😕
What are the Chess pieces fighting over?
Sort:
They made a bet, the loser have to read your and 2Q1C's posts forever.
That is why they try so hard to win.
Pashak1989 wrote:
They made a bet, the loser have to read your and 2Q1C's posts forever.
That is why they try so hard to win.
Hahaha!
Feb 22, 2017
0
#5
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
What are the Chess pieces fighting over?
There's only one potato chip left, and they've decided to settle the matter like civilized gentlemen.
it would be nice to see a match where 2 players sat down, and made peace before the first move, and decided to draw. war is sad
They fight, but when Black swoops in for the kill, White says something about his mom being Martha and they become friends.
Feb 22, 2017
0
#8
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
The start of every chess game is a proclamation of war.
The two sides, one black, one white, sit peacefully across each other on a checkered plane. Then suddenly and seemingly without warning, the general of the white pieces commands one of his men to move forward. And into the direction of the pieces, with whom he shares every characteristic except the contrast of colour, he marches. A proclamation of war.
Naturally, the general of the black pieces responds to this pertinent threat. And in a matter of a few moves the two sides are engaged in a conflict that leaves one a winner and the other a loser.
However, their established rules of war are so well respected and followed that one begins to question why the two sides, so indistinguishable in nature, would ever contest one another.
What are the Chess pieces fighting over?
What sparks White's movement forward?
Please share your thoughts.
In all seriousness, they are fighting to hold the enemy king as hostage or for ransom, since the goal of the game is to capture the enemy king alive. "Checkmate" comes from the French "eschec mat" which in turn comes from the Persian, "shah mat" which means "the king is helpless" or "the king is stumped."
In ancient Persian-Sumerian-Babylonian-Hittite conrolled areas of the Middle East, it was seldom that any of those empires placed their own people in direct control of all the city states: they often accepted the allegiance of subjugated kings, who paid huge taxes for the right of keeping their city-state going. The taxes were such a burden that there were rebellions. The most cost-efficient way to repair the situation was to capture the king of the town and take him to the capital of the empire as a hostage, while putting a son, brother, etc. of the captured king on the city-state's thrown and raising the taxes. The hostages life depended on a smooth flow of taxes.
Darylprater wrote:
this happens more often than you think...agreeing to a draw before the game in the last round between friends to tie for 1st in otb and share the prize money...master tournaments i doubt you will see it though
it would be nice to see a match where 2 players sat down, and made peace before the first move, and decided to draw. war is sad
Feb 22, 2017
0
#10
Perhaps there needs to some lefty variant of chess, where the players show that Black and White pieces can co-exist harmoniously. After all, 64 squares should provide plenty of room for 32 pieces.
The chess pieces are pacifists if left alone. It's humans that make them fight.
but what a beautiful end, where in a violent orgy which sees pawns and pieces ripped to shreds and sent to chessic heaven.... perhaps immediately after some gender changing event. one of the aged king; fearful of getting the slightest bruise admits in regal grandeur, "ok, you won! it was only a game"
now the pawns and pieces scattered to purgatory and violently tossed to the depths of the "floor" are reborn for a new round of violence, fear, and cowardice.
.......
I think honestly, we might have grew out of this dark ages sport; (chasing the landscape with overgrown butter knives for mythical "dragon" monsters was another similar sport)-- except that. its a game and we all love to WIN!
IpswichMatt wrote:
Perhaps there needs to some lefty variant of chess, where the players show that Black and White pieces can co-exist harmoniously. After all, 64 squares should provide plenty of room for 32 pieces.
Indeed, but 64 squares for 16 pieces is even better. I understand everything now.
Feb 22, 2017
0
#15
It's obviously a war for world domination. If you played Civilization, Risk or similar games, you would understand.
kingofshedinjas wrote:
It's obviously a war for world domination. If you played Civilization, Risk or similar games, you would understand.
No need for snootiness.
penandpaper0089 wrote:
They want to be king of de castle.
*the hill
Nice words with the analogy but you could also think in a way more positive way. The pawns are marching forward to surround the queen for a group-meeting while bishop and company don't join the wet party, instead work on a battle to finally get rid of the king because he'd never let his queen go and have fun with the other party. So he must get killed, the harder the better and the queen is ours! It's all about the queen, the king is just the key to get her!
The start of every chess game is a proclamation of war.
The two sides, one black, one white, sit peacefully across each other on a checkered plane. Then suddenly and seemingly without warning, the general of the white pieces commands one of his men to move forward. And into the direction of the pieces, with whom he shares every characteristic except the contrast of colour, he marches. A proclamation of war.
Naturally, the general of the black pieces responds to this pertinent threat. And in a matter of a few moves the two sides are engaged in a conflict that leaves one a winner and the other a loser.
However, their established rules of war are so well respected and followed that one begins to question why the two sides, so indistinguishable in nature, would ever contest one another.
What are the Chess pieces fighting over?
What sparks White's movement forward?
Please share your thoughts.