You do know that in chess Kings are never captured, taken, killed or whatever because such an act would be improper.
You do know that in chess Kings are never captured, taken, killed or whatever because such an act would be improper.
Qb8 = (pawn on b8), then b8=N would be mate. Nothing would be captured, taken, killed, or whatchamacallit.
The white King is missing I think
I said warrior, not leader.
hmm, interesting. Maybe we should indeed factor in her political, diplomatic and leading powers to arrive to her massive powers in chess. Maybe? Rook-towers moving is also a problem... Artillery might have been a better option
Qb8 = (pawn on b8), then b8=N would be mate. Nothing would be captured, taken, killed, or whatchamacallit.
The white King is missing I think
I was just illustrating how my idea could work. I wasn't showing an exact position in a game. I updated the position. Happy now?
Of course! Thank you! :cookie:
But what was the point of the example?
Qb8 = (pawn on b8), then b8=N would be mate. Nothing would be captured, taken, killed, or whatchamacallit.
The white King is missing I think
I was just illustrating how my idea could work. I wasn't showing an exact position in a game. I updated the position. Happy now?
Of course! Thank you! :cookie:
But what was the point of the example?
To show how the queen could promote to another piece.
It's more of a demotion to be honest, but why would we need to do that? The initial problem was that of a second queen appearing out of thin air instead of a pawn freeing a captured piece.
In how many armies is the queen the most powerful person? Pretty wimpy knights.
Many empires were ruled by empresses and kingdoms by queens.
In fact, between 1480 and 1913, Europe’s queens were 27% more likely than its kings to wage war, according to economists Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish.