that happened to me too
a MATE should be that
MATE
I just lost by checkmating the last player
Sort:
Sep 6, 2017
0
#23
ThePEPSIChallenge wrote:
that happened to me too
a MATE should be that
MATE
Just so we are on the same page, if the last player who got checkmated, even though they checkmated the other two players, they are automatic losers of the game, to who they got checkmated by, even though they did all of the dirty work?
I have read a lot of opinions from people who advocate the point system and who claim to be fairer. How can it be unfair a system in which all players depart from the same positions, with the same rules? How fair can it be, or be called Chess, a game that rewards anyone who loses their king, gives up or loses for time? The points system can be valid to evaluate the quality of the match, never to determine the winner. To say that a player may be defensive, or hidden, as some say, is quite absurd. The strategy and style of play of each one is something particular. This argument is overturned for the simple reason that all players can adopt a defensive strategy and, as they say, hide. No one is forced to adopt an offensive strategy. Anyone who studies Chess knows that there are thousands of winning styles. Chess is a game that represents a battle. There is no such thing as winning a points battle. Either you capture the king or you're catched. So if you do not want to end the game of Chess by turning it into Checkers or any card game, I think we should stick to tradition and play strategy and quality. Rewarding kamikases, cheaters or valuing only tactical players accustomed to blitzes is burying the pleasure and intelligence of the game of Chess. I would like to make it clear that this is a unique opinion and that I respect all divergent opinions.
That deserves a trophy, Addrrian..
🏆
Sep 9, 2017
0
#26
Addrriannovv What you say is right based on the position you are coming from (the good of the game of CHESS). I cannot speak directly for the developers of this game but from what I understand they have been working at make a possible 4 player game for sometime and have been trying to find a way to make it viable and fun (and fair). So it's not just poof here we are it works type of game. As I understand it they started with the style of last man standing (exactly as you say in your post) but found it really did not work well. I can't speak to they why other than to guess that it was not a fun game to play for many people (which I believe has to be one of the primary requirements to make a game succeed in a place like this). People found the best way to win was to defend and thus no action and very boring game(s) took place. It was from these initial tests that they came up with points and made it more of a battle game vs a CHESS game. So perspective of what they are trying to produce for the community to have fun with needs to be taken into consideration. I would also guess that if its possible to make it a full on Chess game and that it works well then that would be their first choice and as it continues to BETA test who knows we might end up there.
But.. if one opponent is bored he should resign and move to his chess, not this, though as well the checkmate being the basis intent the outcome this should be recognized what places the win considering most playing this is because they play the great game chess, Yoda.
no??
Renegade_Yoda, thank you very much for your clear explanation. A good point of view, indeed.
Sep 9, 2017
0
#29
Pepsi, I think that is what they are trying to figure out while still making it fun.
For now I suggest thinking of it this way: If you played the game of Checkers would you be mad if one of your pieces was not a knight and moves like a knight? No because its not part of that game. So think of this as not chess but a new game with different rules. That way you don't have to try to keep fitting it into the box of rules you have for a whole different game. *At least until they do the final version and let us know what the rules of this new game is. For now we play with the rules they give us and try to take advantage just like any game of the rules to help us win. In this case checkmate is not the outcome in the rules they have but more points is the outcome so for now get more points 
no no.. I know it's different rules, but criticism is understandable something so new, only for the hopes to better the game early on.
Like the pawns having also the ability to move each direction but only one space due the basically 4 boarded play would be definitely bettering this great game, because it does make sense the pawns should be able to do so, unless they have already tested and saw how it affects in particular scenarios and unfair but that don't seem likely.
Indeed, the game is great fun, just seeing it could use little differences as I'm sure the maker would expect some to inquire about, is all.
Sep 9, 2017
0
#31
ahh got it I was missing your intent. thought it was more a complaint vs a suggestion for what could make the game better. Sorry.. The pawn idea does sound interesting to me as well. I think personally my brain will explode with it lol. Also not sure if in the end they will do it but I would love to see two games come out of this a last man standing game and a current game with points. that why we could all choose what variation we wanted to play. But if it does happen I would expect it to be way down the road.
np...
Probably because my first post magnifying MATE your viewing from more or less.
I am sorry that.. that's one way I place emphasis on particular words.
Sep 22, 2017
0
#33
i kinda like it, because it encourages to take some risks. at higher level play is nitty already. if you sit back and wait too long, you will only get to checkmate one opponent, which is likely not enough to win. so i think it balances out quite nicely with the point system. what i think is unfair is the winner deciding who gets 2nd ( posted this in rules topic )
I am pretty sure that all these players who ask for a last-man-standing version of 4-player-chess, would not actually prefer it if the option to play it was available. After experiencing some suicidally boring games with everyone moving his rook right and left ad infinitum, they would switch either to the win-by-points version, or to normal chess.
I've got no problem with the point system. I don't play a ton of 4-P, but in my experience, the last player standing usually has the most points. In the one or two games that have turned out otherwise, it was because the one player hung back and attacked at the end, then wondered why they didn't win even though they only took one piece.
When I purchased my 4-P game board, the rule book said there were many ways to play. One was based on pieces captured, another by last man standing, and you could play as teams of two. It would be interesting if chess.com could make each of these an option when playing 4-P. I know it would be a lot of extra code, but I think it would be worth it. Blitz and bullet are not for everyone, and some people do not have the time to sit down for an hour and play with half-hour timers in live. Some people enjoy having the time to contemplate every move in daily. Chess.com is about having chess for everyone, and for the moment, 4-P is not for everyone, but it is for some.
Oct 9, 2017
0
#37
@StangMaster101,
I believe you will see a lot of this down the road. They had team in early testing and its currently off line until they work out some bugs. The big thing we as a community can do is to try and draw more people to this game as 1 of the key issues with the teams was there was not enough player base to keep both teams and singles going without long waits and ratings being really far apart. Add that to the game drop rate for people trying to do one thing or another and it just was not up to par. More people will help get us teams back faster (I believe).
I believe the same thing. I have not been aware of a checkmate system in the works though. That would make all these people happy. I look forward to seeing what the designers present us with.
Argeusnoc wrote:
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.
The game should be played according to normal chess rules. I was last man standing and I still lost to the other guy. Super unfair for the last player standing, points shouldn't be the primary method of winning. Takes away the magic that chess has.
Skeftomilos wrote:
I am pretty sure that all these players who ask for a last-man-standing version of 4-player-chess, would not actually prefer it if the option to play it was available. After experiencing some suicidally boring games with everyone moving his rook right and left ad infinitum, they would switch either to the win-by-points version, or to normal chess.
I wouldn't. Honestly, it may be boring, but it's better than losing when you were last man standing.
I dont think that increasing last check mate points is fair. Instead, I think that resigning while on top should be punished really hard. Again, if you reward the last man standing is unfair for the player who did the most. Now if a player is trying to win by resignation then he should be punished with a lost game automatically.