Team chess - four players to one game
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
That would be too confusing, and not even gonna bother.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
sup
why did you delete all your comments
I actually like it, if...... you have an odd number of players, especially if you can confer with one another. 3 man teams. This would be better, to have a vote for middle game disputes. You would definitely see each others mistakes more often than your own. If you got three good players together, who know each others games and have mutual trust and the ability to communicate and not argue. That's formidable opposition. Seems it could make for good sport. I'd try to play it.
We've been playing this sort of thing for years in New York chess clubs. We've even had to delop our own rules to keep people in line. Talking with your partner(s) sounds like a good idea but just doesn't work out. Its hard to trap your opponents queen when he hears you discussing it with your fellow players.
With this in mind we've resorted to no talking at all, making the team try and understand your partners moves and follow the plan without discussion. The only problem is that chess players can be a cantankerous bunch and getting them not to argue is damn near impossible.
After much practice we had to institue a penalty rule in which time is taken off the clock for every offense: 1 min for the first offense, 2 for the second, and 3 for the third.
This does not stop the players from hooting and hollering at each other if they believe their partner made an awful move. It actually adds a comedic value to the whole thing.
Non-consulting teams can be hilarious. Best to laugh off the thwarting of your buddy's plans tho.
Last time I tried this was me and a friend against my little handheld. He kept trying to make all the moves (the forgetful type). Since I was just getting aggravated it was my last try.
Peedee wrote:
We've been playing this sort of thing for years in New York chess clubs. We've even had to delop our own rules to keep people in line. Talking with your partner(s) sounds like a good idea but just doesn't work out. Its hard to trap your opponents queen when he hears you discussing it with your fellow players.
With this in mind we've resorted to no talking at all, making the team try and understand your partners moves and follow the plan without discussion. The only problem is that chess players can be a cantankerous bunch and getting them not to argue is damn near impossible.
After much practice we had to institue a penalty rule in which time is taken off the clock for every offense: 1 min for the first offense, 2 for the second, and 3 for the third.
This does not stop the players from hooting and hollering at each other if they believe their partner made an awful move. It actually adds a comedic value to the whole thing.
I think you should be able to share notation discretely to agree on your moves. If you can't do this, I wouldn't want to play. I wouldn't play this in golf, unless it is best ball (pros can handle taking turns). I don't think my partners should be punished for my opening follies and I wouldn't want to try to play an end game after someone messed up in the middle game. If we were all GMs I think we could live with the rules you and yours play by. Most of us aren't even close to being GMs. I would actually take extra time to watch a 3 on 3 made up of GMs in total silence and no communication.
English please
lol
All the people we play with are competent tournament players. It's not very hard, you should be able to analyze a position and know what's going on. When you play with talking allowed you would just take whatever move the strongest player recommends. Not really fun there.
I said English!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indubitably, one could not, not enjoy, such a game. It would be quite colourful. Do ye prefer, ole , middel, or modern English?
IT IS HARD ENOUGH PLAYING WITH ONE PLAYER
