Is the Queen actually a man?

Sort:
marcosite

...the chance would be a fine thing....

GnrfFrtzl
DDP2 írta:

GnrfFrtzl, that was very interesting piece of info. Thank you. I had never considered that before.

I don't want to hijack your thread, but please allow me to post one more historic question.

All piece moves make sense even those that seem irregular at first sight. Ex, at some point chess was accelerated and that is why the pawns can move 2 squares from their original position, but e.p. is still viable because that special move is 2 consecutive regular one-square moves and not a 2-square move. Similarly, while castling the King may not go over a threatened square because he 's making consecutive moves.

The thing that I haven't been able tofind  a logical explanation to is the pawn promotion. Pawns when reaching the opposite 'camp' should be able to free one of the captured pieces and not magically transform into any piece leading to the absurb image of 2 queens, 3 rooks etc. For the very practical reason that sets do not have extra pieces this promotion irregularity is hard to believe that appeared without a reasoning.

Anyone have any idea?

Well, I wouldn't know, but I was actually taught this way by my father. We've never promoted to a queen if there was one on the board already for the same reason you just said.
It just seems more logical that a pawn would release a captured piece from the enemy camp than that they just magically transform to another one. It also makes the game harder and makes interesting endgames instead of just mating the opponent in three moves.

Nick_Aris
Rsava wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#History_of_the_rule

wow, I feel stupid. I 've never found that wikipedia article before. Good to know that I 'm not the only one who cannot stand the picture of 2 queens of the same colour or 3 rooks

Rayyan_Layth

Yes, we in Arabic call the Queen : (Minister وزير)

and the Knight is (Horse حصان)

and the Pishop (Elephant فيل) ....

and as I know, when the chess comed to Europe by Arabs throuth Spain, at that time was the ruler of Spain is "Queen Elizabeth", so they changed the name to "Queen" !

Rayyan_Layth
basmanny wrote:

Yes, the piece called the "Queen" in the west is actually still supposed to be male.  No women could, or should, have that kind of power.

Right ! Laughing

TheGreatOogieBoogie

No, it's a mathematical unit with a feminine name attached. That's my opinion at least. 

pelly13

I was playing this man the other day. He had a wooden arm with a real hand on it.

In my country chesspieces are made of wood and the women of steel. I would like to give my opinion on the matter , but I'm afraid my wife Olga , a former Russian-wrestling champ , will find out.

Wish I could be with the rest of you ....

Derekjj
GnrfFrtzl wrote:

Hi all!
I just wanted to share a theory with you and ask your opinions about it. Recently, I heard from an eastern european friend of mine that the Queen is actually a man, just like every other pieces on the board.
The story goes like this:
The pieces are originally named in persian, and the Queen has the name Wasir (Vezir, Vazir, Vasir, etc.), which quite well translates to Counsellor or Minister. This implies that the piece is actually a man, because if we think about the time period that the game was most likely be invented in, well, I don't think that women had any political status and importance at all (correct me if I'm wrong).
According to my friend, the story goes like this:
Around the time before the Crusades, the game was brought to Europe, and a monk was asked to translate the pieces' name to Latin (the fact that we call the originally named 'elephant' 'bishop' supports this theory).
Since this monk didn't know persian/arabic that well (or maybe it was a political reason), he named the originally named Wasir 'Regina', which means Queen.
Maybe he thought if there's a King, there must be a Queen on his side? Who knows.

Anyhow, there are two thoughts that may support the theory that the Queen piece is actually a man.
1. Around the time the game was most likely created, why would they give a woman such power? We all know women didn't have political positions, so it seems very unlikely to make the most powerful piece a woman.
2. Artistic license, a subtle message. We all know this saying in some form: 'It is not the king that truly rules, but the one who's giving the advices'.

In a few languages, they still call this piece a man:
- Arabic : Vizier  و وزير
- Hindi: वज़ीर (Minister)
- Hungarian: Vezér (Chief, Leader [of an army])
- Indonesian: Menteri (Minister, Vizier)
- Polish: Hetman (it was the highest military rank)
- Thai: ตรี/มนตรี (Minister, Counselor)
- Urdu:  (Minister) وزیر

So, what do you think?
Is the Queen actually a man? Was it truly but a mistranslation?

No, it is actually a chess piece.

tonysamehayoub

Actually in my language it is a male: minister