Is chess is male chauvinist game? Here,King does not move much and when it is mated every thing is over.

I guess it's just the naming of the pieces.  A king may be renamed 'monarch' as you may have male and female monarchs.  Then the queen may have to be renamed, etc.  So...  let's just leave it at that.  I don't think there is chauvinism here.  That's my opinion.

It's good to be the King.

If you think the king doesn't move much, you seriously have to study endgames.

If you waste time thinking about such trivial crap, like sexism or racism in chess, you are bound to suck at playing. Stop being such a philosopher and just play chess, it is a GAME.

Chessroshi wrote: If you waste time thinking about such trivial crap, like sexism or racism in chess, you are bound to suck at playing. Stop being such a philosopher and just play chess, it is a GAME.

---

 Good point!!!!-SIX

Anyway, Somebody may think a game itself is a waste of time.The question is when king is more powerfull for a decision making, why it's movements should be restricted to one square?

gtrajan wrote:

Is chess is male chauvinist game? Here,King does not move much and when it is mated every thing is over.

---

This has less to do with chauvinism and more to do with war.  Chess is, after all, a wargame.  Let's face it: back in the ancient and medieval world, if you killed the opposing king, that usually ended the war!   

Two comments:

 

1. "If you waste time thinking about such trivial crap, like sexism or racism in chess, you are bound to suck at playing" is completely non-sequitor.

 

2. Jodabeni - porn links are a no-no, even if followed by LOL.