Why can't the King be the Queen

I like chess the way it is where the noble & powerful queen protects the lazy king!

if the king moved like a queen then endgames would be affected the most, and the game would lose a lot of it's complexity, as the basic mates will probably require: 2B+2R+2N+5p+Q(king) or something...

should we make a list why not switch any quality of the king with any quality of the queen, because it seems like it's neccesary to settle the debate...

probably not what the original post was suggesting, but i was thinking about the idea of having the king and queen switch squares for black, for example. might be interesting having the opponents' king and queen opposite each other. castling in opposite directions would be the norm. it might lead to a lot of exciting attacking chess. just a thought.

interesting idea

In the early days of Chess (when it was still Chaturanga), there wasn't even a queen!  The piece was called a ferz, and he was more like an advisor to the king.  He also moved a lot less, as in only one space, diagonally only.  Clearly, the modern Chess queen is greatly improved, and even though the objective of the game is checkmate, I'm sure most players would agree that the queen is the most important attacking piece on the board.

In Makruk (Thai Chess), the kings and queens are not directly across from each other, as in modern Chess.  Of course, there are many other rules differences as well...

As many people are probably aware of, Bobby Fischer had suggested a new alternative to Chess called Chess960, which was a variant of Shuffle Chess.  This variant uses random locations for the major pieces and is worth checking out.

Anytime you change the basic rules though, you're not playing the original game.  So though it might be nice if you like the idea of switching the roles of the pieces, it isn't Chess as we know it.

I really think this post is intended to be satirical. Satire is so hard to detect in writing. Also, I found Upsetter's comment about anatomy incredibly humourous.