I find them to be oversexxed and bossy.
Is Queen the Boss?
Sort:
rather head-runner
I think we all know who wears the pants, obviously the queen! She has to defend the king when it should be the other way around.
chessica wrote:
Is Queen the Boss?
Can the game go on without her?
Conquistador wrote:
I think we all know who wears the pants, obviously the queen! She has to defend the king when it should be the other way around.
Maybe the king would be more willing to defend the queen if she actually took those pants off once in a while.
All the posts are pretty interesting and enlightening. I think she is proudy too ;)
Fezzik wrote:
Shucks. I was wondering if there was going to be a discussion of Freddy Mercury versus Bruce Springsteen.
Oh well.
Freddie Mercury 's queen is not as spicy and killer queen as our chess queen :)
When I play, I am the boss. The tiara I wear while playing is none of your business.
Feb 10, 2011
0
#12
ivandh wrote:
When I play, I am the boss. The tiara I wear while playing is none of your business.
And it looks good on you!
In the 1990's, when I was a child, I tried to learn chess by playing a CD-rom chess game (internet was not that popular those days)
When I saw the powerful piece I really imagined it was the King. Perharps I was just a machist kid, but in my defence I should say the King in that game had ornamental flowers designed inside it, making it looks even more feminine.
My confusion about this issue was broke when someone finally told me the real rules of chess.
By the way, about the question, the queen is not the boss!! In chess everything turns arround the king. If you see any situation where a queen trade or sacrifice can save your king you will allways do it. But there is no goal that justifies a "king sacrifice".
RuralRob wrote:
The queen obviously suffers from a lack of contentment. She must constantly go galavanting about all over the board, never happy in one place, while the king is perfectly satisfied just kicking up his feet and spectating.
When King is mere stationary spectator, someone has to take the responsibility and be dynamic!
II-Oliveira wrote:
In the 1990's, when I was a child, I tried to learn chess by playing a CD-rom chess game (internet was not that popular those days)
When I saw the powerful piece I really imagined it was the King. Perharps I was just a machist kid, but in my defence I should say the King in that game had ornamental flowers designed inside it, making it looks even more feminine.
My confusion about this issue was broke when someone finally told me the real rules of chess.
By the way, about the question, the queen is not the boss!! In chess everything turns arround the king. If you see any situation where a queen trade or sacrifice can save your king you will allways do it. But there is no goal that justifies a "king sacrifice".
That was the whole point. The game is based on sacrifice of queen for a king, while it could have been vice versa. The queen has to fight the whole battle for a lame sedentary king's defence!
the queen is a pawn. simple.
FlowerFlowers wrote:
the queen is a pawn. simple.
I don't understand what this comment mean
chessica wrote:
RuralRob wrote:
The queen obviously suffers from a lack of contentment. She must constantly go galavanting about all over the board, never happy in one place, while the king is perfectly satisfied just kicking up his feet and spectating.
When King is mere stationary spectator, someone has to take the responsibility and be dynamic!
Seriously though, what's your issue with genders? You seem to love to bring up gender type conversations. It's kind of weird.
Is Queen the Boss?