What aspect makes regular chess interesting, hard, and complex, that chess variants doesn't have?

I believe chess variants have the same level of complexity, if not more, than regular chess. Take 4 player chess, for example. The teams version is a lot like regular chess, as least when considering the tactical element.

It is definitely a lot simpler than regular chess, but why? Is it because 4 player teams is genuinely less complex than regular chess, or is it because we haven't spent that much time analyzing and studying this game? After all, if we look at regular chess, I'm sure it has been deeply examined many, many, many times, over a course of many decades, centuries, millennia even. Meanwhile, 4 player chess teams has been analyzed for at most 5 years. Maybe a bit more by whoever invented it, but for all we know it has been on Chess.com's servers since 2016, and only started getting super popular by 2018.

Same deal with 4 player free-for-all (FFA). FFA is by far much more complex than its counterpart, with various elements of luck and skill playing into the outcome of the game. So much so that we haven't been able to program a chess engine for it, not even a basic one that can play good moves, let alone best moves. This begs the question, could FFA secretly be more complex than regular chess?

Unlike regular chess, where one player's mistake or even slight inaccuracy is the only reason for their loss in a game, in 4p FFA, one player may lose because another player throws the game. It's hard to understand at first, but if you really think about it, how does a game end?

If we're looking at high level FFA, players will tend to cooperate with the player opposite them and try to eliminate a side player as this is the commonly accepted best way to play the game. Then, the players shuffle and trade and slowly advance pawns, improving their own positions while nothing much of interest goes on, maybe for 50, even 100 more moves at times.

Players will mutually understand if a player is becoming too strong (i.e. promoting too many queens or getting a forced checkmate attack) and will team on the strong player or safe each other in case they are getting checkmated and the strong player will win by force.

Yet, at the end of the day, the so-called "balance" created by such actions must be broken for the game to end. And whoever breaks it will ultimately lose the game, but they will also force the other weaker player to lose the game, caving in to the strongest player who ultimately wins by breaking through with pawns in the late endgame (most of the time).

These strategies are so complex that I would think FFA is much harder and more complex than regular chess ever will become; we just haven't discovered all of it yet.

And that's just 4 player chess. There are many other variants out there which have potential to be equally complex and interesting, yet games of those variants end within 20 moves. Why?

bored to read another big post

thats why left commet will read later

hahahahhahah

buddy

i knew when i saw 3 comments in a minute it had to be one of you guys

ahahha lol

i have no idea why you would think a comment on one of your posts was from me

but ok

JK knows i am too lazy to read posts thats why leave a msg to read latter

then dont

its not hard

stop clogging up the comments im tryna get actual conversation

Nothing, it's just that regular chess's popularity makes it more appealing. If 4 player chess was the most popular version of the game with millions of players worldwide, and regular chess only had a few thousand active players, then everyone would be drawn to the 4 player version.

u read it?

of course 4pc is more complex lmao there's more players and a bigger board

regular chess is the most studied game in history and yet our understanding of the game is still evolving due to how complex it is. adding more complexity on top of that doesn't make for a more appealing game, it's as simple as that really

it is more appealing though

You’re telling me discovered king captures and exploding pieces aren’t appealing?

I agree, it's just that it hasn't been studied much, and no one spends decades getting better at 4pc.
Now, I don't play much FFA, so maybe I'm not qualified to say this, but here I go: I don't think FFA is solvable by engines. Current high-level FFA seems to me to be highly based on stuff we've agreed makes sense like teaming with your opposite. I don't think that is objectively good. Also, relying on one of the weaker opponents to mess up is not how engines work.

If ffa engine is even made then its useless as bsae mentioned it cant decide who will it throw in a losing position.

chess.

not beyond being a cool gimmick

the comments are full of trolls

but chess variations often have different factors that normal chess does not have which makes them interesting. for example in duck chess you get to block one square each time you play

Indeed, my friend, the topic you bring forth is quite intriguing. The complexity of chess variants is a matter that warrants careful consideration. It is true that in the realm of 4-player chess, both the team version and the free-for-all version present novel challenges and require strategic thinking. However, we must delve deeper into the nature of complexity itself. What constitutes complexity in a game such as chess? Is it solely the multitude of possible moves and positions, or does it incorporate other aspects as well? In regular chess, as you correctly note, centuries of analysis and contemplation have aided in uncovering its intricate web of possibilities. The strategies, tactics, and counterplays have been explored and recorded over the passing of time. Yet, we must consider the notion that complexity is not solely determined by the number of moves or the length of analysis. The essence of complexity lies not only in the depth of calculation but also in the richness of the interactions among players, the variety of decision-making processes, and the subtleties of the human element. In the case of 4-player chess, especially in the free-for-all format, we encounter a different dynamic. The shifting alliances and the interplay between cooperation and competition introduce a unique layer of complexity. Players must not only evaluate their own positions but also constantly analyze the intentions, motivations, and actions of their partners position as well. The relationships among the participants are fluid, and victory may rely not only on personal skill but also on perceiving the shifting balance of power and exploiting opportunities when they arise. Indeed, the complexity of 4-player free-for-all chess manifests through the intricate dance of cooperation, betrayal, and self-preservation. As you astutely mention, the game may extend beyond the conventional bounds of regular chess, with lengthy sequences of pawn advancement and position improvement. The delicate equilibrium formed by the participants may persist until it is disrupted, ultimately leading to an endgame scenario where certain players falter while others emerge victorious. Therefore, my dear interlocutor, it is plausible to consider that 4-player free-for-all chess possesses a complexity that extends beyond conventional chess gameplay. Its nuanced dynamics challenge our understanding and necessitate further exploration. And with the breadth of game variants that exist, each with its unique complexities waiting to be unearthed, a world of intellectual stimulation awaits those who dare to delve into the mysteries of these games.