The Winner Of 4 Player Chess Should Be The Last One Standing

I disagree with the point system and I think the winner should be the last man standing. There are many reasons why. I have won many games already by getting more than 15 points ahead and resigning before my opponent could catch up. Although I'm happy I won, I don't think it is fair that I can win like that.

Problems

It Takes Away The Motivation To Checkmate

Whats the point of chess? To Checkmate, right? Except in 4 Player Chess the point is to get more points. This means rather than using tactics and strategy to go for a checkmate, you end up just trying to take other pieces.

The winner of 4 Player Chess is whoever goes on the best killing spree and trades away their pieces. Traditional tactics and position no longer mean a thing. It truly takes the heart and soul of chess.

A Promoted Queen No Longer Means Anything

In a regular game, a promoted queen and a regular queen are equally as important. Neither one is more expendable than the other, but that's different in 4 Player Chess. In 4 Player Chess a promoted queen is worth 1 point, the same as a pawn. This means it isn't very valuable and it is perfectly sensible to trade a promoted queen for a bishop or knight, even pawn. This means you stop valuing pieces for what they can do and how they can help you, and just the points you can get for trading it.

It Allows People Who Would Otherwise Lose To Win

I already mentioned earlier how I have won games by getting far enough ahead and resigning. I have played against someone who traded all their pieces except for a pawn away. They were by far in the worst position, but they had much more points than anyone else and ended up winning.

Trading away all of your pieces should hurt you not help you. Resigning should always make you lose. Checkmating the last person should always make you win. Being the last man standing should always make you win. This system is very unfair and has to change!

Solutions

1. The winner is the last man standing, second place is the third person to be checkmated/resign, third place is the second person to be checkmated/resign and last place is the first person to be checkmated/resign.
2. The winner is the last man standing and second, third and fourth place are based off of the current point system.
3. The winner is the last man standing and second, third and fourth place are determined by who gets the most checkmates.

There are plenty more problems with the current system and plenty more solutions to how the winner could be determined more fairly. My ideas for solutions are not perfect and I encourage everybody else to come up with more solutions. I think first place should definatly be the last man standing. I know this point system is unfair and has to be changed!

I agree 100%. 4-player chess would be more positional if the last man standing won. 

I agree with the last man standing, but not with the promoted Queen. In most variants, like Crazyhouse and Bughouse a promoted pawn is still valued at 1 pawn when captured. That should be the case here, however, promoting pawns in this variant is way too easy. There should be something changed here... Maybe 10th or even 12th rank instead of 8th? Otherwise people just push their Queen's Pawn or their Rook's pawn until they reach the 8th or another person wastes valuable tempo trying to stop that pawn.

I still prefer a points based rating system. I think if they take away resignation as a tactic to win, if the properly credit the player for outlasting his three opponents, even if he is outscored, his rating will still reward him accordingly. If you look at games played, often the winner, is the last one standing. 

PS edit...

Why should a weak player who hid in the corner get a cheap win after 3 players tore each other to pieces and maybe one of whom made a mistake, even though he is far more skilled than the other player? 

100% agree!

It would be really nice for Chess.com to run two versions of this game as a test last man standing vs points. I believe last man standing will take the fun out of this game compared to what it is now.

That said I do agree with the potential need for an adjustment on resignations. I offered it up before but will restate it here. Since this really is a different game and it is based on points then adjust the points in some manor to not completely take a resignation for a win out of the game but make it a little harder. So for example: when 2nd to last player resigns you take is total point value (left alive) and reduce his score by say 1/3 of those total points. Thus he goes backwards in points by resigning. What this does is levels the playing field in the end to make him keep going and at same time gives someone WAY ahead on points the option and reward for that hard work to win. 

FYI: for the record I am not a big fan of resigning myself but since its part of the game right now I use it often. 

You shouldn't be able to resign to win.

The literal definition of resignation in chess according the Oxford Dictionary is "End a game by conceding defeat without being checkmated."

In chess you don't resign when you're up a piece because "I have more points than him". The same principles should apply here. This is still chess after all.

I completely agree with Christopher_Parsons. (2nd comment)

The first version of this game WAS the last man standing variation. The problem in that game was the lack of motivation to do anything. Why should you trade a Knight for a queen when you will be down a knight to the other 2 players? If "resignation to win" is a problem we can remedy that, but the point system is here to stay. My current solution is if you resign and there is only 1 other player you lose all your points.

This is still a legit tactic. Muhammad Ali used rope-a-dope, and we all view him as one of the greatest ever. 

I like that solution battlemind. Forces people to play it out.

The points system forces people to come out and fight, whereas the last-man-standing idea allows you to sit back and wait for everyone else to weaken their armies fighting each other while you keep yours intact; then you come out and slaughter them all.  Except that everyone else follows the same strategy, so everyone sits back, so nothing happens.  How boring.

Here's an idea, though: when you resign or are checkmated, the full value of all your remaining pieces (except the king) is credited to all surviving players.  The king still goes to whoever checkmates/captures it.  That 1) adds a big reward for surviving, 2) discourages resignation, even if you're weak, 3) doesn't take away the incentive to come out and fight.  This idea might need some play-testing to see how it works; maybe it should be half value instead of full value.

What about the remaining pieces become assimilated into the capturing king's army? This would give an incentive to fight from the outset. I still prefer an intrinsic, performance based rating system, instead of awarding the most points to a survivor. 

I think it's awesome the way it is right now (although I DID write all this before reading any of the other thoughtful comments here.)

There can be plenty of motivation to checkmate. You get 15 points, and that player is out of the game.

Promoted queens mean you can run around taking things with them, and play dodgeball while people try to trap it in a huge open area

"People who would otherwise lose" would mean something completely different: if a player does not play with the current rules in mind when playing a game, then that player is not playing it well.

My solutions to all the problems: you have no idea who you are playing when you play with someone, and people who play together a little to often would be prevented from doing so.

I would still hang back, wait for the other three to slug it out and damage their armies, and then go hard after one of them.  Except that everyone else would follow the same strategy.

Actually, I've played with that rule in three-handed chess and it works OK there, but I think that's partly because it tends to result in the weaker players ganging up on the stronger player - if you've lost some material and are now second-strongest, you need the last guy's help to take the top dog down.  The effect this has is that you're not afraid to lose some material, because nobody's going to push for the kill unless you leave yourself open to mating tactics.  So if you lose a queen, rather than being dead, it just means you're probably not the target any more.  It's not uncommon to see two people trade queens and then start cooperating against the other guy.

But in a four-player game, nobody needs your help.  Someone can eliminate you and they'll still have a potential ally against whoever has the strongest army.  So if you come out and fight, you can't rely on other people to keep you alive if you get weakened; instead of the weak player being the ally, it's likely to become a race to be the one to kill the weak player and take over their army.  Since nobody wants to be the target of that, they hang back and fight.

I do think the idea of last man standing and taking over someone's army works well in a three-player, but not in a four-player.

I think your points definitely have merit, but I was looking for both an incentive to fight immediately and also a way to cut down on collusion. The only one who would collude with someone under those conditions are either the same person, or friends willing to take turns losing.

The promoted queen may not have the same points as an actual queen does. But it does have the same powers. Which means it can serve as the perfect guy to go around and kill pieces and if it all comes down, it can just trade away for another piece. Another way to get points.

when there are 2 players left, player who resigns or runs out of time should be second and last one standing should be winner. rest is ok