What about Ponies?
Change Queen's name as Lion !
Sort:
SixInchSamurai a écrit :
What about Ponies?
Ponies are yes epic and glorious. Like you.
SixInchSamurai wrote:
I knew that @LionQueen777 would leave a comment here one day
Duh just look at my username you can tell what the idea behind it was even though I feel pretty cringe a lot of the time bc of it
May 9, 2025
0
#26
Kaeldorn wrote:
The name "Queen" came in replacement of "Vizir" (as in Prime Minister) when the game of chess came from the Arab & Persian world to Europe.
I suppose, not only "Prime Misnister" was unfit a name, for being long and not very epic (nor glamourous like one would maybe say nowadays), but also, one shall not under estimate the value of a Queen in Europe in the Middle Age.
Elianor d'Aquitaine
Excellent justification how the name Queen was arrived.
Thanks for sharing powerful photos of queens.
Reg a queen jumping into pyre of the diseased king this was necessitated by the inhuman torcher which she had to undergo during a war. The invaders were barbaric, queen preferred to jump into the pyre which was much better than living with barbaric invaders. You can imagine the plight of a queen. There are plenty of heroic Queens in Indian history who have fought the battle after the demise of their beloved kings. Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai is one name which comes to my mind immediately who fought against the invaders. Can provide number of such names in due course. Every Indian state has such glorious queens. Kittor Rani Chennamma so on so forth. One should understand the reason behind such practise, than to see in a different perspective.
ruled successively England then France, as undisputed and legitimate Queen, which is a unique fate in human History, for what I know. Other queens, such as Catherine de Medicis, did not let behind them, a feel of weakness "bien au contraire".
One could mention Joan of Arc, even if she never was a Queen, she came as a figure that maybe inspired the name for the chess piece...
The Queen was anyhow second un command after the King, when the King was alive, and ruled the Kingdom if the King died before a son was grown up enough. Besides, we did not burn them alive alongside the dead body of their husband: Queens were not so "expandable items" in Europe.
Lions, for their part, did nothing much more in History than chewing some bits of meat here and there. Which is, well, not so glorious. Or is it?
May 9, 2025
0
#27
vsmanju wrote:
Kaeldorn wrote:
The name "Queen" came in replacement of "Vizir" (as in Prime Minister) when the game of chess came from the Arab & Persian world to Europe.
I suppose, not only "Prime Misnister" was unfit a name, for being long and not very epic (nor glamourous like one would maybe say nowadays), but also, one shall not under estimate the value of a Queen in Europe in the Middle Age.
Elianor d'Aquitaine
Excellent justification how the name Queen was arrived.
Thanks for sharing powerful photos of queens.
Reg a queen jumping into pyre of the diseased king this was necessitated by the inhuman torcher which she had to undergo during a war. The invaders were barbaric, queen preferred to jump into the pyre which was much better than living with barbaric invaders. You can imagine the plight of a queen. There are plenty of heroic Queens in Indian history who have fought the battle after the demise of their beloved kings. Jhansi Rani Lakshmi Bai is one name which comes to my mind immediately who fought against the invaders. Can provide number of such names in due course. Every Indian state has such glorious queens. Kittor Rani Chennamma so on so forth. One should understand the reason behind such practise, than to see in a different perspective.
ruled successively England then France, as undisputed and legitimate Queen, which is a unique fate in human History, for what I know. Other queens, such as Catherine de Medicis, did not let behind them, a feel of weakness "bien au contraire".
One could mention Joan of Arc, even if she never was a Queen, she came as a figure that maybe inspired the name for the chess piece...
The Queen was anyhow second un command after the King, when the King was alive, and ruled the Kingdom if the King died before a son was grown up enough. Besides, we did not burn them alive alongside the dead body of their husband: Queens were not so "expandable items" in Europe.
Lions, for their part, did nothing much more in History than chewing some bits of meat here and there. Which is, well, not so glorious. Or is it?
May 9, 2025
0
#29
LionQueen777 wrote:
vsmanju wrote:
Have been playing chess for the past seven decades (70) years.
Have a naming problem with a piece.
I find the most powerful piece in chess game is Queen. Queen is endowed with the movements of Both Rooks(White and Black) and Both Bishops(White and Black). The most feared piece in chess is Queen. Fortunately or unfortunately the Queen can't move like a Knight, if that was also allowed, how a chess game would have looked ? Having said all this, in a typical Royal Palace, the Queen is the most adored and respected lady with minimal movements. This is where i find the name Queen wrong and instead to be called as a Lioness. When queen moves in the board, she is fearless and swallows opponent's unsupported pieces just like a Lioness in the jungle world. With this introduction, Can We Change the name of Queen to a Lioness ?
Please think it over and have a Big Laugh, if you feel this is a stupid recommendation !
vsmanju
actually I've also thought that queen is just like a lioness and did y'all know that that lionesses are the ones who do the hardest job hunting and personally I see a parallel between the roles of chess pieces and the roles within a lion pride pretty cool right? at the same time male lions are responsible for protecting the family but even so I still don’t think it's necessary to call a queen lioness
Yes, agreed.
May 9, 2025
0
#30
In the present discussion on queen, i would like to add, in old Indian Chess Game, the Queen's Pawn was a Very Sacred Pawn, if this pawn becomes a Past Pawn, then only this past pawn could have become the Queen ,not other pawns. A knight's past pawn could have become only a knight, a bishop's past pawn could become only a bishop, a rook's past pawn could have become a rook.
One had to safe gaurd queen's pawn so that only it could have become the queen.
I am sure, i have made myself clear.
The Indian Chess Game was quite a tough game compared to today's Chess game.
Jun 13, 2025
0
#31
Decoding Mythology - Dr Devdutt Pattanaik (Author, Speaker, Illustrator, Mythologist)
This author writes a column connected with Mythology every week in an evening news paper " Star of Mysore". Yesterday this author has written an article titled "Cultural Significance of Elephant and Horse". At the end of the article , few paras are written under the heading Chariots, gods and chess. I want to reproduce the last para
" The horse and the elephant play a key role in establishing a new culture ,which needs to be understood. In chess, we find the horse, the chariot and the elephant as critical to a king's power. This game was invented in India, the land of elephants, before it went to to Europe via Arabs roughly around 600 AD".
We had discussions in this column, some one suggesting Knight to be called a Pony, Rook to be called an Elephant , of course these chess pieces have been found out imitating real old world war scenario. The bishop is invented after the camel. Chess is a typical old world war scenario played between two individuals.
The name "Queen" came in replacement of "Vizir" (as in Prime Minister) when the game of chess came from the Arab & Persian world to Europe.
I suppose, not only "Prime Minister" was unfit a name, for being long and not very epic (nor glamourous like one would maybe say nowadays), but also, one shall not under estimate the value of a Queen in Europe in the Middle Age.
Elianor d'Aquitaine
ruled successively England then France, as undisputed and legitimate Queen, which is a unique fate in human History, for what I know. Other queens, such as Catherine de Medicis, did not let behind them, a feel of weakness "bien au contraire".
One could mention Joan of Arc, even if she never was a Queen, she came as a figure that maybe inspired the name for the chess piece...
The Queen was anyhow second in command after the King, when the King was alive, and ruled the Kingdom if the King died before a son was grown up enough. Besides, we did not burn them alive alongside the dead body of their husband: Queens were not so "expandable items" in Europe.
Lions, for their part, did nothing much more in History than chewing some bits of meat here and there. Which is, well, not so glorious. Or is it?