Suggestion: Resequencing the Files and Ranks to match with 2PC

Hey all, I'm working on to integrate 4 player chess in the school syllabuses in Georgia and while drawing physical board on paper, I faced the problem with the square naming.

4PC board allows you to play 2PC in the central 8 square space if one wants to, but when it comes to teaching, the Files and Ranks naming of 4PC and 2PC don't match - they both start with A1 from the bottom-left square.

My suggestion is to shift the 4PC Files and Ranks by 3 squares like on the following image:

I don't really like the -2, -1 & 10, 11 ranks, but the point here is that 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 & a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h should be placed in the central space.

What do you think? I know the board square names in 4PC are not shown on the board, but they are on the side panel where the moves are written:

Thanks for all the work you do, and time dedicate to the forum.

As a player who plays a lot of competitive regular chess, I like this idea. It is a pain trying to navigate the board when you've been pounding a regular board into your brain.

Yay, a good idea!

That sounds like an excellent idea. can we get an admin to see this, please?

we can't really "resequence" the board but I think we can try changing the coordinates for cases like these. For more complicated variants I think the best way to go about it would be to find the size of the "square" (for example, 14x14 or 12x12) that contains the rest of the board and find coordinates like that. But this would break variants that have an odd number of files/ranks. Lots of consideration to do

Coordinates can be made visible in settings (life hack: just press L)

Notation in 4pc is pain, but existing option is the simplest and most optimal. There is hardly an option that will be convenient from point of view of each color
It's really hard to navigate on 4pc board, but perhaps it's not necessary. The main problem is in the large space, few players succeed in keeping a 4pc board in head anyway, therefore, when analyzing games, it is easier to just point at the required field than to try to name it. The only where a convenient notation can come in handy is when analyzing openings, here, for convenience of explanation, the notation of moves for a player of any color in 4pc can be in the mind's eye replaced by the notation of a player for white in 2pc
In any case, I wish you success in your endeavors)

You can set it in the setting so as that the coordinators will be shown.

I feel like using letters such as x, y, and z will only make the notation harder to remember for the average player...

Notation is not necessary to enjoy or play the game well. While I have quite some experience with 4pc notation (primarily due to old blindfold games where notation was available to you), many strong players do not or have a more rudimentary understanding. It won't affect your skill. Notation does make it easier to communicate your thought process and analysis to others, though. The problem with your notation system is that it only makes squares in the middle of the board more 'familiar' to you, while the arguably more critical and used squares (those on the sides) become completely reset and more convoluted. That being said, if it makes things easier for you, then by all means you should feel free to use it. I just wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the admins to implement it, though.

This doesn't require a change in how chess.com programs the variant; it's similar to a client-side theme. To easily implement this, chess.com can keep the coordinates the same, but add an option the user can select between standard and this. Standard notation wouldn't change from what we currently have, but this would shift the letters and numbers back 3. It'd be purely a visual change, so there's no reason chess.com couldn't implement this.

This would be a nice QoL change.

This makes a perfect sense. I haven't had the other variants in mind... The question there then would be how much cost-beneficial the change will be if applied. And since some variant boards I've seen here looks really scary to me, changing them at the same moment, really can be a pain.

Thanks for the life hack! I wouldn't completely agree about the current version being most optimal, but it is hard to completely disagree too. My 2 weak counterpoints would be: 1. logic wise, matching tiles and ranks of 4pc to 2pc (meaning centralizing them) would be more right, I think it would make more overall sense. Although, you really are right about the convenience - it doesn't makes a huge improvement there, especially for Blue and Green players, i guess. 2. (This doesn't apply to the chess.com and online games) When you buy a 4-player chess board, you shouldn't need to buy (or use) 2 player chess board separately. 4PC can contain 2PC in itself, so why have that differentiation? I know not many people buy it yet, but I really believe this version has a big potential. Thanks for your support!

You right, maybe it will, I don't know. If we take a circle / a loop after the end of the alphabet "z" you go in the beginning of the loop "a" - that was the logic there. But that logic doesn't apply to the numerical axis - ranks. So, I don't know... In any case, I want to manufacture the 4 player chess boards with the centralized tiles and ranks (shifted by 3-3 squares from original 4pc), if you have any recommendations, I'll be happy to hear or talk separately.

I see.. Yeah, well, I guess what you said is logical. First of all, the current square naming has been applied for a several years already, so naturally it would be hard or disappointing for many players to change it to something different. On the other hand, - "while the arguably more critical and used squares (those on the sides) become completely reset and more convoluted" - in this exact post, there are 3 other players who favored the idea. However, neither of them, nor I, are from the high rank players, so your and other guys comments should be taken as a more practice-experience based answers. I wrote two counterpoints to Arseny_Vasily - would those change your thoughts? I do agree on 100% about waiting for the admins though, thumbs up for the advice!

i'd suggest just disregarding the coordinates unless you absolutely need them. keep focusing on otb! as Lazy said no one actually has memorized the board (I myself only remember a couple squares and even then only from one player's perspective), so don't be shocked or demotivated if you don't either. It would require a LOT of practice to fully remember

I don't think relabeling them would actually be a good idea because in reality, it is a completely different board.

You want A1 to be the "same square" as A1 on a standard board, but on a standard board A1 is a corner square while in your method A1 is not a corner, instead it is a square which has 7 openings (impossible on 2p board). So it's not actually helpful to try matching in this way, as your 4pc A1 is still a completely different square with different tactical considerations anyway.

The closest you could get is to stick A1 on Red's left side rook, but of course then what do you do with the side players?

I've played a lot of 4PC, and I've been using the existing notation without any problems whatsoever.

For example, I could very easily convey my meaning by saying 1. d4. Every single person who'd played 4PC somewhat seriously will understand that this move is pushing the Queenside Rook's Pawn 2 squares. I don't see why this would be changed since we're already all so familiar with existing notation.

It's the same story as when the admins introduced the new setup. A majority of the established players preferred Old Setup, as it is what they're familiar with, and many continue to use it still. As soon as Old Setup was introduced, the player base decreased drastically. It's the same thing on a smaller scale if you were to change the notation. I bet I and many others would simply continue to use the existing notation, which overall would just create confusion.
TL;DR: Keep notation how it is.

You just take the central 8x8 space and never mind the other surrounding squares