Variants. For variants, the limited format is also good. The main purpose of variants is to give the player maximum variety and give the player a quick reward for playing. Сan create a bunch of variant leaderboards, gradually separating the most popular variants, for example, dividing a hyperbullet into сhaturaji, standart and war of thrones, or creating an antichess bullet (which were asked on the forums), etc. A different rating system could be used, where the rating from one leaderboard affects the initial rating of the other leaderboard, as is the case with chess.com/variants, etc. However, there is one reasonable condition - this is to move the ratings of the variants out of the main player ratings board in a separate place.
I completely agree that antichess ffa should be separated into bullet and rapid + blitz (providing a total of 3 leaderboards for antichess) and think that hyperbullet should be separated into hyper-standard and hyper-variants.
The 4pс standard has the potential to create a format with a relevant rating and, as a consequence, the ability to develop as a professional sport. Developing a unified standard should increase the chances of this happening.
The main attraction of the standard is its complexity. The main contribution to the complexity of the game comes from the "internal" capabilities of the game and the competition, which in turn is generated by a large pool of players. Unlike variants that have “external” diversity (different rules, starting positions, etc.), the standard has “internal” diversity (strategies, combinations, etc.). Moreover, in order for the "internal" diversity to fully manifest itself, the "external" diversity should be limited and stable. The game of 2pc chess remains a mass phenomenon, because the rules have not changed for several centuries and people of different generations have played the same game. Likewise, a unified format should be developed for a standard 4pc, at least in terms of basic criteria. 4pc is young and the standard may change with its development (there are interesting alternatives https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-statistical-approach-to-the-point-value-of-pieces-in-ffa ), but in any case, a unified format should first appear.
The format (for example, FFA bullet standard) of any 4pc game consists of:
1. Rating system
2. Rules
3. Time controls
4. Rating and range
In addition, each format has its own leaderboard.
The main criterion for choosing a particular format of the game in the standard should be the potential of the "internal" capabilities of the game, and only secondarily is the popularity or preferences among the players.
What is an individual standard now? It is a mixture of five formats:
Rating system: Solo/FFA
Rules: standard rules + QBRN/1-pQ/Q; +20/+40; en passant/ ̶ ; zombies/ ̶ ; rating/casual; anonymous/ ̶
Time controls: to any taste
Rating range: any with +50 step
Ranking range: ̶
5 leaderboards: Solo Rapid/Blitz, Solo Bullet/Blitz, FFA Rapid, FFA Blitz, FFA Bullet
This is all the "external" diversity, which actually sprays the pool of players a lot.
I propose a mixture of two formats:
Rating system: modified FFA
Rules: standard rules + QBRN; +20; en passant; zombies; rating; anonymous
Time controls: 1|7, 1|1
Rating range: any with +200 step
Ranking range: ̶
2 leaderboards: modified FFA Rapid, modified FFA Bullet
All the rest of the variety remains casual.
It will also simplify the customization of games, i.e. when creating a game, the player will need to choose only a bullet or rapid and set a rating range.
Now, about each item in order:
1. Rating system.
Can always argue which is better than FFA or Solo, but in the end its are very similar to each other and each has its own drawbacks ( https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/possible-ratings-correction-to-stop-ffa-teaming?page=7 ). I believe that the modified FFA should be implemented as FFA with a transition to Solo for high-ranked players (for example, like here: #29 https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/rapid-ffa-solo-and-blitz-ffa?page=2). From the point of view of “internal” diversity, Solo has a wider range of strategies, but this only manifests itself in high rankings. As a result, beginners master at 31-1-3, average players attain cooperation at 300-3 and high players play only for the first at 3-1-1-1.
The unified rating system is the most pressing problem for the player pool. Many top players spend their time playing low-ranked games to get to the top Solo instead of playing high-ranked FFA games.
Here is a post about it ( https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/ffa-solo-simplify-the-game ) which essentially served as the impetus for this post.
2. Rules.
QBRN. This is an opportunity to hold not only the queen. There are wider opportunities for the game "to win by points" (holding and exchanging pieces). I also like the concept of the 1pt-QBRN variant without points for double checks (a game with a constant number of points).
In recent times, the choice between QBRN and 1-pQ also steals time in picking up the queue.
+20. It also has more opportunities for the game "to win by points" than +40.
en passant. It is often an opportunity for early rooks to be introduced, which enlivens and diversifies early play.
Zombies. Checkmate or stalemate the zombie king is a separate strategic task that sometimes becomes decisive in the game. The king standing still simplifies the game.
Rating. The player's rating must remain current. If the player wants to play a casual game, then let him try something new that is not included in the unified standard.
Anonymous. In non-anonymous games, rule violations are more common. There is the influence of such psychological factors as playing against a high rating or playing against a friend, which can greatly affect the quality of the game. It will also save us from "expert" and offensive chat during the game.
3. Time controls.
First need to compare the "increment", "delay" and "without adding". Games "without adding" often involve a game on time, which is often detrimental to the quality of the game (just watch any 4|0 game). "Delay" is inelastic system where the same amount of time is given for each move. This often becomes the reason that the player wastes time in an obvious position and does not have enough time to think in a difficult situation. This is detrimental to the dynamics of the game. "Increment" does not have these problems: the player can accumulate time for a difficult position due to quick moves in obvious situations, and he will not lose in a materially advantageous position due to time. "Increment" is the most optimal for the dynamics of the game, i.e. the player will not fall asleep at the board and it will be interesting to watch. Here, the player's time management skill is manifested.
Now everyone plays 1|1, 4|0, 1|15D. Also popular: 1/2|0, 1|2, 1|5, 1|0, etc. Each time control has its own specifics and need to get used to it. Regular chess, due to its popularity, can afford a variety of time controls, but 4 pс does not have such popularity. It is also quite difficult to distribute all the time controls into three categories: blitz, rapid, bullet. Now controls coexist in a bullet: 1/2|0, 1|1, 3|0. How can these three completely different time controls be combined? or in blitz: 4|0 and 1|5?
I suggest leaving only two controls: 1|1 (or 1|2) for the bullet and 1|7 (or 2|5 or 1|6) for the rapid. The rest of the controls leave in casual. The game of blitz combines skills for playing bullet and rapid, and until a certain moment, it may not stand out in a separate category.
4. Rating range.
Players, who create queues like 2150+ or 2250+, etc., obviously slow down the speed of the queue set. It is better to leave the opportunity to make queues with a step of +100 or even +200, for example ... 1900, 2100, 2300, 2500 ... and nothing more. Also, need to remove the upper rating limit, for me this is generally a ridiculous thing.
5. Ranks.
Can assign ranks to players for a certain number of games played and use this as an additional filter for the game. In this way, old players can avoid other players with a high rating and small number of games (fighting with alts). Now, this setting will only harm the pool, but may be applicable in the future.
Team. This can be implemented for team. However, this has its own specifics. In principle, a similar approach is applicable to all points, but can use different versions of team for different time controls.
In a regular game, everyone plays 1|15D (it is possible to pick up better control) this will be game rapid.
There are two alternatives to the usual team waiting to be implemented: team without arrows and 1vs1, so even 3 formats can be potentially made.
To control the time in a bullet, where normal communication is not possible due to the speed of the game, can make a variant without arrows. I think this option will make bullet team more attractive than it is now.
The 1vs1 game is ideal for long games like 30 minutes, perhaps even with increment. 4pc Team has a huge combinational and strategic potential, which can only be fully manifested in classical time control.
Variants. For variants, the limited format is also good. The main purpose of variants is to give the player maximum variety and give the player a quick reward for playing. Сan create a bunch of variant leaderboards, gradually separating the most popular variants, for example, dividing a hyperbullet into сhaturaji, standart and war of thrones, or creating an antichess bullet (which were asked on the forums), etc. A different rating system could be used, where the rating from one leaderboard affects the initial rating of the other leaderboard, as is the case with chess.com/variants, etc. However, there is one reasonable condition - this is to move the ratings of the variants out of the main player ratings board in a separate place.