[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
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.
The move of the Knight is FALSE...
The Knight schould go:
A). 1)One Hexagon move like the Rook
and
2)One Hexagon move like the Bishop.
or...
B). 1)One Hexagon move like the Bishop
and
2)One Hexagon move like the Rook.
In the Normal Chess the Knight
is making a move like the Letter 'T'.
In the Treyshah the Knight
must make a move like the Letter 'Y'.
The move from the pawns is FALSE...
They schould go to 2 directions:
...Right and Left...
(except the 2 directions, they play
like the Normal Chess Game...)
That's all for now...
Konstantin
John M. Debevec wrote on Fri, Dec 13, 2002 11:00 PM UTC:I saw this in Popular Science magazine years ago, but when I contacted Mr Seabury the company was no longer seling the game. He was, however, kind enough to send me a copy of the rules as shown on this website. Does anyone know where one can get their hands on this game? I am thinking of making my own out of desperation!
this is an interesting board and starting setup. is he still selling boards or are they all gone? did he sell pieces too or did you have to provide your own? i notice that besides needing 3 different colors and 3 bishops per sdie, each side also needs 14 pawns. i also notice that the knight is not really analagous to the orthogonal chess knight like in the glinski and mccooey games - it's really the hexagonal version of the zebra, and altho i haven't played the game yet, it's probably a very awkward and weak piece, i'm rather skeptical of the claim that the knight and bishop in this game are worth about the same amount.
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
It's not entirely clear what the analogous ‘error’ would be. In the REX King's and Glinski Pawns' cases it's using orthogonal moves to the exclusion of hex‐diagonal ones, while this knight apparently just miscounted the diagonal portion, resulting in a piece (which Charles Gilman terms a Student) which is analogous to the square‐cell Zebra.
A queen analogous to the REX king just becomes a rook, but that leaves the bishop completely unaccounted for.
Ofc, there are a few variants which take this version of king and queen as their basis and build the rest of the pieces around them: the oldest is Sigmund Wellisch's 3‐player game (for which this site unfortunately has only a Java Applet, though a more complete description is available e.g. on John Savard's page); the king moves one orthogonally, the knight to any nearest square that the king can't reach (there is a certain logic to calling the hex diagonals ‘leaps’, given that the relevant cells don't actually touch), the rook slides orthogonally, the queen moves as rook or knight (technically a marshal analogue therefore), and the pawn in either of the forwardmost directions (the board being oriented as in Fergus' Hex Shogis).
Alternatively, Gilman's Alternate Orthogonals Hex Chesses do exactly what the name suggests: assign alternate orthogonals as analogous to the square‐board directions, giving a REX king and Glinski pawns together with Wellisch knights, a rook as a ‘queen’, and ‘rooks’ and ‘bishops’ which have each other's move but backwards — albeit this being Charles Gilman, the pieces all have ifferent names. This one had quite a positive reception, and it does preserve some aspects of square‐cell chess that other analogies lack (some of which are touched on in its comments) — it's certainly worth a look