Last standing player should get extra points

Maybe 30

Why? The eliminated player with more points has earned the win.

Not really. He wasn't last standing. I agree that there should be a points increase for checkmating last king.

@Ourebi lets suppose that you checkmated the last opponent, you got 40 points, and still finished in the second place. Would you consider this to be fair, or you would ask for an even greater point value for the last checkmate?

Here are some related topics:
I just lost by checkmating the last player
The Winner Of 4 Player Chess Should Be The Last One Standing

And here is an opposite suggestion, to increase the value of the first checkmate, not the last!
Early King incentive???

All boils down to this question: do you prefer a violent game full of fireworks, or a slow maneuvering game where for the most part nothing really is going on?

Violent games are not fun for the receiving end. I believe the game should be dragged on as long as possible, to increase the chance of time running out and/or getting all the other kings checked. The scoreboard should reflect who is last standing imo

'Last standing' and 'deserves the win' are not equivalent.

The problem is that then we will see every player sitting back and reluctant to attack in order to become the last player standing.

Last standing means you played strategically, saved your pieces, etc, and built up a good enough defense to be last man standing. That, imo, deserves to be crowned as winner. Not the player who went on a killing spree & resigned because he was ahead.

"Violent games are not fun for the receiving end. I believe the game should be dragged on as long as possible, to increase the chance of time running out and/or getting all the other kings checked. The scoreboard should reflect who is last standing imo"

Something has to be done to give attackers a reason to attack.  Otherwise games would take forever.  I played in a game with all higher level players, and believe me you WANT to encourage attacking and aggression.

I believe encouraging attacking and aggression isn't like chess. There would be too many captures and piece trading, which is unlike chess in every possible aspect. Yes, you shouldn't rely solely on defensive maneuvers, but killing sprees won't work either. A nice, balanced 4 player game mode should feel like chess, which balances offense and defense. Chess is about strategy, and the points system does not reflect that. You should encourage attacking and aggression, but you should also encourage defensive moves like castling, etc. Most players never castle in 4 player chess, which is bad. You cannot go all out offense and sacrifice your defense, but you cannot go all out defensive and sacrifice your offense either. There must be a balance. The balance makes chess fun and less frustrating. I've been the last man standing, but I rarely ever win because I wait to attack. I build up a strong defense before I go all out. The player who wins just goes nuts with his/her queen. That's not chess. Why should you punish the player who was strategic about things by giving them second? They should've won. In my opinion, 4 player chess focuses too much on aggression and taking as much material as you can, which is not the real goal of chess. The two games don't line up, and I don't feel like 4-player "chess"is really chess. Something needs to be done to reduce the aggression of four-player chess, and place more importance on defense. Games shouldn't drag on for hours (unless you like that) but games shouldn't be too fast either. All in all, if you like the current system, great! But I just feel that it favors aggression and blitz-style play. I'd like a 4-player chess that feels like regular chess, just with more players.

@dashaflash1 all you say is nice and good from an ideological point of view, but if you play a game a couple of times and it bores you to death, you will not want to play it a third time. Trust me, the game you are advocating for is ultra boring. As soon as everyone has achieved a solid defensive position, there is no incentive to do anything else really.

There should be some sort of incentive to build up a strong defense first, and then start going on offensive. I've played that way for years, and it isn't ultra boring as you claim. The current method of play is too reliant on offensive, and it needs more defensive. I've played games that drag on for hours or even days, but I never get bored. (It's also probably the fact that I play risk, which can take weeks to finish a single game) For example, I try to develop my pieces as fast as I can, and the moment I can castle, I usually will.  This usually puts me at a disadvantage in 4 player chess because I wasted moves developing my pieces and playing defensive before switching to offensive. I'd like to see a 4 player game where defense is first, then offense. Until I see that, I'm probably dropping 4 player chess permanently.

If you play long enough to reach a level of play around 1700, you will be matched with players that are castling almost always. Low rated players are falling too often to the trap of been attacked by bishops at their soft belly (knight pawns), with castling becoming a non-option for them soon after that.

I would love to offer you a possibility to take a taste of what a 4-player chess last-man-standing game looks like, but I do not expect that chess.com will offer the option to play different variants of the game any time soon. There are just not enough human resources on the project right now, and new features and improvements are coming out painfully slowly. If you drop the game, I encourage you to come back again 6 or 12 months later, to see if the new developments are suiting your preferences.

Well, I guess that means we have significantly different opinions

I read the links you mentioned and it seems this topic is a recurrent one.

Taking into consideration the following facts:

- 4chess isn't really like regular chess

- Last man standing allows a player to let others butcher each other and jump in to steal the win

- Last man standing makes the game boring as no one will attack

- Points system gives incentive for more fun

I agree with the above and I do find 4-Chess fun albeit not real chess.

So the solution is to give the last checkmate more points to try and close the gap if the player who did the last checkmate was behind on points.

How much must it be ? I don't know.

I read that if a player is 15 points behind and checkmates the last king he will still finish second.

So I'm sure a certain mathematical study can be done to know how much a last mate must be worth to allow the player who checkmates the last king to AT LEAST have a chane of winning it if he is behind on points.

It might not be enough in all cases (if for example the leader on points has WAY too many points or the player who will checkmate the last king has very few points) but it will even the odds better.

It will also allow the player behind on points to try and capture more pieces from the player leading on points to get more points before making the mate thus winning on points, knowing that he we will get the last man standing bonus.

Yeap. As you see the concept of points makes things really interesting, because it allows for many different configurations, with different advantages and disadvantages each one. It also changes your mindset while playing. In classic chess you are trying during the game to build an advantage by gaining material, or space, or weakening your opponent's structure etc. Your advantage is quantified using pawns as a unit (especially true for chess engines). In 4-player chess your advantage is quantified in points, and Maths are more involved. But your material is also important. As it is your king's safety. As it is the tensions between other players. As it is the survivability of your "friend" at the opposite side of the board (*). You have so many things to consider while playing 4-player chess, and the tempo is currently so speedy, that it's mind blowing!

(*) I highly recommend reading the excellent analysis of @Martin0 about the different roles each of your opponents has during the game: Your best friend, backstabber and worst enemy

25

@Ourebi I've won and lost games like that but the game is based on points and thats the way it should be, anything alse defeats the whole basic idea. 

I think the game's great and no more changes of the rules should be made.