The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.

The Chess Variant Pages

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Xiang Hex. Missing description (9x7, Cells: 79) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Kevin Pacey wrote on 2018-03-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

I like attempts to extend notable chess variants onto hexagonal boards.

Daniil Frolov wrote on 2014-02-10 UTCGood ★★★★
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.

M Winther wrote on 2009-09-17 UTC
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:

Vitya Makov wrote on 2009-09-16 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
It is good variant. So good that I choose to play it at Swiss Hippo
Tournament #2.

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

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.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-09-15 UTC
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.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2009-09-15 UTCBelowAverage ★★
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.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-01-16 UTC
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 wrote on 2009-01-16 UTC

If you think it is a matter of perspective, please share your perspective.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-01-16 UTC

It's still a matter of perspective.

I will not be making any adjustments to this game. I will not be adding any pieces, or making any new rules.

I'm sorry that you do not like this game, but that's your prerogative.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2009-01-16 UTC
I think that I have figured out what the problem is. It is a matter 
of perspective. You simply 'expect' this game to play exactly like 

No, that is an oversimplification of my perspective, a mere strawman. I have invented hexagonal versions of Shogi, and I know they don't play exactly like Shogi, but they do retain the qualities that make Shogi a good game. I never expected Xiang Hex to play exactly like Xiang Qi, but I do have expectations for any successful hexagonal adaptation of Xiang Qi. The overarching one is that it should retain the qualities that make Xiang Qi a good game. One of these qualities is that the defensive pieces are useful for defense. In Xiang Qi, a Rook and a Knight, unaided by other pieces, could not so easily slip past the full defenses of two Advisors and two Elephants. I have done enough Xiang Qi problems to get a good sense of how useful Advisors and Elephants can be in Xiang Qi. But in Xiang Hex, these pieces are next to useless. Even putting aside that you are trying to adapt Xiang Qi to a hexagonal board, let's just consider that two types of pieces in the game are dedicated to defense. This is true by virtue of their being confined to spaces near their General and being unable to attack the enemy General. As it stands, these pieces are not well-suited to their role in the game.

When Roberto Lavieri and I created Mortal Shogi, one thing that made its gameplay very different from Shogi was that captured Pawns could not be held in hand to be dropped back on the board. To make the gameplay more like Shogi, I introduced a new piece that was not in Shogi. This was the Kamikaze of Kamikaze Mortal Shogi. I made it less like Shogi (in terms of details) to make it more like Shogi (in terms of gameplay). I'm suggesting that you need to do something to Xiang Hex that may make it less like Xiang Qi in the details to make it more like Xiang Qi in gameplay. Here are some suggestions: (1) Add two more Advisors. (2) Change the move of the Advisor, perhaps (a) having it move to and from the center of the palace instead of moving diagonally, or (b) allowing it a two-space orthogonal leap, or something else. (3) Change the move of the Elephant, perhaps allowing it to step three spaces orthogonally in addition to stepping two diagonally.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-01-15 UTC
Are you claiming that this particular form of endgame position is impossible in XiangQi?

I think that I have figured out what the problem is. It is a matter of perspective. You simply 'expect' this game to play exactly like XiangQi. 

Just take a deep breath, relax and let it go. ;-)

(You might have captured Red's Horse at f4 on turn 3, sacrificing your Horse and eventually saving that Chariot on turn 5. An equal exchange of material, rather than what did occur which placed you in a negative position in relation to your opponent.)

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2009-01-15 UTC

The game changed from one I was playing to one I lost. Here it is:


Note that my opponent's Rook is safely on a space that Advisor and Elephant can never reach. By making attacks along the ranks of the palace that Advisors and Elephants can never reach, my opponent was able to easily bypass my defensive pieces. All he had to do was get his Rook and Knight near my palace, and his victory was assured by the holes in my defenses inherent in the game.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-01-14 UTC
Couldn't locate the game. I assume that you mean at Game Courier on this site.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2009-01-14 UTC
Just look at the game I'm playing for an example, in which my opponent has been using it to his advantage.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-01-14 UTC

Yep, hexagonal fields are different.

The Mandarin, and Elephant, are able to defend one another from the start(unlike the square game). And the Horse and Cannon are able to initial move into the 'palace', thus potentially covering any loss of defense on the part of Mandarins and Elephants.

But to state that defense has been 'compromised', you may need to demonstrate how a player can use this to their advantage. Else, the statement might best read as defense is 'different'.

Fergus Duniho wrote on 2009-01-11 UTC

In Xiang Qi, the Advisor (what you're calling a Mandarin in your game description) is capable of blocking checks along every rank and file of the palace, and the Elephant is capable of blocking checks on the middle file and the top rank. In Xiang Hex, the two slanting ranks that pass through the middle of the palace cannot be reached by Advisor or Elephant. Consequently, checks along these lines cannot be blocked by any of the pieces capable of only defense. Furthermore, Elephants are incapable of entering the palace. Thus, defense is compromised in this game in ways it is not compromised in Xiang Qi.

Larry Smith wrote on 2008-12-09 UTC
For those who are interested, this is a record of the Game Courier game between John Smith and myself:

   Red(J. Smith)	Black(L. Smith)

1. Ca(b2)-e2		S-e7
2. S-e5			H(h8)-e9
3. S-e6			SxS
4. Ca-h6		S-i5
5. S-g4			S-a5
6. S-g5			CaxS
7. E(g1)-e5		Ca-i6
8. CaxH			HxCa
9. CaxS+		H-d6
10. S-i3		S-g6
11. H-g4		CaxCa+
12. M(f1)-e3		HxS
13. HxS			ExH
14. S-i4		H-f3+
15. G-f1		CaxCh
16. Ch-i3		Ch-b4
17. ChxH		ChxCh+
18. G-e2		Ch-g2+
19. G-f1		S-c6
20. Resigns

By initially concentrating on a defensive game, I was able to gain material advantage. John made the error of over-valuing the opening effectiveness of the Cannon on this hexagonal field and lost both early in the game. Once this occurred, I was able to quickly press an assault on his General, taking out both of his Chariots in the bargain. If he had not resigned I would have easily mated his General.

M Winther wrote on 2008-11-27 UTC
Larry, I used your graphics and improved it, making it more readable. Now it's playing pieces proper, with Chinese signs on them, instead of just Chinese signs. I also made a wooden board. Chessplayers would prefer my graphics, but never mind.

The reason why Zillions plays Chinese Chess badly is because the pieces are wrongly valued. I changed the piece values to a more proper evaluation.  I tested my version against the Zillions version on a 1.6 GHz computer, at 15 sec per move. The colours were alternated and the openings went differently in each game. My version won six games out of six. I did the same thing with my Korean Chess, it won 5/5.

Larry Smith wrote on 2008-11-26 UTC
It would not be a fair test of your programs. To truly test them, you might challenge a ranking master. Post your challenge to a few Asian sites.

And you might thoroughly read my posting. I did not say 'all programs'. I said 'many programs'. Yours may be an exception. I look forward to the results of your tests.

There was one program around 2006 that did very well against a human in a competition. Was this a dedicated system, or an addon software for the personal computer? Have you heard of any other since?

I am rather partial to the graphics in my implementation.

Some western players of Asian games have a prejudice of the Kanji symbols. This is primarily because of unfamiliarity. It is quite easy to become familiar with them, if a little effort is applied.

Here's a tip on how to beat many XiangQi programs. Play defensively. Let the computer opponent come to you. Sacrifice Elephants or Mandarins to gain material advantage. When the computer opponent has commited sufficient material to this bloodbath, strike.

M Winther wrote on 2008-11-26 UTC
Larry, my Chinese Chess and Korean Chess,
play much better than the standard Zillions implementations. It is
necessary to tweak the piece values. The effect is sometimes astounding.
I challenge your assumption. These programs outclass most human amateurs.

I also created alternative pieces and an alternative board for your XiangHex or
JangHex. Please make use of them if you like them.
Alternative pieces.

Larry Smith wrote on 2008-11-26 UTC
Janggi, or Korean Chess, could be applied to this playing field. Though the Elephants would never be able to fully express their potential moves within this field. But that is not a big negative in itself.

Give me time to work up a Zillions implementation of this game to see how it plays.

BTW, Zillions does not really play XiangQi well, like many other computer programs of the game. They tend to be too aggressive and cannot see the benefit of sacrifice for position. Or even the necessary material to affect a good endgame. Unless they are specificly programmed to keep track of particular pieces, they will often place themselves in the position of having no pieces which can cross the 'river'. As of now, human players rule the game.

Larry Smith wrote on 2008-11-24 UTC
I've uploaded a black and white graphic of the playing field(see the note just before the Setup section). I sized it to fit on a standard letter page. It will accommodate pieces which are three-quarters of inch in diameter or less(which my set is).

But it can be re-sized for larger sets. It will just not fit on a single page. ;-)

To keep the printout neat, just laminate it. Many office supply stores offer this service, including the printing of the page.

I merely slipped mine into one of those plastic sleeves which can be gotten at your local Wal-mart.

John Smith wrote on 2008-11-22 UTC
Ever think of a Jang Hex?

John Smith wrote on 2008-11-21 UTC
All this river talk is making me CV design hungry, actually. I want to create a game with the same real river as Christian Freeling's Congo. I'm open to collaboration! ;)

John Smith wrote on 2008-11-21 UTC
There is one thing I don't like about this game, however. The Palace is smaller and the Mandarins weaker. Only one Mandarin is needed in the opening and middlegame, the other being restricted by the first, just serving as Cannon fodder. I realize there is no way to make a larger Palace and more powerful Mandarins without violating a regularly shaped Palace and the General and Mandarins occupying the lowest rank of it.

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.