Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 2024.

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Nov 11, 2011 06:55 AM UTC:
```Just had an odd idea - what if you played for a territorial victory? Each unit has a minimum territory it must own or occupy. For pawns, 1 square, the one they currently occupy, is sufficient. Knights require 2 squares, the one they occupy and another empty square unclaimed by any other piece. Bishops require 3, the one they occupy and 2 other unclaimed squares. Rooks require 4. Queens require 5. Kings require 9.

Occupation of a square is obvious, if you occupy it, you own it. But what about empty squares? Who owns empties? This is determined first by control - if both sides can capture on that square, neither owns it. If only one player attacks that square, then that player owns it. If neither player attacks the square, but it is behind the pawn/piece lines of 1 player, that player owns it.

Victory is by checkmate or by being the first player to own enough squares to satisfy that player's current army. Squares do not have to be contiguous for individual pieces, but the entire kingdom's squares must directly connect to every other owned square. The kingdom cannot be separated into disconnected pieces voluntarily, although an enemy attack could force a disconnection. If this occurs, the game cannot be won by the disconnected side other than by checkmate.

So the smaller your army, the easier your victory conditions. The values I've given seem, off the top of my head, to make for a playable game, although adjustments could be made. For instance, you could reduce the king's required squares to 6, to possibly speed up the game, or make it more playable, or to handicap 1 player.

Just a thought, fueled by insomnia and who knows what else. Enjoy.```

Edit Form

Comment on the page Introducing Economy in CV's?

Conduct Guidelines
This is a Chess variants website, not a general forum.
Keep this website a safe space for Chess variant hobbyists of all stripes.
Because we want people to feel comfortable here no matter what their political or religious beliefs might be, we ask you to avoid discussing politics, religion, or other controversial subjects here. No matter how passionately you feel about any of these subjects, just take it someplace else.
Quick Markdown Guide

By default, new comments may be entered as Markdown, simple markup syntax designed to be readable and not look like markup. Comments stored as Markdown will be converted to HTML by Parsedown before displaying them. This follows the Github Flavored Markdown Spec with support for Markdown Extra. For a good overview of Markdown in general, check out the Markdown Guide. Here is a quick comparison of some commonly used Markdown with the rendered result:

# Top level header: `<H1>`

Block quote

Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. Italics, bold, and bold italics.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some HTML code mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same `<U>HTML code</U>` enclosed by backticks.

## Secondary Header: `<H2>`

• Unordered list item
• Second unordered list item
• New unordered list
• Nested list item
• An URL by itself:

### Third Level header `<H3>`

1. An ordered list item.
2. A second ordered list item with the same number.
3. A third ordered list item.
``````Here is some preformatted text.
This line begins with some indentation.
This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.``````

A definition list
A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.
An HTML construct using the tags `<DL>`, `<DT>` and `<DD>`.
A term
Its definition after a colon.
A second definition.
A third definition.
Another term following a blank line
The definition of that term.
﻿