I had the same thoughts of yours that if you mated your last opponent you win, but to be honest, that is really unfair. Let me explain it. In one of my games I mated 2 opponents so I was involved in 2 battles. As a result I was very down in pieces compared to the other guy that was just sitting and watching. The guy mated me at the end but it was really easy for him as I had almost no pieces to defend. To my surprise I won it but after analyzing the matter, I realize that the game favored the one who did the most which is absolutely fair.
I just lost by checkmating the last player
Sort:
Argeusnoc wrote:
I had the same thoughts of yours that if you mated your last opponent you win, but to be honest, that is really unfair. Let me explain it. In one of my games I mated 2 opponents so I was involved in 2 battles. As a result I was very down in pieces compared to the other guy that was just sitting and watching. The guy mated me at the end but it was really easy for him as I had almost no pieces to defend. To my surprise I won it but after analyzing the matter, I realize that the game favored the one who did the most which is absolutely fair.
i realized that 2. that is why 4player chess is based on points
I've been there once.
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/resignation-used-as-a-tactic - Related thread.
If you're 15 points less than your opponent when 2 players remain, there is no way you can win. That's pretty frustrating when it comes to playing on knowing you'll lose.
Sep 4, 2017
0
#7
Argeusnoc wrote:
I had the same thoughts of yours that if you mated your last opponent you win, but to be honest, that is really unfair. Let me explain it. In one of my games I mated 2 opponents so I was involved in 2 battles. As a result I was very down in pieces compared to the other guy that was just sitting and watching. The guy mated me at the end but it was really easy for him as I had almost no pieces to defend. To my surprise I won it but after analyzing the matter, I realize that the game favored the one who did the most which is absolutely fair.
But then the strategy of going after one or two opponents while ignoring the third one is a bad strategy that should be punished, not rewarded.
If three players are going after each other while a 4th player watches, then I would say they do so at their own peril. If a 4th player is just sitting around waiting, as far as I'm concerned, they should be getting attacked. Not their fault if no one punishes them for it.
I still say no one should lose if they give the final mate. In real chess, material is irrelevant. Only mate matters. To remove that element of the game removes the true spirit of chess and turns it into a material gobble-fest.
I agree. I was on the other side: I was ahead by more than 15 and I purposely resigned to win. Although I'm glad I won, I don't like how you can win by getting ahead and resigning.
aravinds_ll wrote:
If you're 15 points less than your opponent when 2 players remain, there is no way you can win. That's pretty frustrating when it comes to playing on knowing you'll lose.
You mean there is no way to win if because your opponent can take the sneaky option and resign? Otherwise there is a way to win - capture his pieces one by one before delivering the checkmate. Unless you have been completely passive all along, that should normally get you enough points to win.
Sep 4, 2017
0
#10
KidGloves,
Someone brought up a point a few days ago that I think applies here. 4player chess should not be considered "Chess" its a whole new game in itself and thus you have to consider it from a new angle. This game is going to be tough to make work as it is with so many possible problems. But the need to have aggressive people early is fundamental otherwise the game becomes boring and dead. Since the best strategy will be for all 4 players to sit back and do nothing.
To rephrase: In "Chess" the object is to be last man standing.
In "4Player" the object is to end up with most points.
This is all IMO (In my opinion)
Sep 4, 2017
0
#11
KidGlovesUSMC wrote:
Argeusnoc wrote:
I had the same thoughts of yours that if you mated your last opponent you win, but to be honest, that is really unfair. Let me explain it. In one of my games I mated 2 opponents so I was involved in 2 battles. As a result I was very down in pieces compared to the other guy that was just sitting and watching. The guy mated me at the end but it was really easy for him as I had almost no pieces to defend. To my surprise I won it but after analyzing the matter, I realize that the game favored the one who did the most which is absolutely fair.
But then the strategy of going after one or two opponents while ignoring the third one is a bad strategy that should be punished, not rewarded.
If three players are going after each other while a 4th player watches, then I would say they do so at their own peril. If a 4th player is just sitting around waiting, as far as I'm concerned, they should be getting attacked. Not their fault if no one punishes them for it.
I still say no one should lose if they give the final mate. In real chess, material is irrelevant. Only mate matters. To remove that element of the game removes the true spirit of chess and turns it into a material gobble-fest.
What I see is that you are trying to change the game. The game was meant to be won by points and not by last man standing.
@cherry_poppins, yes, we can win if our opponent won't resign. But pretty much no one will be willing to lose a game they know they can win.
Sep 5, 2017
0
#14
Also lost a game by mating the last opponent. I had 70 points, he had 77. Before mating him I ate all his pieces (a knight and a pawn), but it was not enough to win. And even if he could promote that pawn to a queen and let me eat the queen ... the promoted queen is 1 point too. So, there was no way to win him any way. Somewhere earlier another player allowed him to eat too many pieces, so this guy was unbeatable. And I did not sit aside waiting while 3 other players were fighting, definitely. The balance (the price of a checkmate or the price of the last checkmate) could be updated.
Maybe +20 points for checkmating the last player?
Sep 5, 2017
0
#17
Not sure adding more points will help on last one? If your behind by more than 16 before checkmate then the other person should resign to win before you get checkmated so points will not help in this case.
Sep 5, 2017
0
#18
+20 points per mat of the last player and clear points for players leaving the game ahead of time
We will consider our options more thoroughly before we decide what to do about this issue 
Sep 5, 2017
0
#20
I have lost by checkmate 3 times and was happy to do so. If they do the rating system correctly, your scored points and your victories over your opponents in the game, should still reward you accordingly, in the form of a higher rating, even if it doesn't immediately show it on the scoreboard. I am pretty sure it is this way and people don't understand.
I love this game but there has to be some sort of stipulation that if you checkmate the final opponent, you win the game. I get the point system and I think it's great because it encourages fighting, but come on... I slammed home a checkmate and lost?? That just can't be right.
The current system allows people to win by mating or getting mated, by resigning or having their opponent resign... it's just about capturing material. Chess can't be reduced to just capturing material - that really removes an important element from chess.
The value of material captured should be a secondary means of determining the winner, not the primary means. The primary means of determination should be checkmate (last man standing). In cases of 50-moves, repetition, or insufficient material, use the points. No wins by resignation or getting mated. And the last man standing should never lose.