but king suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks as a piece
Why is the king so weak in chess?
Sort:
if the king never fought till the end then what would it even be? it would just be forgotten and discarded along with its own army that fought to keep it safe at all costs for a better dream
The king personifies the player himself and symbolically controls other figures, the game as a whole. As historically, he loses and leaves the throne if his army loses.
The King is basically nothing less than a coward, apart from sending all his soldiers into battle, he also sends his wife into battle ! 🙀
The idea is more complex than that. On an ancient/medieval battlefield, orders would be relayed visually, since voices couldn't be heard over the clamor of battle. If the "king" (army commander) had to move from one end of the battlefield to another, the whole army would likely collapse and take flight, believing their commander to have been routed.
That's why the king only moves one space.
Woollensock2 wrote:
The King is basically nothing less than a coward, apart from sending all his soldiers into battle, he also sends his wife into battle ! 🙀
+1
Nov 22, 2021
0
#49
There is a king of Checkers - he was once a pawn - so he's agile - slashing through the whole board.
But a Chess king, he was Born a king - so he's spoiled, therefore slow.
Nov 22, 2021
0
#50
abc-big-boi wrote:
Woollensock2 wrote:
The King is basically nothing less than a coward, apart from sending all his soldiers into battle, he also sends his wife into battle ! 🙀
+1
If the player is Ivanchuk, then the king is no coward.
technically witout king we can't play the game!