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 Fairl