Value of Bishops vs. Rooks

Fair question. I don't think there's any good reason they should, actually. The only reason you get points for it, is because it's relatively rare, but that kind of makes it a goal on it's own within the game. It only contributes to a win because you get points for it, unlike capturing material, which weakens your opponent.

In a 3-check variant it would make more sense, because there the primary goal of the game is to deliver a check.

What I think would make more sense than mere 'double check' and the like, would be 'assist in the mate'. So (assuming the computer could calculate this, which seems doable):

If red checks blue...
and yellow's bishop prevents blue from moving this way...

and green's rook prevents blue from moving that way or the other way...

and blue ends up in 'mate' on his turn...

Then red could get twenty points, and green and yellow five each.
A 'second' check would thus not be valuable unless (as seems normal the case) the checker also blocked the matee from moving to one or more squares.

Just a thought...

The problem with that is that it would encourage teaming. You should not be rewarded for helping others.

Ummmm...
One reason why I only play FFA for practice is because, being an avid 'Diplomacy' player, I think that 'teaming' is actually a good thing... while fully realizing why it is a bad thing. I think that player names and ratings ought to be blacked out during the game, and statistical means used to test for 'wow, these two players sign on within seconds of each other and then act in such and such way'....
Because I think this kind of 'teaming' is precisely what is and should happen in a free for all game. We all KNOW that the best time to attack green, in at least one sense, is when someone or everyone else is attacking them. FREE pieces!!
And in the case I mention here, it is actually a hugely selfish thing to 'get in on the kill'. Sure, you may not get the twenty points for the checkmate, but red was fixing to get that anyway, and by merely moving pieces in and covering some squares, you get points TOO! In that sense you actually decrease the value of red's checkmate, because he was forced to give you some points too.
And, contrariwise, if you were already blocking blue's escape route when that nasty red wiggled in and checkmated him (and how many times has THAT happened!) red would not walk away with all of the points, but would be forced to share some.
So, in the end, I don't think it is 'teaming' that this would encourage, but wolf pack behavior and forced sharing the meat of the kill.

A logical continuation: There should be a bonus for checkmating a player without help of other players.

But, yes, in this case the server should have some engine to check it.

> I don't think there's any good reason they should, actually. The only reason you get points for it, is because it's relatively rare

I'd remove a bonus for double checks. They are not rare.

@VAOhlman I'm not against the legal kind of teaming in any way, but giving points for assisting in a checkmate is also an incentive for the illegal kind of teaming. So, what @BabYagun suggests would make more sense: make an assisted checkmate worth less than a non-assisted checkmate. Then it's still advantageous to assist in a checkmate, but rather than a personal gain, the gain comes in the form of hurting your opponent who delivers the checkmate.

Because I think this kind of 'teaming' is precisely what is and should happen in a free for all game. We all KNOW that the best time to attack green, in at least one sense, is when someone or everyone else is attacking them. FREE pieces!!

This ^ is not teaming at all. 

Obviously what @BabYagun suggests is a step in the right direction, and I would vote for immediate implementation. However it does leave off the 'wolf pack' incentive for the other players, or at least diminishes it. If I 'help' a checkmate and, as a result, diminish the value of the checkmate for the mating player.... well and good. But by doing so I have not only 'helped' myself a bit in comparison I have also 'helped' the other player who did NOT participate.

I agree with EyeKnows in that I believe that piling in on a checkmate is NOT the kind of illegal teaming that we want to prevent (which I wish to do so, to repeat myself, by blacking out the name and ratings of the players while they play. I really, really, really think that would help... it would also help with the 'revenge' kind of anti-teaming which also tends to spoil the game.) but the very kind of wolf pack 'teaming' that FFA is meant to 'promote'.

Perhaps FFA should be played without any points at all? Purely rank players in order of elimination?

> Perhaps FFA should be played without any points at all? Purely rank players in order of elimination?

It is possible to create such a variation. But how does this prevent pre-teaming?

Also I remember a discussion of such a variation, looked like: "Players are passive and defensive. It is boring."

It doesn't prevent pre-teaming. You can't really prevent that. But without points it's arguably a more "pure" game of chess, in which checkmate is the ultimate goal and not capturing material or giving checks. Whether more defensive, positional play is boring or not is just a matter of opinion.

I believe there was another discussion with a suggestion to not allow giving opponents a discovered check, i.e. your piece can be pinned to someone else's king, or maybe disallowing a king capture before the player's turn has been reached and he has had an opportunity to attend to the check. Perhaps something like that could prevent collusion to some extent.