Why don't working on the cellphones?
New: 4 Player Chess on Chess.com!? (Prototype)

Oh, John,Your night is my day. When your day comes and upload the variation, leave it for your night too!

Just a suggestion
If a player eliminated early of the game (check mate/ timeout etc.) he might have scored higher than other players but he is eliminated, I think he should not be the winner if he can't make it to the end. But at the moment, even if the player has higher score , even if he is eliminated in the beginning, at the end he will be the winner.
I can understand you and the current rules. You know, imagine 3 players basically kill each other to get points while you're just sitting and waiting for them to eliminate themselves. At the end, when it's 1v1, your opponent will have less pieces and you'll easily be able to beat him.
So, the question is, should a very good and active player really finish second because he was eliminated earlier and put risk?

However, in my case (page 1, comment #15)... I was ahead on points, but @battleMind24 had better position. If I hadn't lost on time, he would have beat me and won. While I hadn't lost on time on purpose, this could be an issue in the future.
P.s: Looks like battleMind24 didn't receive +15 for being the last man standing, hmmm.

I've also noticed that while playing 1on1 at the end of the game, my opponent didn't get a single +5 for checks!

Now I see in the rules "Double-checks are worth +5, and triple-checks are worth +15" and there is nothing about a single check, but I'm quite sure that during the game I've been receiving +5 points for checking the opponents kings

What is first and second is just an illusion of the root cause.
For the hen, the root cause is the egg, and for the egg the root cause is the hen.
Circle the point of view.

Just a suggestion
If a player eliminated early of the game (check mate/ timeout etc.) he might have scored higher than other players but he is eliminated, I think he should not be the winner if he can't make it to the end. But at the moment, even if the player has higher score , even if he is eliminated in the beginning, at the end he will be the winner.
I can understand you and the current rules. You know, imagine 3 players basically kill each other to get points while you're just sitting and waiting for them to eliminate themselves. At the end, when it's 1v1, your opponent will have less pieces and you'll easily be able to beat him.
So, the question is, should a very good and active player really finish second because he was eliminated earlier and put risk?
In that sense you're right, but perhaps they should then remove the points and make it in this way that the last standing player to be the winner. This way, everyone, (whether they want or not) will get involve and they can't sit there.

Oh, John,Your night is my day. When your day comes and upload the variation, leave it for your night too!
This should be a one time thing. Afterwards we will probably leave it up night and day

However, in my case (page 1, comment #15)... I was ahead on points, but @battleMind24 had better position. If I hadn't lost on time, he would have beat me and won. While I hadn't lost on time on purpose, this could be an issue in the future.
P.s: Looks like battleMind24 didn't receive +15 for being the last man standing, hmmm.
Yes, this is indeed not the intended outcome. Thanks for noting it

Now I see in the rules "Double-checks are worth +5, and triple-checks are worth +15" and there is nothing about a single check, but I'm quite sure that during the game I've been receiving +5 points for checking the opponents kings
You should not be receiving points for single checks. Please let us know if this happens again.
how do you play