Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 05:33:35 03/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2004 at 06:28:47, GuyHaworth wrote: >91 squares - quite a step up: pity about the 12 wing ones. I'm not sure what you mean with the last sentence, I'm afraid. Are you complaining about the two empty files in the opening position, or something else? >Interesting board-representation and move-generation problem. > >http://www.chessvariants.com/hexagonal.dir/hexchess2.html >McCooey's hexagonal chess seems a better setup to me, with a more logical >P-capture move. I agree that the pawn captures in McCooey's variant seem more logical, but from the few games I have played, I still prefer Glinski's game. The more open initial position leads to more complicated and tactical games directly from the opening. The stalemate rule in Glinski's variant is also a really good idea. Compared to rectangular chess, it is often remarkably difficult to checkmate the enemy king in basic endgames on the hexagonal board, because of the greater range of movement of the king. Giving stalemate is much easier. Without the stalemate rule, I think a too big number of endgames would end in a draw. Another reason to prefer Glinski's variant is that this game has slightly more of a culture and history. But still, I will probably include support for McCooey's variant as well when my engine is finished. The games are sufficiently similar that I can support both without much extra effort. >Note he has done some 4-move P-less endgame EGTs for this game. Thanks for the tip. :-) Tord
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.