Stuff Non-Chess Players Say

Sort:
dragonair234
stormin1ca wrote:

Ok some of these are hilarious!   Thanks for posting 

Haha! Thanks! *hug* 

ThatChapThere

I'm sure there's some sort of rule in the business world that no cheap chess sets may by any means show a legal position. I've seen the black king and queen swapped, doubled pawns while all of the pieces are still on the board. And many legal positions are simply implausible random distributions of the pieces. Of course, some companies are very precise, like the one who sold the packet saying"contents: 32 chess men".

dragonair234

Now that I think of it... Technically it would be 30 chessmen and 4 chesswomen because of the queens, if the set comes with 2 extra queens. It's kind of weird that we would refer to a queen as a chessman. 

lol 

ThatChapThere

26chessmen, 2 chesswomen and 4 chessinanimateobjects. Rooks are chariots.

dragonair234

Wow, you're right!!!! (: 

Wind

Aren't the knights horses? I mean, I don't see a knight upon the horse, I just see a horse, plain and clear.

ThatChapThere

They are nonetheless symbolic, no matter how obtusely, of an adult male human.

Wind

Must have some imagination.

dragonair234
Newba wrote:

Must have some imagination.

That made me lol.

Then again we're moving around pieces and assigning movements to these pieces. That's quite imaginative already.  

dragonair234
Newba wrote:

Aren't the knights horses? I mean, I don't see a knight upon the horse, I just see a horse, plain and clear.

Hmm, yeah, but it still wouldn't be an "inanimate" object since it's symbolic of a horse. But if it also can't be called a chessman nor chesswoman, and chesshorse doesn't sound right either, maybe just "chess piece" will have to do. Unless someone can think of something better. 

dragonair234
ThatChapThere wrote:

They are nonetheless symbolic, no matter how obtusely, of an adult male human.

I would actually argue that the knight is not gendered. What makes you think it's male? Just curious. Also I don't understand how the knight is human at all. Any explanation? 

ThatChapThere

In medieval times it was standard for a knight to ride a horse in battle. In old chess sets a knight was a man on horseback, and the piece has retained it's name (in English anyway). Since a knighthood is a nonhereditary title, it can only be bestowed on an adult for merit in battle (or nowadays sports or the arts). The equivalent female title is lady (for the wife of a knight) or dame (for a woman of merit), hence male.

krudsparov

A conversation a short while back when my 9 year old grandson who'd just learnt some chess moves came in and said "I can beat granddad at chess" I said " haha, yeah sure" he said " YEAH! I CAN BEAT HIM" then the wife said " Don't be silly Brad, he's practically a grand master!" lol

Wind
dragonair234 wrote:
Newba wrote:

Must have some imagination.

Then again we're moving around pieces and assigning movements to these pieces. That's quite imaginative already.  

 

You're right!

In fact, it is kind of magical.

Iam2busy

When I record my games..."What's that nonsense?"

CookedQueen

"When I record my games..."What's that nonsense?""

Iam2busy

Why did u just repeat what I said?

spawkle529

When I  talk about how I do at a tournament to people who don't play chess.

Me:"Eh, I got 3/5."

Them:"What does that mean? Is that good, is that bad?"

Me:".... -.- ARE YOU FOR REAL??!?!?!?!?!"

CookedQueen
Iam2busy wrote:

Why did u just repeat what I said?

Why are you acusing me of something I didn't do?

Iam2busy

phpezQlsn.png@CookedQueen Screenshot here