The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




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

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2011-02-24
 Author: Daniil  Frolov. HexofenThis item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2011-02-24
 Author: Daniil  Frolov.. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Charles Gilman wrote on 2011-03-09 UTC
Two other thoughts: Firstly, what Hexofen does do well is give a higher piece density than Glinsky's, let alone McCooey's, but that could be seen more as a case for McCooey's going 3-player - which Hexofen cetainly can't do. The three-way En Prise shouldn't be much of a problem due to the pinning. Secondly, while rotational symmetry is the only option on a three-player hex variant, it is not quite as clear-cut with even numbers of players. A 4-player square-cell variant can have 180° rotational symmetry, but mirror symmetry between neighbours rather than full 90° rotational symmetry, so that armies alternate between King on te left and Queen on the left. A 2-player variant's symmetry can be worth reconsidering but it's not a one-way street. Hex Shogi, for example, replaces standard Shogi's rotational symmetry with mirror symmetry.

Daniil Frolov wrote on 2011-03-08 UTC
It must be marked as invented by Valeriy Trubitsyn.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2011-03-08 UTC
Odd as the array looks, I can see the reasoning behind it. It's not quite as bad as the existence of a piece starting En Prise might suggest, as that piece is both weaker than its opponent and guarded, which should be deterrent enough. On the whole I still prefer McCooey's, which certainly addresses the issue of Glinsky's lack of open space between the front ranks. I'm not sure that piece number ratios are as important as is claimed here. In FIDE Chess the reason for so many Pawns is not merely to be half the entire army, except perhaps in their symbolic origins. Their purpose in actual play is to stop long-range pieces letting rip too soon and add some stealth to the game. This purpose is served perfectly well in McCooey's array. The Glinsky/McCooey promotion zone is also more intuitive. What happens on the end cells of the four outermost ranks here, which appear not to be in the promotion zone as defined?

3 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.