[ 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 ]Rated Comments for a Single ItemLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier AltOrth Hex Chess. Hexagonal variant using pieces moving only one way along each orthogonal. (11x11, Cells: 91) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Daniil Frolov wrote on 2010-09-12 UTCGood ★★★★I did not played it yet, but idea is very interesting! I was thining of hexagonal game with similar pieces, good that i have read this page before posting it! It's certainly much more logical than Wellisch chess and it's good place for pawns from Glinsky chess. It's alternative variant of 'standart' hexagonal pieces. The only advantage of McCooey chess is that bishops are colorbound and knights are colorswitching. The only thing that i can't understand: Korean elephant (zebra) analogue is sennight. If i'm right, sennights are knights from Glinsky-McCooey chess. Zebra analogue should have only half of sennight's moves, while other half is camel analogue. And full sennight is, of course, bison analogue. On this diagram i marked zebra analogue's moves with 'z' and camel analogue's moves with 'c': ________________ ___/ . \___ ________________ ____________ ___/ . \___/ . \___ ____________ ________ ___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___ ________ ____ ___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___ ____ ___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___ / . \___/ . \___/ c \___/ c \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ z \___/ . \___/ z \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ z \___/ . \___/ . \___/ z \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ x \___/ . \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ c \___/ . \___/ . \___/ c \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ c \___/ . \___/ c \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ . \___/ z \___/ z \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ ____\___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/____ ________\___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/________ ____________\___/ . \___/ . \___/____________ ________________\___/ . \___/________________ ____________________\___/____________________ Am i right or not? George Duke wrote on 2009-09-17 UTCExcellent ★★★★★That many prefer to play on squares and in cubes should not discourage innovation in other fields. Charles Gilman makes a tremendous breakthrough in AltOrthHex for hexagons. It pushes back the problem of the Wellisch versus Glinski/McCooey orientations for diagonals to less than dominant importance. How? Of all things, by creating another dichotomy of orientation, namely for Rook. See Forerook and Hindrook. My remark preferentially for rectilinear 2d and 3d was not meant to be off-putting (so long as rules-sets exhibit some discretion). Maybe Gilman should have variant of AltOrthHex without the full Rook. This is great, but I have nagging recollection I saw this splitting up in some old board game with hexagons. Still it does not appear to be recorded anywhere as a CV. Now Gilman has so many CVs, I went to the hexagonal index to find great A.O.H., forgetting the name; and there is was under 'A'. George Duke wrote on 2007-06-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I agree with Paulowich that Gilman hit a home run here, re-configuring hexagonal fundamentals for all time! Surprising 1 for 150 for Charles now, (you know the saying about finally hitting the fan, or wall, or broadside of a barn) although in fairness many dozens of the other 149 are enjoyable for their theme and also for their humorous deliberately-pretentious, not to say pendantic, intellectuality. I rated before many Gilman games and articles Good themematically, but this the first Excellent(as one to play). Good work. David Paulowich wrote on 2007-06-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Charles Gilman is right: the General (King), Rook, Viceroy (Knight or Alfil) and Pawn are the four natural pieces for this hexagonal board. Neat arrangement of the three Viceroys in the initial position. His definitions of additional pieces are ingenious. Andy wrote on 2007-03-03 UTCGood ★★★★Charles Gilman game with simple geometry and only six clear logical type of piece! I have doubts about three-player variant, but no matter. Two-player variant looks like very good game. 5 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.