On Extra Queens

First, I recognize why they now put an extra queen of each color into nearly all chess sets.  Because especially with short time controls, those queens need to be at the ready in a tournament.

But I still don't like them.  It somehow ruins the completeness of the chess set.  Dump all the pieces out and you have these two awkward pieces left over.  What to do with them?

My little kids are baffled--nay, upset--that they don't get to play with all the pieces.  It's actually hard for me to explain to them why the extra queens are there if you don't get to play with them.  I've taught teenagers how to play, and they get hung up on it, too. 

And now I'm hung up on it.  A chess set (board and pieces) should be a complete thing, a harmonious whole in which every part is used.  Setting up a chessboard is a neat moment when it all comes together in an aesthetic in which everything has its place. 

I grew up without queens in my chess sets, so maybe I'm just getting old and crotchety and complaining about change.  But I have to know: is anyone else bothered by the extra queens like I am?  Does anyone else care?

I'm the kind of person who would be annoyed by such things, but the utility of the extra queens trumps any sense of disorder I have about them. I would be far more upset about having to improvise the extra queen when it's needed than about having pieces that are out of place.

Think of them like spare buttons on a shirt: they're typically sewed into it in an inconspicuous location. Find an inconspicuous location for those queens (where the kids can't see them) and be thankful you have them.

I'm always bothered by the fact that there's only ONE extra queen in a chess set. I mean - I sometimes need a couple at least. What will I do then?

I like the extra queens because I have a peculiar penchant for losing both my white and black queens within a few hours of setting up a brand new chess set. I only lose the queens, never any other pieces and that baffles me. I did recently observe my dog pilfering the queens and burying then out back in a hole dug out by my pet squirrel monkey. I found over 200 queens in my squirrel monkey's enclosure and another 200 in the hole the squirrel monkey dug out for my dog. I've since installed cameras all over the house and even in my squirrel monkey's enclosure which is generally enclosed. Both the dog and my monkey behave quite speciously and appear to have a strong affinity for marble chess pieces typically of the queen shape variety and I find myself feeling strong animosity towards the damnable squirrel monkey and often fantasize about strangling the bastard with piano wire. But I shelled out over 20 grand on the corybantic little creature and that further pisses me off. Succinctly, I like having the extra queens but I'm not sure why with this squirrel monkey constantly messing with the queens that are tossed in with over the now 750 marble chess sets I've purchased in just over six months period. I'm feeling great rage even as I type and concurrently am dismantling my piano's strings. I got the dog at the pound as an invaluable aside. Hope this helps!

If anyone wants to rid themselves of their extra queens, message me and I'll be more than happy to send you my address.

He might not complain about getting a couple of kings. If this was golf, I'd wager he putts from the rough! Just joshing! He's a good chap, just doesn't have much cerebral certitude. I like squirrel monkeys. WHAT?

I wonder how some people get by in life if this distresses them so much.

If this is true, it has to be one of the greatest stories I've ever read.

If it's not true, it still is.

I've never had extra queens except by combining sets. An upside down rook generally works instead. In rare cases, a knight or bishop and a pawn on the same square have been used.

can't you just throw them away? Then your set would be complete.

LOL, kind of addition by subtraction. Hell, send them to me. I don't mind extra queens.

Too bad this thread turned silly because the OP offered an interesting observation.  I have no use for extra queens.  They are just something more for me to carry around.  I'm thinking back on the 100+ games I've played in the last year.  Only one of those games required an extra queen, and that game ended on the same turn.

I would not mind if dealers stopped putting extra queens in their sets.  I'd be even happier if rules of chess were changed so that a pawn could be promoted only to a piece that had been captured.

Seriously, change the rules? I like the extra queens. I often have games that require them. Promoting a pawn to an upside down rook, or to a knight or bishop and a pawn to signify a queen was just an expedient, and an unsightly one at that. House of Staunton introduced this idea some time ago, and I'm glad it's pretty much become the standard. A queen is a queen is a queen, and as a queen she should appear, not as some ugly pretender.

Just think of the extra queens as representing royal polygamy, which used to the norm.  I like my extra queens.

Using an upside down rook for a queen is a bit rubbish. And what do you use if you still have both ur rooks? How about making a rule that u could only promote to an available piece ie. One of your pieces which had been captured earlier?

Kaynight, I suppose it's possible that a pawn could reach the last rank before any pieces were captured, but I can't imagine it would happen in a real life game.  However, just to cover all situations, another rule could be added saying that a pawn could not be moved to the last rank until a piece had been captured.  In fact, this rule was used in the past (see the link at the end of this post).

And yes, I am serious about changing the rules, even though I am just a chess club hack.  Here are some reasons why I believe this change would make chess a richer and more interesting game:

1.  Having two or more queens on the board gives a player an overwhelming advantage that no opponent can withstand.  Most likely, the game is pretty much over as soon as the extra queen appears.

2.  The rule change would add a slight degree of tactical decision making.  For example, do I push my pawn now even though my opponent has only captured a couple knights and a bishop, or do I focus on something else until my promoted pawn can be exchanged for a greater reward?

3.  Chess has a theme, even if it is a highly abstracted one.  Two armies are battling, each headed by a king along with his queen.  Royal polygamy aside, we traditionally think of a king and a queen, not a king and his queens.  Allowing extra queens on the board violates the theme of chess.

4.  Also, consistent with this theme, we could think of a pawn sneaking into the enemy's fortification and freeing one of the captured pieces.  But in doing so, the pawn is itself captured.  It shouldn’t be possible for the pawn to free the queen if the queen is still on the board.

 I know that some of you may laugh.  Change the rules of chess?  Never!  But in fact, a restricted pawn promotion rule has been used in the past.  See this link:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#History_of_the_rule

Maybe you could them they are captured princesses?

Good reply.

People who took it (the OP) seriously are ridiculous :/

Hunter Thompson couldn't have said it better.

 All that nonsense because you're too insecure to cope with spare pieces being made?

I believe that was Nimzowitsch, after losing to Saemisch in a game in 1925...