Unified standard for individual ranking, limited formats

yes delay is good,

i don't like 1|5 or 2|5

@ziwaawa

>>>> I don't get this at all. you can join up to 3 queues, so just join 1|1 and 1|2 if both are there. No need to wait for hours if you know how to use the play tab.

If you join both queues at once (and do so every game), then you will get into the game 1|1 all the time. Why then create queue 1|2 at all? Why clog up the game tab with queues that you will wait forever or that will simply disappear without starting the game? Seeing such a queue for a player is the same as seeing an obtrusive advertisement. The same goes for +40, without en passant, etc. You can experiment with this in Variants, but this is Standard. The Standard must have Standards. Sorry for the bad pun.

>>>> also making all games anonymous is not something players want, the average player much prefers non-anonymous games.

Let's be honest, most of the players don't care, but there are those who come in 4 pс to talk and usually it's trash talk. But perhaps novice players would really be more comfortable playing a non-anon game (dubious statement). But for 1800+ games, where everyone already thinks of themselves as professionals, let them play like professionals: shut up and play.
To make it interesting for spectators to watch the game of anonymous, can show them who is in the game without specifying the color. Let them guess and place bets. A separate chat with "Guess the move", "Who is who" or "Bet who wins" will be fun

> need to remove the upper rating limit, for me this is generally a ridiculous thing.
>>>> you probably don't use it very often, but others do, because they don't want monsters like you in their games, which is just fair, given you can also excluded low rated from your top games. totally one-sided argument.

I agree, so can just keep monsters out of low-rated games? Also, no one canceled the opportunity to play 3 vs 1, let the players themselves punish the farmer who came to eat someone else's cabbage.

>>>> 1pt queens are way to powerful, i'd get rid of them. they make zero sense. why should a queen be worth 1 point ???

Not true, it makes sense. A simple example: you have the most points at the stage of 3 players, you activate and change your pieces, leaving the other players with so many pieces so that none of them can catch up with you on points by capturing the remaining pieces and you leave the game leaving gray 9-point queen, which worked out and which cannot be exchanged for something worthwhile. The point is that you can calculate this combination, but if you play QBRN and the players have pawns left, then all your calculations will go to waste.
QBRN and 1ptQ both have their own specifics and the right to life, but they do not bring something fundamentally new to the game, so need to leave only one. QBRN is 10% of 2300+ games, but for the game itself it would be more reasonable if this 10% turned into 0% or 100%.

>>>> Solo and FFA could easily use the same rating, the modes are way too similar.

True, it remains only to unite them. At the same time, giving preference to Solo in games 2300+, which does not have a color imbalance in the game, like FFA (https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/99-loosing-with-green?page=2)

>>>> as for 4|0 and 1+5 having same rating, just normal. same in 2pc. certainly don't need more ratings.

I agree, don't need new ratings, but don't need 4|0 along with 1|5, leave only one. I repeat: we do not have such popularity as 2pc!

>>>>> 2 leaderboards: modified FFA Rapid, modified FFA Bullet
so back to mixing 4|0 flagging with 1|15D? that was just separated and everybody was happy about it.

No mixing of time controls! Only pure one control!

>>> as for why we need to remove the option to play 4|0, is beyond me. we all know it's very simple in reality: if you dont want to play 1 | 15D, chances are you'll have to wait, but I for my part would much rather wait than have to play 1|15D. I think 1|15D as default actually hurts 4pc cause games take forever and many, particularly stronger players, dont want to spend an hour, a 15 minute game is plenty long enough.

If you want to leave Blitz control (leaderboard) like that, can leave control 1|3, or if you strongly insist 4|0. But I do not see this as a great need, since there are 1|7 for lovers of long play and 1|1 for lovers of fast play.

>>>> If you are 1950 and set your range to 1850+ and click play, and there is a 1900+ queue already there, you will be joined to that one.

Wait, is this already implemented?

>If you join both queues at once (and do so every game), then you will get into the game 1|1 all the time. Why then create queue 1|2 at all? 
yesterday I played a few 1|2 and 1|1 games. i never create any queues, I join whats there, be it 1|1 or 1|2. From my exp I don't have the impression that 1|1 always fills up and 1|2 doesn't, it's really the same pretty much (which makes sense as most players prolly don't care if 1|1 or 1|2, whatever starts first.

>+40, without en passant,

I don't ever see either of these games, so I don't see a problem. The only variation of 'standard' that appears somewhat frequently is =QRBN instead of 1pt Q.

I understand the 1pt Q argument, but i still think 1pt queens are a non-sensical piece.

I guess the bottom line of how i see it is: Games are based on popular demand, and given 90+% of games are 1|15D teams or ffa, the rest doesn't really matter, in a sense that if you want to play something else, chances are you have to wait. 90% of players play just that, 1|15D, and to them, if you change the rules and disallow 1|2 or whatever, they won't even notice, nothing changes.

As for changing the default to 1|7, that would be great.

>already implemented?
 has always been like that, yes

> Solo .. which does not have a color imbalance
huh? G/B are better off in Solo? i don't play much high rated Solo but it seems strategy (teaming till 1 out) is the same?

@ziwaawa

>>>> I guess the bottom line of how i see it is: Games are based on popular demand, and given 90 +% of games are 1 | 15D teams or ffa, the rest doesn't really matter, in a sense that if you want to play something else, chances are you have to wait. 90% of players play just that, 1 | 15D, and to them, if you change the rules and disallow 1 | 2 or whatever, they won't even notice, nothing changes.

What I propose can be called optimization. 90% becomes 100%. It may seem like a trifle, but I don't think so.
In order to understand what I am trying to achieve, you can try to answer a simple question: what two games would you prefer to watch/play? 1|1 and 1|2 (QBRN and Q, +20 and + 40, etc.) 1500+, or 1500+ and 1700+ with 1|1? The first two games differ in the specifics of the game format, the second two games differ in the level of play. The first option is good for Variants, where I would also like to watch 1|2D, 3|0, etc. The second option is good for the Standard, where I would like to watch the same in 1900+, 2100+, etc. I personally want the Standard player to spend his time on improving his gameplay, not on choosing the most pleasant and interesting format for his game. As a result, I want only one parameter of the game variability to remain - the rating, which corresponds to the level of the game.
It will also simplify game customization, the number of queues in the game tab and the total waiting time, i.e. will be more user friendly. The effect may not be significant, but it will.

>>>> yesterday I played a few 1 | 2 and 1 | 1 games. i never create any queues, I join whats there, be it 1 | 1 or 1 | 2.
going back to the example, I would like to see you in a 2000+ game 1|1, not in 1|2 without a rating range)

>>>>> already implemented?
has always been like that, yes
Cool, I checked it, it works great, I always joined in high available queue, so I didn't notice

>>>>> Solo .. which does not have a color imbalance
huh? G / B are better off in Solo? i don't play much high rated Solo but it seems strategy (teaming till 1 out) is the same?

yes, the strategy is the same, but in FFA the color imbalance is intensified by the presence of an disadvantageous 4th, which has a psychological effect on the players and this effect is very noticeable. In FFA, you want to finish off someone faster, without sparing material, so that you yourself do not end up in 4th, and only then you think about how to play for 1st. Here is a vivid example, red makes checkmate to green, but at the same time gets checkmated with the next move: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5984245-44 But this is not the right approach, for the first stage you should not only survive, but score points, save material for the next stage and maintain a strong king position, as this could be the deciding factor. Also, do not forget that FFA is a game with 3 winners (though only one gets the jackpot), so the 3 vs 1 strategy may be partially manifested here

>what two games would you prefer to watch/play? 1|1 and 1|2 (QBRN and Q, +20 and + 40, etc.) 1500+, or 1500+ and 1700+ with 1|1?

I like them equally / whatever fills up first. +40 std games I've never seen. tbh I don't quite get the question. I def don't like anything with delay though.
I will join 2000+ if there is one, but if there isn't, I'll join whatever.

>the number of queues in the game tab
The crux is to use the filters. If you do that, you never have the problem of too many queues in the play tab. select std, rated, and 1 time control (rapid blitz bullet hyper) only, and the number of queues becomes very small, if any.

I think that's the biggest issue that people refuse to use the filters. So maybe the filters should be more visually attractive/intuitive, yes the UI could be better. That said, I don't see how it can be that hard to figure out.

Well, I'll try to explain it in a different way. These 10% of games with unpopular formats simply do not have any sense, not statistical, not gaming, not any. I just propose to clean up the standard from unnecessary formats.
What we are talking about cannot be filtered (1|1 and 1|2, QBRN and 1pt-Q). For example, I have: Standard, without hyperbullet, rating range limited (what i play). And I still see a lot of queues I don't want to see. Switch to bullet, when I want to play bullet, I'm too lazy. at the same time, I can miss an attractive queue in rapid

If this happens, I wonder if 1/7 might be slightly to short for some, especially new players. Perhaps 1/9? I should see if I can get alternate time control games going.

my personal experience tells me that 1|10 is long, and in 1|5 is feel a lack of time. I think the perfect control is somewhere in the middle. 1|7 is the only mid control can try at 4 pc so far.
true, beginners need more time to get their bearings in the game than the rest, but the game should be dynamic and not take too long, that they didn't get bored, so I don't think that separate longer time control is needed for beginners

I was thinking overall 1/9, though 1/9 then 1/7 is not too bad of an idea. To test,I played two casual 1/7 games today, mostly with new or lower rated players. 3 players had some time trouble: Two when asked said they didn't like it, one timed out, one timed out on disconnection, not getting reconnected and moving in time. Three other players didn't seem to have trouble with it. I personally am fine with it. Judging from my two games, 1/7 may be too fast for some people. I'll try to play 1/10 casual and see how slow it is

I strongly disagree into reducing the time control. I think that the more there are, the better. You may enjoy playing certain format, and you wish everyone would play the same format you like. 

However, I like to play other type of format. I like 1/15, 1/5, so why don't we remove all other time control to play only these 2 format ? See how lame that sounds ? 

Each time someone propose to reduce options rather than to add some, I think it does make sense only for the person that proposes it. 

If you want to have 1000's more players joining the 4 pc format, I already suggested something that will drag a lot of new players: Have a monetized world event. 1/5 increment in FFA, in Solo, in Team, in Antichess.

16 players minimum. $ 50 buy in or $ 100 buy in. This is the best way to bring attention and attract 1000's of chess players to 4 player chess. If you have 40 or 50 people that sign up, you coul dhave a prize pool of $ 4,000 or $ 5,000 and give a $ 2,000  or $ 2,500 prize for 1st place. This will bring new players.

Reducing the choice of time clock to the ones you enjoy playing will not bring new players.

you didn’t get it. I myself, for example, do not like 1|1 (who care?), but I suggest it because of its popularity. 1|7 is an alternative to the popular 1|15D, which I also offer not because I like it, but because it is more optimal for the game (read the post carefully). Most players do not care whether they play 1|2 or 1|1 or 1|3D, etc., the game itself is important to them. the game itself is more interesting not when you switch from one time control to another playing with 1500+, but when you play with players of your own level, having the opportunity to improve it. The game is much more interesting when the players are categorized by level rather than by their preference for format. Better three queues 1|1 with 1500+, 1600+, 1700+ than three queues with the same players, but 1500+ with 1|2, 1|1 and with 1|3D

Better Queues for your games, maybe. I always place 3 games at the time, my waiting time is about 1 or 2 minutes on average. I don't see any value to reduce or restrict options, sorry.

Yes, I do see a difference between 1/1 and 1/2. In bullet games, 1 extra second makes a lot of differences. It's good to have the options. Again, standards will apply on their own. If you lack players, attract new chess players from the 2 player chess to the 4 player chess. For that, advertise. Bring more of these top GM players to come play for fun while broadcasting it, make once a year a paid prize / paid entry tournament that you advertise. This will fill any queues you have, because instead of having 25 players awaiting for a game, you will have 250