I remember reading somewhere, which explained exactly why the king has minimal movement, & why the queen has so much, but I cant remember why.
Why can't the King be the Queen
Sort:
wow, now we have more people thinking "boys are the best" and "girls suck". honestly, the game would still work but whats the point in wasting time changing it??? So then boys rule???? or is it for some other reason???
The King isn't that weak of a piece. In the endgame his "raw strength" exceeds the bishop-knight level.
Popinjay: sure u can. just visualize the queen is really the king. when the queen is checkmated game is over cause the king would die of broken heart. just as it is in real life, if someone mated with my queen...
Interestingly.....in local Indian Chess games (or called "National" games), some of the tournaments/contests, the king is allowed to move like a Knight.. but it is only "once" and that too before getting any check. Hence, sometime it becomes very "deadly" when the opponent Queen or some powerful piece is near the king.
This is a completely pointless thread, but I shall grace it with this reply...
IF (IF!!!) there was any reason for argument over boys vs. girls, then just look at it this way... the King is the piece that needs protecting (the most important) but WEAKEST, and the Queen is the STRONGEST. Seems like a pretty fair deal to me.
Jan 27, 2009
0
#28
Why not rename Barbie to Action Man, I'll tell you why, because she isn't a man! 
Besides, let's face it, it takes balls to be a King on a Chess board doesn't it... anything can get you and the only things you have to hide behind are a few little brainless pawns. 
why not name queen to general and king to king
originally the queen wasnt a piece on the board. when it was invented, it was restricted to moving only diagonally, and one square at a time. obv it made games longer as it was harder to checkmate. gradually it was changed until it moves as it does now.
do you think that the rules for the different chess pieces will continue to change in the future?
(sorry its kinda off topic)
Evie33- Back in those days, the game was still being developed/improved. Also, I would say these changes may have come about accidentally (in the same way Chinese Whispers works.) With technology and communication as it is today, the game will likely remain static. (However, if chess was ever to be solved, then we may move on to a variant!)
OK...but...
What if everything was the same (Queen and King move as per current rules) But there were two rule ammendmants:
1. The object of the game is to capture the queen
2. The King may not be captured.
Well , as in real life the woman(queen) is the real power behind the throne. The King only appears to be in charge, but of course by manipulating pawns a King can get other Queens (trophy queens/wives)?? I guess in many ways chess is a metaphor for life!! Remember, Women rule, men drool!!! Good question, chess.com is great!!
Is that you in your av? If so, that's a very witty and inciteful suggestion you make. However, if you are male or just ugly, then it's a stupid suggestion. Yay feminism!
it doesnt chance anything
it doesnt change anything
all you femenists are trippin and yall need to put your house shoes on go make me a sandwich
This thread wins the award for post off topic posts ever
On Seinfeld - the TV show - Elaine once noted the difference -
"Men attack one another and do things like give wedgies"
Gerry asked - "What do Women do?"
Elaine replied - "We verbally abuse one another until someone gets an eating disorder"
I suppose it would be more "realistic", albeit somewhat gender biased, if we switched the mobility of the Queen and King. However, that would pose some difficult questions:
1. Wouldn't it be like almost impossible to checkmate a King if it can escape to like 20-something other squares when put into check?
2. New players would be punished all the time for attacking early with the Queen (King) and not seeing that it is attack by a random piece, thus he or she would be putting his Queen (King) into check, and the game would have to be stopped all the time. And this would be embarrassing =/
3. From a strategic military point-of-view, would battle stop if the Queen got checkmated but the King was still all-powerful and tearing up the battlefield? Maybe, but historically unlikely.