Why did I lose this game? (4-player chess)

I don't understand how I lost the last 4-player-chess game I played... I had green, and only one opponent had remained (gold/yellow on the right), and I had 3 Queens and s/he was in check, and I would checkmate him/her in a few moves - then suddenly it said the game was over and the guy in check won cause s/he had more points than me

I don't think I lost on time, cause I had more than my opponents throughout the game, and it said gold wins for having more points, and anyway, it was gold's time to move, cause s/he was in check, as you can see. It doesn't look fair to me to lose like that... except if there are some rules that I don't know about.

So what gives?

I can't find something relevant in the rules ... https://www.chess.com/4-player-chess

The rule said: The player with the most points at the end, wins!

And why is this the end of the game?...

Maybe you can find an answer here? https://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/4-player-tactics?page=1

Yeah it's possible that you just lost on time and your opponent was awarded the points for "beating" you. I've lost a lot of games in 4 player chess on time because it's hard to focus on the clock with so much to keep track of in the game. Or maybe the game crashed.

Gold lost on time and accumulated more points?

 Dear Spyro, You chose to have fun, instead of playing chess?

thanks, maybe

No, cause it was my opponent's turn to move, and s/he was in check

If it's normal to lose on time but win on points, perhaps this game is not for me

he he

I did not see it suggested but if you had 10 points prior to the other resigning then you would have got 20 points making your total 30 leaving you still losing to his more points. and with 3 queens its possible you were letting the other duke it out while you built up pieces but not points? 

I wasn't keeping track of the points, cause I was a bit zoomed-in and the points were off the limit of my screen to the right - I pulled the screen to the left in order to take this screenshot.

But let me get this straight - you can win the game by resigning or by timing-out (as long as you have more points than your opponent when the game ends) ?!? That sounds really counter-intuitive to me...

There's a reason for the points system.  If it's played as last man standing, people will just hang back to let the others fight it out, and then come out with a full-strength army to clean up.  Except that everyone else will follow the same strategy, so everyone's hanging back, so nothing happens.  How boring.

The points system gives you an incentive to come out and fight.  You get points for capturing pieces and checkmating people.

If your opponent was way ahead on points, he may have resigned or flagged, and while that would have given you a bunch of points, it looks like he was way ahead of you.

Well, if my opponent is so much ahead from me in points, then there's no need to let him win by resigning (even when s/he's in check - wtf) - if s/he is so much ahead, why not let the game finish and win when the game ends? (if s/he can really win by then)

Resigning means that you give up, so it looks very unreasonable to me for someone to be able to win by resigning. The same goes for timing-out - I think this should mean a loss. 

Does anyone think that it's NOT counter-intuitive to win when resigning or timing-out?

It is counterintuitive, indeed, but this is -- or at least, seems to be -- the rule in 4-player chess.

I thought it was fun until I discoverd this... It can't work for me when the points are more important than your King.

Being in check, a few moves from being checkmated... But hey, I resign and win! What the...