SUGGESTION: you lose when your king is taken

Hello All!
In normal chess you only have one motive and that it to take the other player's king. So checks have to be stopped and once your king has no places to run and is in check (checkmate) your dead. In 4 player chess there is no motive to beat a single player but get the most points. So when a check is given it is not necessary for them to take the king as doing this itself does not win the game. Based on this I think there should be an option to ignore checks, and you should only lose once the king is actually taken (not in checkmate). Take for example the case where I get checked by the person to the left of me but notice when the other 2 players move that his queen is now being threatened. I could risk it and let my king be put on check and assume that the person on the left wants to play for a win and keep his queen. Like wise say for example my king is checked right in front with a bishop. Because its not necessary that he would take my king like in a classical 1 v 1 I think I should theoretically be able to take his rook and risk him not recapturing. Furthermore rather than deeming checkmate immediately other players moves should be considered. For example in this one game I was playing this guy who was dominating the game with a few queens and had his bishop and queen lined up on another players king. He was checkmated but because I wanted to keep winning chances alive, I was thinking of obstructing his bishop and queen with my rook and allow the now checked player to take the other players queen. There are many other instances but based on the idea that four player chess is based of on points and not the sole purpose of finishing one opponents king of, I think losing should be based  of when the king is taken.
Interested in hearing other people's thoughts thanks,

Richard Fairley

.

True...

I disagree with your first suggestion (ignore checks at all), but strongly agree with the second one. Actually I offered the same in the stalemate discussion on this forum. The checkmate (or stalemate) should be considered only at the beginning of the checkmated (or stalemated) player turn. Because other players potentially can help him. If red checks green and green does not have moves this is not a checkmate yet. We should wait blue and yellow moves. If blue or yellow either capture red piece(s) or move their pieces to open a path for green king to escape this is no longer a checkmate (or stalemate) at the beginning of green's turn. Now it works wrong.

But your first suggestion ("let's ignore checks") converts this game from chess to something else. The check is the check. Period.  

HMM...

Fair points but the check only became the check because of classic 1 v 1 games. In those games the only motive is to capture the other king and so if it was ignored the opponent would immediately capture the king since it was the main objective - game won.  Now in four play chess since surviving to gain the most points is the main objective, a check doesn't have the same value. Capturing another persons king doesn't immediately mean you win the game as you have other worries as well (such as king safety from other players, possible captures,  etc). So I think from that point of view checks should be able to be ignored.
Thanks,
Richie Fairley

I completely disagree Mr. Fairley. I believe that is the reason why it is more important to have checks!!! Checks literally check your king. That is why king safety is important! Without checks kings could just run over the place. It is a punishment for not securing your king. It is as if someone points a gun at you and you act like nothing is happening. Same here with checking the king. Your king is your life. As long as your king is in the game, you are. Once your king is out, you are done. Chess 4 player promotes king safety. With checks, it makes it punishing if your king is not safe, and more complicated. Chess is indeed a game of strategy and I believe 4 player chess is as well. 

With your suggestion sir, you would be changing the game completely. This game, in my opinion, is based off chess and chess emphasizes king safety! Without checks on the king, then what the heck is the purpose of castling besides connecting rooks? It changes the game because of less attacks. I think it is interesting, but these games would be drawn out longer and less dynamic. So that is why I personally disagree. 

I agree with all aspects of @Richard_Fairley's suggestion. It just makes sense. I remember how surprising it was when I noticed the mechanics of checkmate for the first time. One player checks your king, the other player takes control of your king's last escape square, and you are instantly out of the game. Boom! How anticlimactic!

As for check being a check, of course it's a check. What is debated is the obligations that a check creates for the player receiving it. In the classical chess the obligation is to escape from the check immediately. I never understood why this is the case, but I guess that the people who formulated this rule had good reasons to do it. I would really like to know these reasons. In any case, the intuitive punishment for not securing your king is losing your king, not being forced to protect him, possibly against your better judgment.

This is in interesting observation. Both have merit IMO. On the ignoring check I would be down to test that for a couple days or week see what it does to the game. It's possible they already did this though and result was negative. If I had to guess I would assume the game would change a lot with this tweak but that is just a guess no idea if it's true so testing would be the easy answer assuming the powers to be do not have other reason's to not consider this. That said, I think the stage of the game, how many players are on and getting used to it, what the goals are for current development all could be road blocks to a change like this. 

An implication of @Richard_Fairley's suggestion is that when I am checkmated it would be in my best interests to make the actual capturing of my king as costly as possible for the player that checkmated me. So I'll want to move my king to a square that is also controlled by another player. That implies not only that I should be able to ignore a check to my king, but also that I should be able to put my king in check voluntarily!

Again, I think it is also why it is important in my opinion for 4 player chess to be a team game. Because as individuals you have limited control! With teams your partner won't backfire against you. That is why in my opinion it is important to try to make a teammate in the game. 

Fair Points! But here's how I feel about things.  I am purely going of the logic that in normal chess a check has value as ignoring it means loss. The only objective in normal chess for the a player is to capture the king so if check was ignored of coarse I would capture the king. That's why checks are immediately taken care of in classical chess. However, four player chess is different as the only objective is to get points. So in some cases if I get checked, I may ignore it as gaining another players king does not guarantee winning the game. I also disagree that the king would run all over the board. I mean a king is still a king  and worth 20 points. Of coarse if a king is offered free and I have no threats towards me, I would capture it.

Awesome, In normal chess the rules are like that because for a player the only objective is to capture the other king. So if a check was ignored of coarse the other player would capture the king and win the game. That's why the rules are that a check must be addressed immediately - if you ignore it you lose. In four player chess, a check has less value as the sole objective is not to capture another players king but to gain as many points as possible. That's why ignoring check does not have the same effects as in normal chess. Gaining just one player's king does not mean game won. That's my logic. 
Thanks,
Richard

yes but you are missing the point. Tell me have you seen any game in 4 player chess where the winner did not capture any enemy king? Period? If so it would be rare. Capturing a king is the most amount of points possibly one can make in one move besides if it is a triple check at the same time. As in chess or 4 player chess, king safety is key! Even more crucail than regular chess because you have 3 players that can possibly attack you! I just disagree completely. This would change the game. Then I ask what is the purpose of the king? what is he doing there? he is useless. He has no possible way to promote. I just think it is silly in my opinion to let checks go like nothing. That is like taking a bullet in the arm or leg and ignoring it because someone might be able to attack you when you are already hurt and vulnerable. I am sorry that is just how it is in 4 player chess. You can't control everything. People take advantage of those who are less fortunate. If you don't enjoy it, I suggest you don't play. 4 player chess is an extremely hard and unforgiving game. 

Nothing in life is fair or free 100%! I suggest you get used to it. This game is not fair. lol. 

Although I agree that it will change the game I am not convinced it would change it in a bad way. It might even make the game better. I don't think anyone knows for sure without actually trying it. 

and your point Happy about getting shot and ignoring it actually makes the point for Richard . 

As for what's the point of the king maybe I'm missing it but I don't think it changes the point of the king at all.. again its all just a guess unless someone has actually tried it. 

@HappyBeavr I am struggling to understand what's the relevance of life not being fair with the check rule of 4-player chess. Your other points make no much sense either.
1) «This would change the game» -> Of course it will change the game. Every suggestion we make is for the game to be changed one way or another, hopefully for the best. If you would like for the game to remain unchanged, then -for starters- don't make suggestions yourself! :-)
2) «In chess or 4 player chess, king safety is key» -> You are missing THE point. The reason for creating the 4-player chess game was to create an enjoyable game that people would love to play. It was not created to promote ideological or moral principles like "defense is more important than offense".
3) «What is the purpose of the king?» -> To allow you to continue playing the game and gathering points. When you lose your king your remaining pieces are grayed, your score becomes frozen, and your state changes from "player" to "spectator". I thought it was obvious.
4) «If you don't enjoy it, I suggest you don't play» -> Note from the developers: «This is a prototype game made for fun and testing. There is a lot of missing features! We are experimenting. We hope you will share your feedback with us!». You missed that too.

For anybody interested on the history of the check rule, I found a relevant discussion here:
Why is it illegal to move into check?

Long story short, the rule was introduced more than 1000 years earlier, by the Persians. The reasoning of the rule has been lost in time. My guess is that the rule was introduced to protect players from loosing games after silly mistakes, destroying games that would be otherwise interesting. It was also introduced to discourage players from prolonging totally lost games, in the hope that the winning side would make the horrible blunder of not-noticing a sneaky check, or placing their king on a square controlled by a sneaky positioned enemy piece. This kind of unsporting method of play could have become too frequently observed, and the Persians decided to take measures against it.

If my guess is correct, does the reasoning of the check rule still stands on current day chess? My answer is NO. Nowadays chess is played mostly on virtual chessboards, displayed on computer screens. The software can easily provide automated visual clues, to help a player avoid putting his king in danger. So playing-on completely lost positions hoping for a king gift, would rarely have the intended result.

The biggest problem would be the implications arising for the stalemate rule, that is build on top of the check rule. I guest that most players would be against discarding the stalemate rule in classical chess.

Cool