Rated Comments for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Glinski's Hexagonal Chess. Chess on a board made out of hexagons. (Cells: 91) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Anonymous wrote on Wed, May 16, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I searched all over the internet for basic information on Hexagonal chess and this one website gives me more information than all other websites combined!

Ben wrote on Fri, Aug 16, 2002 04:11 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Wow, this is definatly one for the logisticly inclined ;) It may make your head hurt, but it's a lot of fun.

Bill wrote on Sun, Dec 19, 2004 02:48 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I had no idea.  Great page and very informative.

I think I will try this variant of the month.

Olya Chichkina wrote on Sat, Apr 2, 2005 05:29 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Creative! It will probably take hours and hours, or days, or months to reach checkmate (if it's reachable at all!) since there's so much space on the board and I'm not sure if I'd want to play this more than once, but I'd love to have something like Hexagonal Chess as a decoration! Love the idea!

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2006 10:05 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

ZRF with a nice graphics can be downloaded from my homepage. ZRF is by J. Mark Thompson and Ivan A Derzhanski, graphics created by me.

Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Mar 16, 2006 01:59 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

In regard to Sam's comments about Glinski's great game.... I see no need to complain about it. It's been around since about 1936 or 1938 and little research shows that there were over 500,000 players of this game at one point... quite commendable. Also, it remains the most popular of hexagonal chess variants and even has world championship playoffs.

Tord Romstad wrote on Thu, Mar 23, 2006 09:49 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Hexagonal chess is no more drawish than normal chess, and it is no more
difficult to deliver mate than in normal chess.  It is true that the king
has greater mobility, but so does most of the other pieces.  The reason
why some beginners believe that it's difficult to deliver mate is
probably that spotting mating patterns can be a bit tricky for beginners;
partly because the game is unfamiliar, and partly because there is a
bigger number of potential flight squares to inspect in order to mentally
verify that it is indeed a mate.

I am the author of Scatha, which is probably the strongest hexagonal
chess
program available today.  Unfortunately, it only runs on Mac OS X.  If
someone is interested in giving the game a try against a strong opponent,
I would be happy to play a few informal e-mail games with Scatha.  I
would
be very impressed if someone manages a draw.

Richmond Mathewson wrote on Tue, Apr 7, 2009 02:30 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I have been playing Hexagonal chess with this layout:

http://mail.maclaunch.com/richmond/hexchess.html

for years. I believe it is better than Glinski's because there is greater
space between opposing pawns.

Kevin Pacey wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2016 01:44 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

For my own comparison of this fine variant to the equally fine McCooey's Hexagonal Chess, see my review for the latter variant.

Decades ago I saw values given for the pieces in Glinski's (that would seem to apply to McCooey's too): P=1; B=3; N=4; R=5; Q=9. I'd add that I estimate the fighting value of K=4 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded).

9 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.