Enter Your Reply

It is just as easy to plan strategy in triangles (/_\s) as hexagons, and the more
basic triangles are more interesting than hexagons. In equilateral triangular boards,
Queen is broken down into Rook and Bishop, and there are the expected more than one
Bishop binding(details under review). Rook always starts a move across a side, and Bishop the
cell just beyond the accepted Rook side, she between his pathways so to
speak. Rook and Bishop move parallel in the same direction. Eventually Rook
could get to that Bishop's path-spaces one and all along the ways, but that
Bishop never could get to that adjacent Rook's cells. Two opposite Bishops pairwise never
will cohabit. For example, number 5^3 as 1;234;56789;10,11,12,13,14,15,16.
Then Rook at 17 moves along 18,10,6 to 3 if four-stepping. Bishop from 17
would go -10,5,2,1. All four longstanding fundamentals are there, but Falcon more than
the others needs practically at least 6^3. As well, more effective for 7^3 and up
would be long-range leapers (4,0), (4,1), (4,2), (5,0) etc. as the boards
enlarge. Of course all those have arrival cells beyond Knight and Falcon and between
Rook and Bishop. There is not the dual subdivision per quadrant between
Rook and Bishop of straightforward smoothed-out squares and rectangles.
Instead, all the ''oblique'' ones have the full set of spaces between
Rook/Bishop and Rook/Bishop, 120-degree separated, to themselves in any given
notional move from a same hypothetical starting triangle. It is better to
study the concepts on at least 8^3. In off-Chess science, as noted before, whether squares or triangles, ''oblique'' just means directions not Bishop-like and not Rook-like. So for instance in squares, along the Bishop diagonal is not oblique, as supposed to be in math.