Comments by maxkoval

Because the CVP is probably the only common chess variant source, I would like to think of variants being featured just as a sign of recognition, nothing more. If a game is popular enough, and/or has some weight on its own, it can be featured. With repeats being acceptable, that will be the most trivial way of managing this feature.

It is not as difficult and time-consuming as it seems to be. By doing the conversion process manually I referred to the correction of the final results. You can easily upload any image in Inkscape and then convert it to SVG automatically. Sometimes no other work in the application is required.

The usage of PNGs and GIFs for something that can be represented by vector graphics is obsolete, so I don't really understand how these graphics can be applied to something, especially in low resolution. Wikipedia cites and uses such an approach, and I think that all major chess websites switched their chess symbols to SVG.

Maybe, the cube can be the best solution as the most elementary form in 3D dimension. Pyramid is still okay though.

Speaking of dimensions, I once read a funny observation in an old chess magazine questioning why 3D pieces can make do with 2D space.

Instead, I would find it to be worth developing new and simplest possible designs that can be associated with a particular chess piece if it had no physical design before. Chess pieces are generally not art items, but rather products of industrial design that can be mass-produced, so a different approach is required. They should be simple to be made by a hobbyist, using a lathe or 3D printer, ergonomic, and distinctive. Why not include such files (which will be eventually made by someone) in every Piececlopedia article? There's no need to create a design classic, just something that can be very simple, yet different and efficient. It should be compatible with a standard Staunton-like chess set. All of these images are instantly incompatible if placed together with usual chessmen, which is also an important criterion aside from their artistic side.

In 9x9 Modern chess, they used a minister's hat for the minister (BN compound), it was simply designed as a usual chess king with a cylinder hat instead. It looked really simple and efficient and could be easily made on a lathe. In a slightly more sophisticated way, they made excellent designs for the Champion and Wizard in Omega Chess, It's sort of sad that they discontinued selling them, but with enough skill, they can be also made out of wood or be printed, although I'm not sure about the copyright issues.

I wouldn't like to underrate your effort and passion, but in my opinion, your designs don't seem to stay in one stylistic line, which makes the whole project to be of lesser aesthetical value, although conceptually it's still interesting. Many of these designs seem to be somewhat overcomplicated, not speaking of their reliability if printed. The pieces should be comfortable to be touched by hand, after all, so ergonomics is a thing here. As a guy who played with hundreds of chess sets during my life, I can speak that a badly designed chess set can ruin the whole experience to the extent that even an interesting game will fully lose its appeal. If the project is actually printed, I doubt if a player can fully enjoy a game played with such chessmen.

I would suggest that leaping pieces, such as the knight would get just their heads, without other elements, following the existing tradition. All other ones must be made of simple geometric shapes, like pawn, rook, etc. Minor details, such as a cut in a bishop's head or rook's bricks are acceptable if they look balanced. There are endless combinations, and they are very simple to be made.

A piece's basement must be noticeably larger than its middle or upper part. Both for stability and aesthetical reasons, a thing ignored by many people who design chess sets.

I generally do not like Staunton design. To me the pieces in it often look disproportional, but they all have stable and large basements.

Chess is a war game. It is already not comfortable for me that there are so many animal chessmen, which make many variants to be somewhat childish, at least in my perception. Why not use names for military ranks, tools, or anything of this sort? But a chess piece, named after furniture is something that can hardly be understood.

I always preferred plastic to wood while playing chess. But when a chess piece can be easily made out of wood without manually carving anything excluding simple parts, it seems to be a strong advantage.

In today's world of AI, it is simpler than ever to design something like a chess piece. I believe that after about a couple of years we will be able to get a complete set of 3d models for any chess variant by just describing how we would like it to be.

I am sorry for my rant on the subject, don't really take it seriously.

I think that maybe because the page consists of too much text, it is difficult to review it and be sure that the content of it actually works.

I personally would prefer to see more simple games, such as the L-game, or something that is governed by an efficient idea, like Perfect chess, which is the best variant in my opinion that incorporates piece compounds. This world is already more complicated than it should actually be.

As it was noted, I think that probably the best way to explore this feature is to include little-known and original games for further discussion and possible improvement, maybe alongside common CVs. For example, Chess on a soccer ball by David Cannon.

@Rechefiltr is Fire, it would be interesting, but is there a need to remake it?

Wild.

I agree that the way the bishop can change its square color through the singularity is inconsistent, as it actually should go in the reverse direction. There can be interesting variations on the subject, some of which you just described. The simplest one can be to cut the board in half vertically, and then join it again by its borders. As a result, there will be no full U-turns, and the bishop will have five directions of movement in the board's central part, like in usual three-player chess made of three 4x8 board parts, which share somewhat similar geometry.

As a minor observation, it can be pointed out that this variant has natural reverse symmetry, so the black king and queen should switch their places to preserve their initial square colors. It also can be noted that the a and h pawns can capture each other from the initial position, so, there must be an artificial restriction to stop them from that.

I think it can be assumed by default that this rule can be separately applicable to standard chess or any other chess-game type.

Do you mean this page? It was probably dedicated to a different game that shares the same name. The tags mention that it is multiplayer, while the original Singularity is played only by two players (https://www.printables.com/model/71969-singularity-chess-board).

Daniel, the white line can be excluded to distinguish it better.

It is not as much about history or a utilitarian purpose, but rather a design that gives the website its distinctive style. This set is a sort of symbol since Alfaeire's base chess font Alpha is used commonly, so it is more difficult to associate it with this particular website. That's the idea, there's no need to use Utrecht anymore, but it would be right to preserve it on the very first pages.

I think it's ready to be published.

It is interesting to note that according to ludii.games, De Vasa's Chess was initially proposed on a slightly different board with eight rows instead of nine. The initial setup of it looks the same as in Mike Layfield's 9-pawn hexagonal chess but with different rules and on a non-squeezed board. Quadibloc.com also describes De Vasa's Chess as a variant with eight rows.

@Bn Em, I think that I'm late to reply to this, but thank you for clarifying that.

John J. G. Savard, who runs quadibloc.com stated that pieces on triangular tiling 'naturally go around in circles' if direct 'hexagonal' logic will be applied as you described it; he also suggested that alternating movement can be seen as a solution, but no diagrams of it were provided although I believe that this idea can be executed similarly to mine. A one-direction movement which can be seen as an alternative to the alternating method doesn't work equally for both the rook and bishop. So, I think that my goal on this is completed.

I didn't know what to do with knight and pawn, so I simply followed the logic of orthodox chess.

That's okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

I like the Abstract set, I used it when I played Gross Chess in ChessV. It is still better than those Wikipedia pieces which are now everywhere.

I don't mind these graphics, too, because they indeed represent new pieces, and look fun, but their style is not in common sense for me.

Game demo (gif)

It is ready to be published.

I think it may suit the purpose to also include some Dabbaba-riders or something like that. I never played a game which uses flying pieces, so I dilettantly assume that the Eagle is too valuable to use it for an explicit attack unlike DR which can control only a quarter of the board space, and so can be forcibly exchanged for something more valuable. I think it can be more efficient to use such types of pieces, rather than expanding new rules which govern their relations (#2).

Besides Shafran's chess, another remark deserves to be added to Brusky's chess, which in my opinion is the closest possible translation of chess to a hexagonal board. The problem with it is the fact that the number of pawns there is not equal to the number of major pieces, and the fact that there are also forced defensive progressions from the very first move, which makes this variant unsuitable for high-level play. The pawn's movement rule was also slightly modified to make the variant stable.

It can be forgivable for Capablanca Chess or that Shogi variant revealed by H.G., but they are not as significant as hexagonal chess by their nature, I cannot see them being independent of Western chess and Shogi respectively. I'm not a shogi player again, I know nothing about it.

We are interested in hexagonal chess variants because they are played on a fundamental tesselation. As can be expected there are not plenty of tesselations available. So it should not be regarded as a variant of chess, but rather, another chess. To get the idea, I do not play chess because it is fun. I play it to find fundamental feelings of mathematics, or at least an illusion of them since chess by itself is an extremely artificial game, with plenty of questionable rules. But still, the roots of it are still fundamental, we can get them. A search of something initial.

So I would try to end my search for hexagonal chess on Glinski's chess. Yes, the pawn is a problem, but at least, this variant is not flawed. If chess was already full of artificial rules, the modified pawn can be seen as a slight extension (at least, there's no castling anymore).

[Editor's Note: This was moved from the same page as the previous comment.]

The first written introduction that was widely available for Shafran's chess was published in a Soviet paper named 'Nauka i Zhizn', (Science and Life), and was aimed at young auditory, where you were suggested to construct your own board. I don't own a copy of it, but I found the issue copy in a local library where the article about this variant first appeared. I learned about the article through the Web and I don't remember the issue number though, but it can be found.

Soviet chess player and writer Evgeny Gik showcased both Glinski and Shafran's hexagonal variants in one of his books on mathematical games.

In the Soviet Union, inventions of such fundamental kinds that can be used in propagandistic ways would usually get way more attention than in Western countries, especially due to the extreme popularity of chess in that period, even before Wladyslaw Glinski introduced his game to the general public in the seventies, in which case the promotion of almost the same game by the Soviets could be regarded as a copyright violation. I don't have any information that high-level chess players were interested in this variant, which in my opinion is unusual. I suppose to think they didn't react because this variant was flawed.

I never said that hexagonal topology is unplayable, my note was of the initial position, which makes that setup unplayable. I mentioned it as an example that even a common variant cannot be free from flaws, which makes it extremely difficult to invent a chess alike game that would be as good and interesting as orthodox chess. That's the sad truth, why chess variants are not as popular as they should actually be, like the variations on any other sport. I know from my playing experience that if a good player cannot do it well on hexagons, he's not a good chess player.

By mentioning 8x8 I didn't mean 'larger'. That's also a problem for this medium, and I don't like large variants except for Gross Chess and a few others.

I meant, 'different'.

Ideas that don't work, no matter how original, are not really of interest, IMO. If they could be made to work in another context, then just present those ideas in that context. If they are really worth persuing, that should not be too difficult.

That's not the idea that doesn't work, the setup which was the simplest way to show that, together with the others, and there was a disclaimer on it. That's what I wanted to do initially. That was just a live idea in a dead way which I thought to be the most simple.

By the way, if something works, I'm not interested in how difficult it is for someone if the difficulty comes from the natural organization, not just an attempt to make a really big playing field. That's not the case for this one though. Forget it.

Since I already explored most of the possibilities of hexagonal tesselation, I want to explore new spaces. As many as I can. The Wild West of chess. That's what drives it. If it is not what works here, I may leave.

The problem with Capablanca chess is the fact that on the first move, I can attack the unprotected black pawn, which leads to forced progressions. Ed Trice showcased them quite well. It may not be a flaw, but it is definitely a problem. People will simply exchange their chancellors and everything continues on the same, but worse, playing field.

I think it is ready to be published.

@Fergus Duniho, I thought that your set was partially influenced by Bauhaus chess pieces by Josef Hartwig, which are a favorite of mine. They share the idea of an abstract movement representation, and this year will make the 100th anniversary of when they were designed.

I included some endgame studies and problems to solve in the Notes section.

There can be some reverse variations - for example, if the first player exchanged all of his knights, or any other type of pieces, even the king, the game continues, but if the same was done after that by another player - he loses. So, the loser is the one who loses any last remaining piece type.

It would make the game more interesting since the players will have more motivation to develop their pieces and sacrifice them in some situations. For example, a player can sacrifice his queen or other remaining separate piece on his side to make his opponent's queen royal.

@H. G. Muller, the corrections were made.

To me the Bishop's move doesn't look very natural either. The fact that after an even number of steps each destination can be reached through two paths makes it essentially different from a normal slider, and more like a 'crooked' piece.

Sure, it's more like a kind of crooked piece, but the same thing goes with the rook, it simply looks like a straight path. It is the idea that was suggested, to make the rook and bishop work by the same rule.

But of course you can make the pieces move as you want; there doesn't need to be a justification.

Justification is the key element here, brought by this variant's idea. There's another way, which may suit the purpose better.

In the ideal condition for sliders, since the triangle has only three sides (and corners) and two of them are equal to each other in terms of trajectory selection, the branching of their directions should cover the whole board. That's what I also suggested with the only remark that the sliding pieces should always stay further from the initial cell and levels the piece already crossed, which can somewhat limit their power and make the game stable.

@H. G. Muller, new diagrams were added.

I believe that there should be some criteria to limit the number of submissions, which propose concepts that can be regarded as being too generic or unoriginal, similar to the system used in patents. Maybe there's an idea behind this variant, why it was made this way and whether it will be interesting to play, but it is not described.

Why only rectangular boards? Although we are limited to only 3 regular tilings, there are still endless amounts of undiscovered spaces, which can suit the idea of translating chess onto them.

I don't think that dark-squared bishops are a problem here. On the contrary, it is rather something that makes this variant interesting, considering the fact that a bishop is stronger than a knight on large boards. It would be great if someone could actually calculate which one is actually more valuable here. This game is intended to represent chess in a modern condition, apart from the introduction of the minister, where the influence of religious institutions, represented by bishops, is diminished, and it is logical that the other part of the board is no longer under their control.

The problem with Featured Variants is the fact that this page wasn't updated for more than a decade, so it may be counted that everything is started from scratch. It is actually a good idea to keep promoting playable and interesting CVs in the described format, especially the forgotten ones. The name can cause some confusion though, so I would assume that 'Variant of the Month' can be a more straightforward one.

The text was rewritten and the graphics were fixed. It is ready.

@H. G. Muller, I actually found this variant to be quite interesting to play, especially since the only difference here is the two modified rows and two additional fields, which affect the playing process dramatically enough without much change from the initial chess properties.

Maybe it would be reasonable to try blocking this particular word or item in the settings of your advertising provider (I can't say exactly if an eBay account is required). I'm not sure if the CV staff can help in this situation, although this seriously seems to be quite a fun case.

This game has the same problem with the knight as the Rex Chess with king and Glinski's variant with the pawn.

It would be great if someone could find the remaining ones, who have the same trouble with the bishop and queen. At least, you're free to invent them.

@Bn Em

Thank you for the answer.

It is ready to be published.

I clarified the ambiguity associated with the interpretation of the double-step rule and also emphasized the identity of the pieces' movement to other hexagonal variants. I will also add extra information, related to this variant in the near future.

@Ben Reiniger, I renamed it.

@Ben Reiniger, yes - of course, the rules are close to McCooey's game, with some remarkable changes. But, I'd like to point out that he was not first in creating the game that uses these rules, and I don't fully understand why his variant is mentioned instead of Shafran's version, which stands a little bit closer to my game (The difference between his interpretation and mine are the board shape, number of pieces, and some minor changes in the pawn and castling rules, as well as a new interpretation of stalemate. But still, the main difference is that my variant is actually playable).

As I can understand, you assume that my game seems to be too close to other existing variants, and maybe, it cannot be counted as a fully independent variant, at least without crediting McCooey's rules. Now, I regret that I didn't explain my ideas in the article due to the lack of free time.

Unlike all the variants on vertical hexagonal boards, which use diagonal pawn's capture (I won't be mentioning all other games and I'll be focusing only on this family of hexagonal games), I managed to come with a variant that is really playable and harmonic in its approach.

Both variants, which I mentioned previously, don't provide us with that. McCooey's interpretation has an unequal number of pawns and major pieces (7 against 9). In my opinion, it is enough to consider the fact that such a game cannot be accepted as something competitive to orthodox chess, and I highly doubt that it can be counted as an 'independent' variant if it uses the same board as in Glinski's game. Rules are the rules, but the board is the board. I like his variant, but I wouldn't prefer to play it as my major game. There are some other flaws (like the unprotected central pawn), but they are unremarkable. Shafran's interpretation has an unnatural initial setup, and I don't get the point of placing the pieces in such a broken array on vertical hexagons, while it works on horizontal ones (De Vasa, Brusky). But it doesn't matter at all if we'll be talking about the playing properties of this game. It is just unsafe to play it. After the first move by the central pawn, White threatens to attack both of the opponent's rooks at once, moving one of their bishops in front of their king. Can you imagine it in orthodox chess? Of course, it can be avoided, but it greatly reduces the diversity of possible opening positions, and it seems that this game doesn't have an opening stage at all. If Black moved their central pawn too, they're able to attack White's rooks, too. The exchange's happening, and the game continues. But still, can this variant look competitive to orthodox chess if it has such 'darkish' tricks? I guess that it'll be a true nightmare, especially for low-skilled players. The board is just too short for such pieces, and the game starts with predictable repetitive exchanges, especially if it is played by strong players. Unlike my variant, where castling actually does its primary purpose, it is completely useless in this variant.

My game stays free from all the special flaws that I mentioned above. It is actually playable and, I'm not afraid to say that it is aesthetically perfect.

At least, all thoughts that I posted here are just my thoughts. As a keen lover of hexagonal chess, I just wanted to create something better, and I continue to believe that this variant deserves its existence.

It is ready to be published. I didn't find any three-player chess variant that uses the same board, rules and amount of pieces.

Of course, the rules are not final - if you're interested in this variant, you're free to change them at your discretion.

It is ready for prime time.