or so and see how it does? What do you guys think about this? We thought the openings would vary a little more possible and make the game more aggressive and dynamic. 

I don't particularly like this idea.  I think that makes it too hard for anyone to catch someone who checkmates early.  It could effectively end the game too quickly. 

i think it should be up to move 20, and the king worth 40 when checkmated, and 30 if taken by a different player, 15 if by the same

JohnHS, this maybe possible, but the other player or players not attacking could get a lead in development, not have to exchange their pieces and gain the points in the long run. So yes, this may be true your point. Maybe it should be 25 points then. 

25 points sounds more reasonable.  Still, I think a lot of newbies will dislike more complicated rules.

he means 30 -40 points until MoVe 25

yeah I definitely think 25-30, I prefer 30. 30 is a reasonable difference and can be made up by the other players. 

Well I think it is beside the newbies. We don't judge chess off of what advanced beginners think. I believe maybe this might change the dynamic of the game and make it even more challenging and spicy. Unique and different. 

25-30 points by the way. I am not sure the moves yet. maybe up to move 25 at max. 

I like the general idea of making the game more dynamic, by giving incentives for early game aggression. But we should be careful to not make the game more random as a result. By random I mean rewarding players for doing nothing purposeful, like capturing a dead king that happens to emerge nearby, after an early resignation, disconnection or time-out.

The problem with rewarding early mates is that people often resign when mate seems unavoidable. People should never resign when three or four players are still in the game, but this "rule" is not universally embraced yet. If early mates worth more than dead kings, then some players could resign intentionally just before getting mated, to punish their attacker by depriving him from his bonus. So, to stay in the spirit of the suggestion, dead kings should also worth 30 points if captured early. But this would make the game more random as a result.

This is kind of what I was trying to say, and I must say I agree with you 100%.

Yes, I meant dead or checkmated king as I said in my first post in this forum if you look up. lol. Anyways I think we should give it a shot. We don't know till we try. We keep thinking and thinking but all this is thoughts until proven. I am willing to be wrong. But I believe we should give it a shot. Then we can see if the majority of people like it or not. I just thought, well people want aggression, so why not give an early incentive? As of the resigning part, I understand. But just as in real chess, beginners still haven't learned to never give up. Even over a thousand years later people still resign early in a chess game. Vishnu Anan did as well. 

The game took place in Biel 1988. Alonso Zapata was playing white and Viswanathan Anand was playing black. The game went like this:

1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nf3 Ne4 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. Qe2 black resigns. 

Point being even a former world champion resigns early in a game. Now, I understand chess is different from 4 players. The point is people are still going to resign. Maybe they just have a bad day. Maybe they just don't want to play on. Who knows. If a world champ can, then so can anyone else. I believe that yes either dead or checkmated king worth 30 points as 25 is not much but 30 is a nice incentive in under 25 moves. This might not work out, but at least when we try it we will know for sure it did not work out.

I think the big picture here is atleast some of us want a game of diversity. With 4 players, all we see is the same old opening. All the time and it seems one strategy wins. I would like to see would this game be different and see if the positional endgame route of queening and king safety would win, or the newer attack strategy will win. This also will teach players again to be more careful with their pieces and how to attack fast. 25 moves may seem a lot but very hard to achieve mate in 25 moves. And if the person resigns, whoever is attacking them should get the reward for wasted pieces or lack of development tempo toward gaining a queen to get them. I am roughly 1550-1600 currently and I have seen some amazing comebacks. you would be surprised even 30 points down against one opponent if you have a promoted queen or two what you can do to win. Anyways I talked with one of the admins and he said he will try to get him and his team to try it out by next week at the earliest. He thought it was an interesting idea. 

It would be interesting to give it a real test for sure, but it is still useful to share our thoughts about the suggestion even without a way to test it in practice. For example lets ask ourselves the question: would I change my opening strategy if there was a 10 points bonus for mating an opponent early? Or I would continue developing solidly as usual, and just become a little more adventurous when a suitable opportunity appears? In my case the answer is (2), solid development. I won't risk the security of my base for 10 extra points that I might get, if I am quick enough at breaking my opponents defenses, and if I am lucky enough to deliver the mate myself instead of a sniper from a different side of the board!

Btw in the game Zapata - Anand, the early resignation was completely justified because Anand was losing a piece. This is what happened:
«Anand was under the spell of the journal "Informator" and the Miles-Chrstiansen 1987 game contained within. Informator failed to explain that the Miles-Christiansen game had been agreed to be drawn before either had made a move. At the board, Tony saw that 6. Qe2 was winning, but remained the gentleman and avoided playing it. Mind you, I understand that he did spend some seconds 'polishing' the e2-square with his forefinger, until he was satisfied that Larry Christiansen's face had assumed a suitable shade of red.»

@HappyBeavr to be clear, I like your suggestion, and I consider that implementing it could only improve the game, by making it richer, and by challenging the dominant strategy. What is troubling me is that every new rule is added to the game is making it more complicated, and less appealing for new players. This is a drawback of my own suggestion as well.

Interesting. Well, somehow we are gaining players. We started off with 100 and now we are nearly 500 online sometimes. And this is the prototype. Again, just as people resign when they have a losing position a piece or more down in 4-player chess, the point with the game illustrated is that people do resign. You can not stop it. I understand and agree with his decision to resign at the top elite level. Anyways I think this incentive though not huge would possibly change the game. I feel that some people will try to strive for that checkmate early on possibly and see if it is achievable. If not, atleast people will be on edge the first 25 moves even more than they are. Who knows. We will have to wait and see.