💡📝Max Koval wrote on Sun, Mar 19, 2023 12:38 AM UTC:
Another formulation of the bishop's move:
Trigonal bishop is counted as an alternating hexagonal rook if the cells of the same color will be converted to vertical hexagons.
In this perspective, the bishop should move only forward, not sideways or otherwise.
And it should not move in a straight hexagonal rook-alike manner with more than two cells in a row to preserve the alternating pattern (for the rook it is a 'built-in' feature).
Why this way? a. The directions of the two sliding pieces are now opposite of each other, similar to chess; b both pieces use the same rule of movement; c since the bishop has 6 nearby 'diagonal' cells, unlike the rook with 3 orthogonal, it should have 12 directions of movement, not 6 like it was featured in other variants since rook already has 6.
So, I think that the way the bishop moves is quite natural from the rook's perspective. The board is also naturally colored, and the pieces are arranged in a way similar to orthodox chess.
I feel that I may miss something, and I would be glad if someone could disprove this idea.
Another formulation of the bishop's move:
Why this way? a. The directions of the two sliding pieces are now opposite of each other, similar to chess; b both pieces use the same rule of movement; c since the bishop has 6 nearby 'diagonal' cells, unlike the rook with 3 orthogonal, it should have 12 directions of movement, not 6 like it was featured in other variants since rook already has 6. So, I think that the way the bishop moves is quite natural from the rook's perspective. The board is also naturally colored, and the pieces are arranged in a way similar to orthodox chess.
I feel that I may miss something, and I would be glad if someone could disprove this idea.