Hetman, Hitman? What a coincidence! :-)
Queen, why not Minister?
Sort:
Bankwell wrote:
jesterville wrote:
...and then you want to know why the international community hate Americans?...it is because you have no respect for anyone...and shows no regard for those who you share this Planet with...
No we don't.
It's because we were born in the greatest country the world has ever known, and you hate us for our love of freedom.
Pfft. Socialists. Full of opinions until you have to wait six months for routine medical care.
As opposed to forty million or so Americans who currently have no health care and for whom a six month wait for treatment would be quite a luxury? There are two sides to every story.
Why choose to bring today's politics into an interesting thread on the origins of the Queen in Chess?
That belongs on a political forum. Not here.
The value vs name of the pieces has elements of both social status and effectiveness in war. They developed over time and the queen was not as powerful as she is today. Stop saying "gee, chess is war game, I don't understand" Chess was not developed by a single person in a short time period, and when you realize this it's easy to understand the mixed themes as it was adopted into a new culture. Why are rooks the only piece representing an object and not a person? blah blah blah.
Secondly, bankwell is just trollin' , don't get too upset at him :)
They're all just names for God's sake...
BirdBrain wrote:
the general is typically the strongest fighter in the army.
Not really. In a real war, the general hides in his headquarters & sends orders out to the other troops telling them what to do. Kind of like the king on a chessboard.
Frankly, I don't care what they call that piece. Queen is the name I've learned it to be and the name that most people use for it, so I'll always call it the queen.
Ballyduffman wrote:
Bankwell wrote:
jesterville wrote:
...and then you want to know why the international community hate Americans?...it is because you have no respect for anyone...and shows no regard for those who you share this Planet with...
No we don't.
It's because we were born in the greatest country the world has ever known, and you hate us for our love of freedom.
Pfft. Socialists. Full of opinions until you have to wait six months for routine medical care.
As opposed to forty million or so Americans who currently have no health care and for whom a six month wait for treatment would be quite a luxury? There are two sides to every story.
Why choose to bring today's politics into an interesting thread on the origins of the Queen in Chess?
That belongs on a political forum. Not here.
Don't get too desperate about his babbling. I suspect he's actually WellRead's alter-ego.
I call mine Sally.
Jul 18, 2011
0
#31
Abdullahalfarooq wrote:
Dear Chess.com
I have comparatively recently joined Chess.com , though chess was one time my #1 game. I wonder why the most important piece in chess was named the 'Queen' ! In Indian sub-continent it is called the 'Minister' (may be war/defence minister). I think that is more logical. A 'queen' is fighting with all her subordinates to defend the king and the 'king' is just enjoying the fight and trying to escape his capture when threantened! What an unrealistic practice and a shame on the part of the 'king'.
I know there are many Kings in modern world whose Queens are the real monarchs; but these queens do not fight wars for their idle kings. Even now-a-days lady PMs, who are the real power-source in a state, do not fight; it is the war/defence ministers who do the job.
It was true when the chess was invented hundreds (may be thousands) of years ago and it is still true in modern days. That is why in the sub-continent is it the 'minister' and not the 'queen' is responsible for such job. I think that is more appropriate.
May I , therefore, request you to think about renaming the 'queen' to the 'minister' to make it more commonly/logically accepted. This is just my opinion and people may/will agree/disagree with me. One great writer said that ...a rose is a rose whatever name is given to it
Why don't they call rooks "chariots" anymore?
Why don't they call Bishops "Elephants" anymore?
Why don't they call Queens "ministers" anymore?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midevil European Culture changed things to what was more familiar/important to them. Queens were very important to them at the time, so the term was changed.
Also, the idea isn't that the Queen is literally out their fighting. The idea was that Queens held power over numerous subjects, therefore the piece is powerful.
Jul 18, 2011
0
#32
flashboy2222 wrote:
I dont know why a queen is doing more than a king
The king is you!!! He (or she if you are female) spends its time sitting in the castle, planning, similar to what you do at a chess board. The Queen directs followers, as she has authority over them.
When I used to play over the board, some people called my queen an unflattering B word. I probibly shouldn't have laughed.
by the way whats up with jestervilles anger issues?
...............................................................................................................
...the truth is I really don't know myself...just stress I guess...but it really ticks me off when people attack others for no reason what-so-ever...most of the time I would just ignore it...
...enough said...
...back on topic...this makes for very interesting reading, and has encouraged me to do some research on the history of these pieces...thanks to the OP.
N2UHC wrote:
BirdBrain wrote:
the general is typically the strongest fighter in the army.
Not really. In a real war, the general hides in his headquarters & sends orders out to the other troops telling them what to do. Kind of like the king on a chessboard.
Frankly, I don't care what they call that piece. Queen is the name I've learned it to be and the name that most people use for it, so I'll always call it the queen.
Well, in the older days (maybe not modernized American war) the general was on the battlefield with the warriors. He was the most skilled (supposed to be, at least) in the art of war. He held the most power. This was why I chose this. Even so, it does make for interesting discussion. :-)
in my village, somewhere in indonesia, 'queen' called 'ster' and king called 'skak'
i think everyname for piece have a meaning according to the initial language.
next question: where the chess game came from?
Interesting, I also thought about a better title for the Queen, but there is a reason for her in the game; so like the old saying goes: "If it isn't broke don't fix it."
BorogoveLM wrote:
Why don't they call rooks "chariots" anymore?
Why don't they call Bishops "Elephants" anymore?
Why don't they call Queens "ministers" anymore?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midevil European Culture changed things to what was more familiar/important to them. Queens were very important to them at the time, so the term was changed.
Also, the idea isn't that the Queen is literally out their fighting. The idea was that Queens held power over numerous subjects, therefore the piece is powerful.
Actually rukh means chariot in ancient Persian. So rooks are still called chariots (in English, at least), even though most of us don't realize that. In other languages they use names meaning castle or tower, which is the fault of the Italians (through which the game moved into Europe), who mistook rukh for rocca = fortress.
In Spain they still call a bishop an alfil (= Arabic for elephant). In no language other than English it is called something that means bishop, btw. But the reason for the name change might also be that at one stage of the evolution of Chess both pieces where on the board at the same time, and thus needed different names. In the medieval Courier Chess, played on a 12x8 board, each side had both two pieces that moved like the alfil from Arabic shatranj (jumping 2 squares diagonally) and two pieces moving like a modern bishop (called couriers).
Similarly both sides had a single piece moving as a ferz in shatranj (1 step diagonally), to the right of the white king, and a non-royal piece moving as a king, standing to the left of the white king. This latter piece occurred in the variant directly preceding modern Chess as Queen. (Before the so called Mad Queen variant that we play now overtook it in popularity.)
Bankwell, sorry if you had tried to hurt me by saying Osama, I don't think so. No doubt the King and the Queen are equal in terms of status as an entity; be it constitutional monarchy or real kingdom/queendom(?), be it first world, second world or third world; but not in terms of power at the same time. In all cases, either the king or the queen is in-charge and the ministers (Generals) fights the war for either of them.
In Polish Queen is a "Hetman", which can be roughly translated as Grandmarshall, Commander in Chief. In many languages , most of pieces are called different names and translation won't correspond.