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

oh and it doesn't have to be complicated

If you think that it's unfair to be the last man standing without winning, then the only fair system possible is the last-man-standing-wins. All other systems or mixes of systems will produce unfair results occasionally.

Reading this post, despite how old it is, just repeats in my mind why I refuse to play FFA. Chess is not a POINTS game. It's a mating game. Last man standing should've always been the rules. In numerous clubs I've played in, it's always been last man standing. The FFA on this site is essentially worthless and undervalues what chess is supposed to be. This isn't basketball, football, baseball.

How do you propose solving the problem that the first person to attack always loses?

One problem with that: you could hit someone aggressively early on and maybe kill their king, but then you're so weakened that you're easy for one of the other players to pick off.  Or you weaken the player you attack and then someone else intervenes and gets the king.  Best case scenario is that the first person to attack gets one king, and then is weakened.

Meanwhile, someone who sits back and sets up a good defensive position can wait for someone else to strike first and then try to exploit the chaos.  So everyone tries to sit back and set up a good defensive position; nobody has an incentive to make the first attack.

So I don't think that really solves the problem.