When is a mate not a mate

There is a funky issue in the rules. Not sure if I like it or not:

1) It is not considered a mate if *the player involved* can do something to prevent their king being taken. Duh, standard stuff.

However

2) It *Is* considered a mate even if *an intervening player* could (and sometimes will and does!) do something to prevent the king being taken.

Example: Player A checks Player D with his queen. The queen cannot be taken or blocked by Player D, nor can the king move out of the Queen's reach. Ergo: mate.
However, before Player D's move actually comes around, Player B takes Player A's queen. Thus when it came time for player's D's actual move... he isn't even in check!! Yet his pieces are grey.

Optional way of handling this would be not count any mate before the player being mated's turn. This would obviously be a bit tricky to code and display.

I see this as fairer to player D, C, and B. A little rough on player A. But is it wrong to be able to say to one'self, "Player A would never put his queen on that square, player B's bishop could eat it."??

who gets the points for a mate if mate is declared on the mated players move?

VAOhlman, did you read this forum? For example these recent topics:
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/suggestion-checkmate-in-4-player-chess
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/new-checkmate-dead-king-rule
?

 Bab, interesting threads, I'll read more in them.

_-
My suggestion (before reading all of Bab's threads) would be that like right now where the king turns funky to mean 'in check', it would turn even funkier to mean 'in checkmate threat'. Then, if no one stops the checkmate when the checkmated players turn comes around the person who made the checkmate gets the points:
As in the screen says for all players: Blue receives 20 points for checkmate

Or some such.

What I tried to tell you is: We discussed exactly the same approach before. Or maybe not exactly, but almost the same. Would be good if you can write your notes and ideas in existing forum topics instead of creating new ones. This helps others (and the developers) and saves time.

Well, if the forum was organized by subject, sub subject, and the like this would be easier. As I said, I will read your forum and see to what extent they are the same or different.

And some of those threads go so off subject it isn't' exactly helpful to post there, is it?

If you propose something new.

could be worth a try. you could still cover escape squares and stuff, but the last player to act before the one about to be mated becomes very powerful.

... which is a big thing now in other circumstances, eh? If A checks D, and B and C get to play before D responds, they have a lot of power, eh?

like i said i would try it to get a feel for it, might like it.

i actually suggensted this myself but only for stalemate (player might be able to move by his turn)

something is still akward if you wait for a mated players turn to declare mate.

say with this new rule you are in a spot where you could undo a checkmate.  you chose not to. shouldn't you get the points for effectively mating ??

instead of undoing a checkmate, you could very possibly steal the mate again. i'd like a rule here  that the first player to mate gets the points.