pawn-male (baby queen so female)
knight-animal i think male
bishop-female
rook-male
queen-female
king-male
pawn-male (baby queen so female)
knight-animal i think male
bishop-female
rook-male
queen-female
king-male
...most apes are male...
I think you got that backwards.
no, he didn't lol
all female except queen. pawns are a princess waiting to become queen,or any other piece so other pieces are female too, reason why can't become king
maybe except KING?
Kings are male; queens are female. Obviously.
Bishops are clergy. Traditionally male and exclusively so at the time chess was invented.
Knights are male almost exclusively. Maybe one of the black knights is Joan of Arc, but I still call them male.
Rooks are siege engines. Genderless. And pawns, pawns are baby queens. Female.
that is how I've always regarded the pieces. Yes, I have thought of this before.
That's actually the best and most logical conclusion well done sir.
i think the pawns are male, the bishop is female, and the queen is also female one rook is male and the other is female. same for the horses
I know this is 4 pages deep of discussion of anthropomorphizing chess pieces, but I'd still like to deposit my two cents.
Clearly, the king is male, and the queen is female. However, I'd argue that the pawns are male, while the bishops, knights, and rooks are genderless. Pawns are foot soldiers, which, even in the modern day, are primarily men. Bishops are actually translated in Russian with the word for "elephant" and knights are quite clearly horses, meaning they are both animals, so I'd say it's not fair to generalize their genders. Rooks are quite visibly castles and are actually derived from a word describing a crow that perches in castles, so I'd say it's also not fair to generalize their genders.