The set-up really MUST change

New Standard:

FFA 2400+: 2699 games
     762  28.2% green took 4th  
     614  22.8% yellow took 4th 
     661  24.5% blue took 4th   
     662  24.5% red took 4th    

FFA 2500+: 692 games
     189  27.3%
     156  22.5%
     167  24.1%
     180  26.0%

Old standard, 2500+ 
  blue and green both 29% 4th place, red and yellow both 21%

FFA 2300+: 6592 games
1816 27.5%
1573 23.8%
1623 24.6%
1580 23.9%

R, B, Y, G are the 4 colours.

Hello Space, thank you for the stats. So your point basically is that the imbalance has diminished. But you use the 4th place as the sole criterium.

Could you please make a different request: if you give for every game 6 pts to the 1st place, -1 to the 2nd, -2 to the 3rd and -3 to the 4th, what is the average gain/loss in points (expectancy) for each colour? (games above 2300 and games above 2500, for OS and Oma, i.e. new standard).

In this case the comparison would become really relevant statistically.

Does anyone happen to have handy that setup balance chart?

why then in CHATURAJI rating system 2 win 2 loose?
1st: 3 wins
2nd: 1 win
3rd: 1 loss
4th: 3 losses

Yes, that's precisely what I hate most about the current set-up: we are obliged to play some moves, and there is no rich variance of possibilities like in the old set-up. It's more important to have interesting games than fully balanced configurations. 

In addition, green is extremely fragile, if blue plays passively and fails to help very fast, green simply can't survive with RY playing correctly (not even "brilliantly", just "correctly"). The old set-up also had that but to MUCH lesser extent.

Hello Indipendenza, it seems that this matter is once again of interest and importance, so you can see I am always attentive to the discussions in the forums, I am present here again.

We should first mention that Setup BY was available in the lobby some time ago on this new server. I am pleased to read that there is a good assessment for this new Setup BY, at that time it was not given the importance and value and there were very few specific games, but if you want to carry out new tests we can request it.

I am the number 1 defender of the BY setup and if you review this same forum I am the one who has given the most arguments regarding this, please review previous comments so as not to have to repeat the same thing now.

However I want to add something more to my argument, since all visions are possible in this.

Mentions:

- Gives the feeling of being able to make multiple openings.
- Compared to the other setups, it doesn't feel forced, to make openings in terms of defense, I feel like you can open yourself up to more than one option.
- As for the initial aesthetics, it gives you an identical view to classic chess; And this is an important achievement, which I highlight in magnitude.
- Playing it immediately gives you that feeling of excitement.

When I made a reference to aesthetics, I wasn't referring to whether it looks prettier or uglier or I miss the board, or whatever you want to call it. The reference goes directly to the concordance and similarity that it has with 2PC chess.

There is also something very important to note, in 2PC chess there is historically a very extensive book of Openings and they have earned a name for life.

We have for example:

Italian Opening
Sicilian Defense
French Defense
Ruy Lopez
Slav Defense
Caro-Kann Defense

and many more, but one of the best openings that I highlight in Omatamix, is the Ponziani Opening, which is a success today and makes you really strong and solid.

So we don't need to reinvent the wheel again, when the wheel was already invented many years ago, I mean, we don't need to invent new opening names, logically the gambits don't participate here because of the distance that exists on the chessboard.

So, we can keep that same language in BY Setup for all the colors, compared to the other Setup options that, due to their initial configuration of the king, could not use that same language that we are already used to using in 2P chess.

Since my passion for 4pc increased, I have always dreamed that one day Four Player Chess will have the same level of importance as 2pc in the future, and grandmasters will come to participate with the same level of importance, and It will no longer be a simple variant.

Many times we have seen that great 2pc chess players have lost games with much inferior players, and this happens mainly because other additional skills are required to be an excellent 4pc player, something that an Elite 2pc player is completely unaware of.

Four Player Ches in the future will be recognized worldwide as an elite sport, by all chess players.That is the main objective, and we are building it together.

To conclude, I would like to inform you that I am going to send this same communication to the entire administration, since I know that it is in the interest of many people and also why not say it, it is in my complete interest as well, since I want and need the total reactivation of the 4pc in all aspects. We are aware of the questions and doubts of all users, therefore it would be interesting to see the BY setup in action again.

Some of us have been saying this from the beginning.  This is the primary reason the League is Old Standard, since no one cares for the current setup along with the silly Solo system that has driven away a large portion of the player base away. 

New Standard + Solo was a formula destined to fail. 

This is still true 8 months later. 

I fully agree that 4p chess is very different from 2p chess (because of the complex human interaction between 4 people and a lot of psychology involved ; plus the POINTS calculation), so it would be good to be as close as possible to 2p chess for ALL other aspects. That's why I was totally in favour of the en-passant rule when it was implemented 4 years ago, for instance; that's why I find fairy pieces ridiculous (but some players are passionate about, it's Ok); that's why I think the promotion rang shouldn't change, etc. The standard games should be like that, and ideally with no customisation (to allow this some 3 years ago was a typical IT-guys idea, that was not appropriate I believe, as for the development of the game). Standard games should be standard games: just UNIQUE set-up, UNIQUE points calculation system, UNIQUE promotion rang, en-passant rule, mate value, etc. (Variants may exist, but shouldn't be used for the rating calculation). If we achieve that, everybody will refer to the standard first, and the ratings would become more relevant as MAIN RATINGS, etc. (Today we have 20 ratings, each of us, that doesn't make sense... I mean, it could be displayed on the relevant player personal page + in the concrete game, for instance his hyper or his antichess rating; but when you click on someone, you should only see his 6 FFA and Teams ratings I believe... TODAY IT'S A MESS, GUYS).

TBH and sincere, I am also flabbergasted that the Director and most Admins seem to be willing to always decide alone, without listening to the community. It's now EIGHT MONTHS we've been speaking about all that, with no real reaction.

(For instance, I've written many times that the beginners shouldn't have access to anything but standard, for instance here: https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/beginners-retention, because I am absolutely convinced that the current solution is very bad for marketing and the development of the hobby; I may well be wrong of course, but at least it deserves an official reaction... Instead of that, it's ignored).

Some of us have been in "discussions" with admins externally to the forum for almost a year now where we are completely ignored so it isn't a surprise. They think they know what is best and are unwilling to realise how things like New Standard and the UI doesn't help attract new players or keep old ones.

I've also been an advocate for the BY setup, which was introduced to me as the bsrti setup in this game:
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/11112593/0/3

I can't comprehend why this wasn't chosen over omatamix. 

A few months later I played games with @martinaxo and we coulnd't find many flaws with it, it's definitely the best overall setup that I've tried. 

I'll run an idea by @radon to try this setup for a Season in the League, or arrange some Arenas at the very least. 

Ok, could be simply ask the Director or the Admins to launch a 168 hours arena in BY setup, standard 1 7 games, and we'll then all test and see what's on with BY. I presume that 1000 games played by 2200+ players should be enough in order to test well.

I'd be shocked if we get more than 50 games, this was already tried after the merge and we had 5 games across an entire week iirc.

This was done during the Multi-Lobby days, so no one really knew it was even running.

Ah yes fair point, I'd still be surprised if we got 1000 games but as you say we don't know.

You're right, with 1000 I was maybe somewhat too optimistic, but I'm sure there will be a lot anyway, because now it'll appear. (But: many beginners or inattentive players will click on it "by chance" and their games won't be very relevant; I would like sincerely at least 2000+ players to take part mainly. But it's achievable if we make an announcement about that a) in the forum, b) via the League discord as it's where many HL and active players are. It's our common interest to all to understand the situation and to optimise things).

BY Setup , It's already available in the lobby, so we can start creating many games, I really want everyone's feedback.



Let's go!

I'm surprised your change of mind, so sudden.

In your graph you are showing that reds are playing very passive it seems.

In this logic that you are presenting, did you consider that yellow is the third to move, and not the last to move?, but it seems to me that the decision of the movements is not being very precise.

we would have to play it to corroborate what you say, when do you dare to make some test games?