Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Fool's Hexagonal Chess. designed to be a close (the closest?) hexagonal equivalent to orthodox chess. (Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Nov 25, 2006 07:19 AM UTC:

How are the scores calculated? I would have though that McCooey's 21 protected cells, nearer to 24 than to 16 should score at least 1. His 91 total squares, very nearly 96, surely warrants 2. It is pretty obvious that his 3 differently-bound Bishop-analogues should score 3, the same as yours.

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Nov 25, 2006 05:54 PM UTC:

The original scoring was 3 for a match and 1 for within 10% of the target - and yes I had mis-scored the Bishops. I have corrected this and changed the scoring to be 3 for a match, 2 for within 10%, and 1 for within 20%.

JCRuhf wrote on Fri, Dec 15, 2006 08:41 PM UTC:

Does Rule 50 hold for hexagonal equivalents of other chess-type games?

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Dec 16, 2006 12:24 AM UTC:

I think that Rule 50 can be a useful guide in designing any hex based equivalent of a square based game. So, yes, Rule 50 could be applied to 'hexagonal equivalents of other chess-type games'

JCRuhf wrote on Sun, Dec 17, 2006 12:17 AM UTC:

I think Changgi and Xiangqi are excepetions because they play on the intersections instead and a hexagonal 'transliteration' of Checkers would come out weird if Rule 50 were applied to its design.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Sun, Dec 17, 2006 05:58 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

I love the game. hence the rating.

I might as well make it Excellent once I finish my game.

The thing is, if you divide the playing field to triangles, and play on
intersections, then yes, it IS a hexagonal board.

besides, Xiangqi is playable on a square board. there is a page about ot
somewhere in the site.

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, Dec 17, 2006 06:02 PM UTC:

It might be quite interesting to design a hexagonal intersection-based equivalent applying Rule 50 - though I think the hexagons would need to be divided into triangles by joining opposite corners, thus giving 6 directions from each intersection.

I must admit that checkers had not been in my thoughts when considering chess-type games and you may be right about the weird outcome. Again though, I think it would be interesting to attempt the design applying Rule 50.

JCRuhf wrote on Mon, Dec 18, 2006 08:51 PM UTC:

Either you mis-scored McCooey's variant or you intended a scale with bigger brackets and the key is a 'transliteration' from an earlier version of this page that you did'nt post here.

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Tue, Dec 19, 2006 12:12 AM UTC:

Either you mis-scored McCooey's variant or you intended a scale with bigger brackets ...
Thanks for your interest and for taking the time to examine the figures.
I've rechecked the figures and they look OK - though I might still have missed something.
I think the problem might be in the way I've calculated the 10% and 20% ranges, where the percentage amounts were rounded to the next higher integer and then added/subtracted to/from the match-target. I've extended the table to show the ranges.

JCRuhf wrote on Sun, May 20, 2007 02:18 PM UTC:

Have you applied 'Rule 50' to any of the shogis or western large-board variants yet?

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, May 21, 2007 01:31 AM UTC:

Have you applied 'Rule 50' to any of the shogis or western large-board variants yet?

Not yet. I have, however, applied it to XiangQi. See TriMac HexChess

11 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.