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
For that, a player should ensure that he has the best of pieces as it comes down to the end. That will make players not trade away their pieces, which, in turn, will make the game boring, and possible never ending.
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
For that, a player should ensure that he has the best of pieces as it comes down to the end. That will make players not trade away their pieces, which, in turn, will make the game boring, and possible never ending.
Player down on material should fight to end and then win on points even if he/she gets checkmated. I only proposed this variation for case when player resigns or runs out of time to stop cowardness. The main problem are players who could lose on points, but then resign to win when they still have big edge.
I know that. I have lost because my last opponent resigned because I had a better game. But this way (winning by points) it's more fun. They might figure out a way to make the game resign-when-losing proof.
By increasing the points scored at the last elimination (say from 15 to 25).
If you increase the points at the last eliminate too much, people will sit back the entire game hoping to be the last man standing and get those points. Maybe there's room to increase it some, but you still need an incentive for people to come out and fight.
On thing about this game is that a 5-minute time control means it actually takes up to 20 minutes. Adding increment to a four-player game has a bigger impact than in a 2-player game.
If/when this goes live on the main server, though, I'm assuming people will be able to choose any time control they want.
I'm with you Nelson as I typically need a bit more time to do much better. But I did notice in some of the earlier comments a number of people actually wanting it to be faster. It kind of showed me clarity in that some people are good at speed chess others at thinking things through. Currently normal chess has both for everyone. Maybe in time we will have that with 4-player. But for now I can live with the current time controls as a compromise I suspect it is.
Yeah, if/when 4-player goes live, you'll be able to choose your time control.
they should just make different variants of 4 player chess - points game, last man standing, king of the hill, capture the flag, race and so on.
In time, they will.
i think last man standing is a horrible idea in practice, to be quite honest. It gives you absolutely no incentive to attack someone, or trade even a knight for a queen of someone else.
The only exchanges in which you would win would be those in which you do not participate.
So, with optimal play, it should be an endless game with shuffling pieces around.
i think last man standing is a horrible idea in practice, to be quite honest. It gives you absolutely no incentive to attack someone, or trade even a knight for a queen of someone else.
The only exchanges in which you would win would be those in which you do not participate.
So, with optimal play, it should be an endless game with shuffling pieces around.
I have played 4-player chess against my friends, and we used regular chess rules. Honestly, it was a fairly exciting game. We were capturing and trading pieces, we were promoting pawns, we had a lot of fun. The last man standing SHOULD win because they deserve it, and they played strategically and such. We also tried a points-based system, but 3 players (Including me) resigned because someone had a renegade queen. Points-based systems just make it an absolute feeding frenzy and it is absolutely no fun. I can see how last man standing with the current 4 player chess rules would be boring and dragged out, but if you play 4-man chess with regular chess rules, you can still keep the magic of the game and add more players, which is what I like. It's also probably why I only play traditional chess on this site.
Sorry 4 player chess does not work with last man standing PERIOD. Trust me this game has been play tested with the last man standing version for almost a year and the sole thing I learned is if you attack first you lose. Contast that to this version, the most competent player usually wins (strategically and tactically). Hence it'll be extremely unlikely that anyone could ever budge me to change the current rules.
Fortunately teams works well without points so for those that can't accept the point system that'll be a great alternative.
If you get rid of the points system, you need to come up with another reason for people to come out and attack. In another thread, I suggested that you take over the pieces of the person you eliminate; that would need play-tested to see if it creates enough of an incentive for people to attack. The points system seems unintuitive and awkward at first, but it works.
If you get rid of the points system, you need to come up with another reason for people to come out and attack. In another thread, I suggested that you take over the pieces of the person you eliminate; that would need play-tested to see if it creates enough of an incentive for people to attack. The points system seems unintuitive and awkward at first, but it works.
The game would probably be extremely unbalanced if you implemented that. Points should be a secondary determining method, with the primary method being last man standing.
Dash,
You’re not alone in your position (last man standing) But you are on the losing end of the debate from what I can tell over last few months. The single biggest factor I see (with a few exceptions) is players really don't want to think of this as a new game (or a different game then the box 4 player version) Once you look at the game for what it is and try to find ways to win within the current rules (Points) its gets you going with the new and exciting challenges vs thinking of it as a road block or something that's just wrong. In the last couple examples tonight, those that lay back and develop only are not happy that there not rewarded for it. When this game is trying to NOT reward you for it so adapt and go out get a few points and still develop try to find that balance between being too aggressive and not enough. It’s a heck of a challenge to keep the points close enough to strike but not over extend yourself.
If you get rid of the points system, you need to come up with another reason for people to come out and attack. In another thread, I suggested that you take over the pieces of the person you eliminate; that would need play-tested to see if it creates enough of an incentive for people to attack. The points system seems unintuitive and awkward at first, but it works.
The game would probably be extremely unbalanced if you implemented that. Points should be a secondary determining method, with the primary method being last man standing.
I don't think it would be unbalanced. I've player 3-player games with those rules. Usually, by the time you take out someone's king, you've both suffered quite a bit of damage, so it wouldn't turn you into a monster who can then crush everyone else. But you do pick up some compensation for everything you lost.
Dash,
You’re not alone in your position (last man standing) But you are on the losing end of the debate from what I can tell over last few months. The single biggest factor I see (with a few exceptions) is players really don't want to think of this as a new game (or a different game then the box 4 player version) Once you look at the game for what it is and try to find ways to win within the current rules (Points) its gets you going with the new and exciting challenges vs thinking of it as a road block or something that's just wrong. In the last couple examples tonight, those that lay back and develop only are not happy that there not rewarded for it. When this game is trying to NOT reward you for it so adapt and go out get a few points and still develop try to find that balance between being too aggressive and not enough. It’s a heck of a challenge to keep the points close enough to strike but not over extend yourself.
Imo, there should be a balance between too aggressive and not enough, but 4 player chess doesn't give me the time I need to build up a strong defense. I always try to build a strong defense, THEN attack. By the time I attack, I'm not gonna win, because I wasted moves developing/castling, etc. It usually means I'm going to be one of the last standing, but I probably won't win. Which really isn't fair. Last man standing alone isn't aggressive enough, but the points system is too aggressive in my eyes. Mixing the two systems would be a good idea. Ex. a multiplier for last man standing, giving you incentive to survive, but it's still on the points system, meaning you still want to capture pieces and be fairly aggressive. Merging the two systems could work imo.
Last man standing would remove all motivation to attack, win material or trade any pieces. Any two players who enter in to a confrontation would be immediately at a disadvantage. However, the current system finds a reasonably balance between long term positional play and attacking play/material gains.