The kingmaker problem — and how 3Chess solves it

This is the kingmaker problem, and designing it out is most of what makes 3Chess a real game instead of a curio.

What "kingmaker" means

In a two-player game, when you're losing you're just losing. Your remaining moves only affect you. In a three-player game, a losing player still has pieces, still moves, and every move tilts the balance between the other two. So the player in last place often holds the casting vote. Attack the leader and the trailing rival wins. Attack the rival and the leader wins. Do neither and you fall further behind while they sort it out among themselves.

The winner is decided by whoever is losing: by their grudges, their mood, or a coin flip, rather than by who played best.

It shows up in lots of three-player games, but chess makes it especially galling, because chess players expect the result to be earned. A game where the strongest player can be denied first place by someone they've already beaten feels broken. And people stop playing it.

Why the obvious fixes don't work

• "Just ignore the eliminated player's pieces." Then a player who's mated has zero agency for the rest of the game. Boring. It also doesn't help the case where nobody's eliminated yet but one player is clearly behind.
• "First to checkmate anyone wins." Now the game is a race to gang up on whoever's weakest. The third player is just a bystander.
• "Score by material." Encourages turtling and trades, not chess.

The problem isn't any single rule. It's structural. You have to change what "winning" and "being behind" mean.

How 3Chess fixes it — three mechanics

1. Cascading checkmate. A single move can deliver checkmate to two opponents at once. That sounds like a flourish, but it's load-bearing. It means a strong player in a winning position can simply win the whole game on the board, rather than being forced to pick which surviving opponent to hand it to. The path to victory runs through your own play, not through someone else's choice.
2. Territory scoring. If the game doesn't end in a knockout, it's scored by how much of the board each player's surviving pieces control. Now "being behind" doesn't mean "reduced to a spoiler vote". It means "fighting for second on territory", which is a real, skill-expressing goal. A trailing player improving their position is competing, not kingmaking.
3. The 20-move rule. If 20 moves pass for each player with no capture and no pawn move, the game ends and is decided by territory, not a draw. This is chess's 50-move rule, tightened. It's one of several draw conditions, including threefold repetition and a two-player stalemate. All of them hand the game to a territory count rather than to a tie. See the rules. This rule kills the long, dead, two-survivors-circling endgame where kingmaker dynamics are worst. There's simply no incentive to stall, because stalling just freezes a result you may not like.

And one piece of geometry underpins all three: the board's three territories are 120°-rotationally symmetric, so no seat starts with a structural edge. When the result is decided by play, it's decided on a fair board.

The upshot

Put together, these mean three things. The strongest player tends to win outright. If not, second place is contested on its own merits. And there is never a stretch of the game where your best move is to choose someone else's victory. That's the bar a three-player chess variant has to clear to be worth playing. Clearing it is the whole design.

The full ruleset is on the rules page. The short version of why this game exists is on three-player chess. Or just play the free demo and watch a cascading checkmate happen.

↑ Back to Articles