[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
The added photos of a hiashatar set bring to mind a question for others who play this game: which version of the move for the hia do you prefer? There are two mentioned on this site, one by Mr Kisliouk and the other by Mr Winther -- I much prefer Mr Winther's suggestion, even if it is not historical. There is a third choice: Mr Cazaux has synthesized a set of observations from Mongolia into a move. I wonder if the different iconographies of the piece -- advisor or warrior -- could match variations in the way the piece moves when Mongolians play the game.
Well, I prefer the painted pieces to the stained, and, while there are certainly aesthetic and historical reasons for the monochromatic board, I think it makes seeing the moves along the diagonal more difficult -- at least for me. The hia is an interesting piece: I like the move suggested by a number of commentators here, i.e., that the hia's zone affects only opponents. I know the material of Mr. Kisliouk says that K+Hia is a draw against bare K because of the Hia's inability to deliver checkmate. I wonder if the power is like the N in shatar, the curious ability to check but not checkmate, or if, because completely unable to threaten the opponent's K, the Hia has two "predators" on the board the K and N. Since these are modern, I wonder if this game is moribund in Mongolia and if these sets are meant only for export as curios.
3 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.