It makes sense. The last-standing player would certainly capture all dead kings if he had the chance. If he was allowed to continue playing the game alone, the only meaningful thing he could do would be to capture any leftover kings, and then resign.
SUGGESTION: leftover kings are rewarded to the player last standing
Sort:
In a situation where harvesting a king is a 50/50 between two players, this would of course deprive the third the opportunity of outflanking them while they're distracted. Not a fundamental change, but still...
Oct 7, 2017
0
#5
Yes, this is particularly annoying if 1 player is knocked out early and then both final players can resign very close to each other, particularly helping the second to last player.
@MarlonAnthonyCameron I don't think you understood the suggestion, if there are three players left, that's not the last player standing. I'm talking about when the game ends with kings still on the board and the last living player loses, while he would've won if he was allowed to capture the leftover kings.
Oct 7, 2017
0
#7
It just happened to me for the second time today. When I am just about to checkmate one player, this player resigns, since the 3rd player is ahead of me by just over 20 points he also resigns, giving me 20 points, when I would have gotten 40 by mating both players (which would have happened)
I agree this would be a good change. This is the only issue I have with the current resignation rules.
Skeftomilos wrote:
It makes sense. The last-standing player would certainly capture all dead kings if he had the chance. If he was allowed to continue playing the game alone, the only meaningful thing he could do would be to capture any leftover kings, and then resign.
To say this is sensible makes no sense considering the game over is the point.
This was discussed in the king capture discussion. It makes sense and stops some forms of win resignations that are not about good tactics, but rather luck and opportunity.