Single Comment

There is nothing especially simple, elemental, basic or natural about the
rules for movement proposed by Glinski in developing a chess variant
played on a hexagonal board -- in fact, the Glinski-B interpretation is
considered something of a kluge by some CV designers (others view it more
favorably). Other interpretations are not 'exotic' -- they are simply
other, currently less well-explored, possibilities for defining movement. 


As I see it, Glinski's 'Hexagonal Chess' is 
fully equivalent to a game with  
half-Bishop + half-NRider (g-Bishops), 
Rook + half-Bishop (g-Rooks), 
half-N + half-Zebra + half-Camel (g-Knights),
Rook + Bishop + half-NRider (g-Queens),
King + half-Knight (g-Kings), and
Berolina-type pawns (g-Pawns)
played on a portion of an diagonally-oriented 11x11 chessboard.
(Oddly enough, it's still an interesting game).

I personally feel it might be better to embrace this equivalence (and
others like it) rather than insist on somewhat arbitrary distinctions
between hexagonal- and square-tiled playing fields.