Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

AltOrth Hex Chess. Hexagonal variant using pieces moving only one way along each orthogonal. (11x11, Cells: 91) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2007 06:30 PM UTC:
I'm aware you've done large board work, I've been looking at some large
variants lately and your name is one of the few that comes up at sizes
bigger than 10x10. It's amazing how the numbers of available games drops
off as the size increases. There are roughly 2000 published variants in
the 64 - 100 square range, and I found 2 in the 600+ category. Good luck
with your Ringworld hex design. To do justice to the concept, you'd have
to use a very large board, long, narrow, and cylindrical, I'd assume, but
I'm sure there are other ways and other themes, Ringworld is big enough
for many. 
I checked out 'Hafts'. Charles, that game is tricky checkers, I swear!
:-)
We definitely don't agree on the lower limit for chess; that's what
makes horseraces. You seem to place the line just above checkers
[draughts]; I would place it much higher, right around the 6x6 game. I
suspect my line might be too high, but 'how far down' can you go before
the chessness is gone? For example, is a king element necessary, and, if
so, how much of one? If not, why not, as chess has always had kings? Go is
not chess. Neither is draughts [checkers], but it's closer, we both agree
on that. Is the move from using half the board to the whole board
important? Is simulating 1 chess piece enough? 
What do you think about this?