[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Xiang Hex. 
Missing description (9x7, Cells: 79) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Larry, If you think it is a matter of perspective, please share your perspective.
You might say that the game itself is my perspective. You yourself are presenting another. Prespectives are neither good nor bad, simply subjective. And people justify their perspective with all kinds of data. But it often boils down to personal preferences. The best way to prove an 'error' is to demonstrate how, from the start of this game, one player might exploit some peculiarity to their advantage each and every time against their opponent. For example, if the Red player always won following a particular form of opening development. Else, any peculiarity that a game has is simply that. Peculiarity. Not an error. I look forward to any sample games which you accumulate.
Fergus Duniho's comments have emboldened me to say that I share his reservations but more forcefully. It is well worth taking heed of his expertise on both East Asian and hex variants, as you will see I have done. Had this been the first attempt by anyone at a hex analogue to Xiang Qi I would look more kindly on it, but there is already a history of variants combining these two elements and this one really adds nothing constructive to these earlier variants. The hex diagonal really is too different from the square-board one to suit pieces further restricted by Xiang Qi's internal boundaries. This is why Roberto Lavieri's Toccata dispenses with diagonal pieces altogether and my own progression of Xiang-Qi-influenced hex variants relegate diagonals to their Wellisch usage. The orientation is also Wellisch, following the lead of hex Shogi. Indeed my one variant that does adopt the Glinsky/McCooey orientation and use of diagonals also adopts Yang Qi's radical changes in diagonal pieces to match orthogonal ones, as its name of Liu Yang suggests.
It is easy enough to simply say that a game is somehow 'damaged' or 'incorrect'. It is another to specifically demonstrate these claims. So far, those who have posted negative comments about this variant have done so without specific examples to demonstrate their positions. And to apparently done so to merely draw attention to their personal variants is very uncool. To exactly extrapolate XiangQi to the hexagonal field may prove virtually impossible. For various reasons which have been stated further down the thread. The best a developer can hope is a hexagonal game which has the 'flavor' of XiangQi. And, yes, there are a large number of variants which have attempted to do this. So to expect any hexagonal game of XiangQi to exactly match each and every dynamic of the square field is just silly thinking. Or is it simply forcing a personal viewpoint as an implied standard? I look forward to anyone who can demonstrate that this particular game is 'flawed'. This should be done with a specific in-game demonstration. To further justify there should be an example of how the player reached, or forced, this supposed 'bad' position.
It is good variant. So good that I choose to play it at Swiss Hippo Tournament #2. http://swisshippo.blogspot.com/ It looks aesthetically nice. Chariot, cannon, knight and pawn are stronger than in Xiang Qi. Chariot in the center of the board controls 26 hexes (1\3 of the board!). To make defensive pieces stronger, I offer three ideas. 1) Elephant-move. Elephant moves like Hex Bishop just limited with the river. Can enter the palace. Or more conservative: Elephant can move one or two spaces diagonally. 2) Advisor (mandarin) move. Advisor moves orthogonally, not diagonally. 3) General move. General moves orthogonally and diagonally, so like a king. I like first and third. Maybe this ideas can be used in Xiang Hex 2 (modern variation)... I will think about it! I don't want to change this game, till somebody doesn't show path to forced win. Just to offer another variant... I'd prefer to play with stronger Elephants.
However, Larry's zrf must be tweaked to alter the piece values. Especially, Zillions cannot properly evaluate the cannon. In order to evaluate XiangHex one must have recourse to a correctly programmed zrf. The graphics is boring. I created a better graphics for download here: http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/XiangHex.zip /Mats
I also would suggest heavily-orthogonal variant: elephants moves as non-leaping dababahs (able to enter the river, but not cross it), and advisors moves as wazirs, and general still have only orthogonal moves.
But i love, how it plays with standart diagonal moves as well.
But i love, how it plays with standart diagonal moves as well.
I like attempts to extend notable chess variants onto hexagonal boards.
Although I have understood this game, maybe the article would benefit from more explanations on how pieces move!
I have added diagrams I made by taking screenshots from the ZRF Larry wrote for Zillions-of-Games, which should be authoritative in case of any ambiguity in the written description, and I have added further explanations of some pieces in terms of how the diagram illustrated its powers of movement. Since he used the same color for the board as Zillions of Games uses to mark legal moves, I recolored all the legal move markers to make them stand out better.
13 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.