Comments by Max Koval

It is ready for prime time.

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.

@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.

@Ben Reiniger, I renamed it.

@Ben Reiniger, thank you for the explanation! Yes, this is one of those variants, and definitely not a 'quirky' one, because I didn't want to create a completely new game, but rather to rebuild in a new way the material that existed before me.

I think it would be great to add Shafran's variant to the primary hexagonal groop too, as well as variants by De Vasa and Brusky.

I think that I must explain, why I consider that my game is 'better' than other major hexagonal variants. Some of the reasons may sound a little bit subjective, although I believe that they will help to finally clarify my ideas about this particular game.

I came with an initial setup, which incorporates an equal number of knights and bishops (as well as pawns and major pieces - ten against ten). Since the knight and the bishop are relatively close in their values, I believe that this ratio is important for the balance of the game, especially after exchanges.

The initial setup of my variant seems to be a little bit more 'safer' than in other variants (Especially by Shafran, and Brusky (among horizontal ones)). This safety increases the diversity of possible openings and makes this variant relatively similar to orthodox chess, while it does not imitate the original game and its setup, but provides its own harmonic array. (An interesting fact is that the number of all first possible moves is similar to orthodox chess - 20 against 20). The number of black, grey and white-colored cells is equal to each other on my board. (Shafran - 23 white and black cells, 24 grey cells. Glinski/McCooey - 30 white and black cells, 31 grey cells. Koval - 24 white, grey and black cells). Of course, it is not important when it comes to the playing properties, but it may have some impact on the actual value of the grey-colored bishop, and, at least it just was an aesthetical flaw. I believe, that any unprotected pieces (not necessarily the pawns), especially at hexagonal boards, where the major pieces are way stronger than in orthodox chess, tend to be easily attacked, and in some cases, this leads to forced defensive progressions (Like in my previous example, related to the unprotected rooks in Shafran's variant). Such games cannot be acceptable for high-level or rating play, although it still works for 'home usage' or just as an intriguing novelty. The goal of the author was not just to create something different - I wanted to create a hexagonal variant that could compete with orthodox chess.

It is ready to be published.

Is it technically possible to make a playable preset for any three-player chess variant? I've already built a GC preset for ThreeHex chess, but I'm not sure if it will work since I used a set group for four-player chess (I didn't find any three-player variant here).

Max.

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.

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.

@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.

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

I always thought of Cylindrical Chess as the very first concept to appear in someone's mind when it comes to the idea of inventing a CV.

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.

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 think it is ready to be published.