WOF - ↈ

umm ok this

this

+1 good WOF qilp, like all your variants

ya pretty good

Hmm a game of who checkmates first...

but what about the number 2?(if one checks the other will mate and get the points?)

+1, i played it and liked it

According to my testing (me vs. myself on analysis board) the result of optimal play is that both players will checkmate 1 zombie (or 0, and they just shuffle around) and after that it is extremely difficult to win because any attempt at a breakthrough (i.e. capturing one of the dead checkmated zombie royals) is punished by a king sac due to the +3 mate. As a WOF, it does not really matter what the result of optimal play is, but I think it could be improved (it doesn't really need to be since most players will not play optimal but I want to mention it anyway) by making the position more complex, e.g. giving each side a hopper or offering multiple options for promotion. Again it's not bad if you don't make adjustments but it could get a bit dull after playing it a lot... how you managed 43 games . Another thing I don't like is that the opponent can do pretty well just by copying you, something that should not be a good idea in any fun game. Thoughts?

edit: another thing is that I am not 100% sure about the name since 6_K doesn't want people to put special characters in the names and grable has kinda trademarked it

Perhaps KOTH could be added since as @BoxJellyfish said, it could get a bit dull.

if you add KOTH yellow always wins...

@BoxJellyfishChess
um ... I didn't quite understand you. According to my tests, this position is as balanced as possible, that is, the chances of winning are the same as possible. Each piece has its own purpose (for example, pawns on f5, j9 are the most important pieces). Also, the game is designed for 2 players, therefore, this is a draw position, which once again proves the balance of the position (if both players make the best moves there will be a draw). Therefore:
1. there is a small time control (example, although not the best, but)
2. there are 5 checks (example)
3. there is a knight (example)

Also, if the some player will copy his opponent, he will lose (if opponent makes a good moves). I think you have to test it playing against me . Also as you said, you have tested it on analysis board, so you didn't have a time limit.

I have played much more than 43 games, 43 games are just a rematch streacks (also not all) . And yes, after over 60 games it becomes a bit boring so I would like to suggest to make it faster (½|0), though not sure.

?

-0.5 agreed with @BoxJellyfishChess , people will just shuffle around and nobody will make a break through and then it will be down to flagging. but overall it is pretty interesting 

Give me at least 3 games from my archive (with over 60 games) where it happened. Moreover, I can guarantee that if at least one player plays well, he can make it not happen. I don't want to repeat myself, I already wrote about a draw, see above. But even a draw is not that easy with ½|0.

+1 from me

hmmmmmm... ok you got a point

It's okay  I'll grant a creative commons licence.

I think this position is a complete draw if one knows how to play it.

The idea is to put the knights in the center, so no double-check (via king discovery of the rook) is possible, and then both players just sit and wait for the other to lower the counters to 1. Example: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5180251-139

Also, if both players are aggressively trying to stop the rook from arriving, it ends as another kind draw: https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess?g=5180163-125

Obviously, non-experienced players may be unaware of that, but this variant is "solved".

Also, @qilp: see our game here: you attempted to outsmart this strategy and would have lost if I would have noticed that I should actively run out of time on purpose (to claim-win).

Undoubtedly it's a draw-position. However, it cannot be otherwise. Since it is a 2-player game, there are only 3 states it can be: red-winning, yellow-winning and draw. First 2 are about imbalance. So the only improvement I can suggest is to change time control to ½|0 or even ¼|0 (for the future).

That's wrong. The game you posted is an example of bad playing by both sides. Look at the simplest example how it can be prevented: 

I think we mostly agree then. You are right about our game, and the mitigation you suggest with rushing the king forward is (I think) another variation of the "standoff" of central knights.

Perhaps the "WOF" title is undeserved, while the game has zombies, unless they are freed their moves are deterministic