Hamsterlight wrote:
Whatever, a good Queen sacrifice can win the game, how the heck is that indispensable? LOL.
How the heck did you miss the word "most"?
Why is the most powerful, versatile and indispensable chess piece a woman?
Sort:
Jan 11, 2015
0
#203
How did you miss the fact that the king is most definitely the "most indispensible"? 
Elroch wrote:
How did you miss the fact that the king is most definitely the "most indispensible"?
He's so indispensible it's out of the question - absolutely, cannot be compared - you missed this one
Jan 11, 2015
0
#206
To amuse myself, I came up with the following some months ago:
"I used to think that chess was a feminist game - because the queen is the most powerful piece.....but then I realized that all she does is fight with the only other woman on the board, get chased around by boys, and try to mate the king....."
But as has already been stated, it wasn't Indian goddess practice that made the queen into the star of the game - it was a weird evolution process in the theory of chess, and it's not a very feminist atmosphere at most chess clubs =P
Jan 11, 2015
0
#207
AlisonHart wrote:
To amuse myself, I came up with the following some months ago:
"I used to think that chess was a feminist game - because the queen is the most powerful piece.....but then I realized that all she does is fight with the only other woman on the board, get chased around by boys, and try to mate the king....."
But as has already been stated, it wasn't Indian goddess practice that made the queen into the star of the game - it was a weird evolution process in the theory of chess, and it's not a very feminist atmosphere at most chess clubs =P
Best comment yet... well done Alison!!
Jan 11, 2015
0
#208
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
It's still so hard for westerners to understand that the 'Queen' is just a mistranslation of the word 'Wasir'. This world originally means 'Counsellor or Minister', and throughout the eastern part of Europe and chess playing part of Asia, people still use a variation of the word 'Wasir' to describe the piece.
The story goes that either a monk who was not sure how to translate persian mistranslated it to latin at the time of the Crusades when the game was brought into Europe, or that they purposely translated to 'Queen', because they didn't want to use the name the persians gave the piece.
Anyhow, the piece is not a woman.
My country uses the word 'Vezér' in official, that roughly translates to 'Leader [of an army]'.
Great comment!!!
Westren people suck!!
original message from ellie47:
" I am speculating that at the time chess was being developed in India there may have been a matriarchy in control. What do you think?"
I think that you would have to change pusher ! ;-)
First the queen is not themore powerful, versatile and indispensable piece on the board, if you lose your king you lose the game, without queen you may still play ! ;)
2) in oriental variants (Indian, Japanese, Chinese) are not "female figures" in chess, they was added from Arabs !!
Why ? Well if I have to speculate mu idea is that teoretically chess is a rappresentation of war but in doing it suck and ancient Arab thought that was a better rappresentation of politics so they added even a "female figure".
3) Arabs added queen but it become the more mobile piece only in Europe in the late Middle Age, so according your logic during Middle Age in Europe there was a matriarchy !!
In Arab variant the king was the more mobile piece but in this way to give the mate was very complicated it probably explay the "European change"
4) : no matriarchy are remembered in India (at least in the real political sense).
5) : if chess was the mirror of a matriachy queen would be a "stable" piece and and the king to rage around for her, but it is exactly the opposite !
6) for Ancient Greeks Athena was the goddess of knowledge and even (beetwen other things) of war (at least for strategic matter) so you would expect that in Ancient Greece scholars and generals was women, right ?
In reality, of course, was quite the opposite and they was mostly confinated in gynaeceum
7) even if some (many) people explay the few women in chess with "sexism against women" or because "stereotypes" in reality in last decades they had advantages comparated to men and they lacked the will of play: for centuries chess was really the game of nobility and even at times men was very more inclined to play chess that women of nobility !
And this happened even if usually was men that have to check political and economic matters, so they had (very) less free time that their female counterpart !!
Simple noble women preferred other passtimes !
So, if you allow me my speculation, the "strange roles exchange" in chess ( with the queen "raging around" instead of a "Knight in armor" ) is due ( a part the reasons already said) at fact that noble chessplayers dreamed more time for their beloved game and was wondering if a "raging queen" would be not useful ! ;-)
" the historical answer to your question is that the queen got her modern moves in spain during the reign of Isabella. Prior to that the 'queen' was actually a 'counselor' and was quite weak. The spanish changed it as a sort of honor to their much esteemed queen."
this theory appeared in a chess history book but there are some problems
1) the "chess historian" ( I dont remember his name) named a few of powerful queens including Elizabeth I that lived very later so the quality of his work is even lower to scandalistic gossip tabloid
2) even if "Spaniard" do it other countries have not to follow it in mandatory way so your explanations explay nothing.
3) "Spaniard"chess books was pubblished mostly in Rome: how to match it with the Pope ?
4) the change have to be precedent to Iseballa I so we are talking about the nothing
5) Isabella was ruler of Castilla and she married the king of Aragon and they unified their kingdom and ruled together so if the exchange have to mirror "Isabella's story" it had to be that to win you have to captute both king and queen ! ;)
because behind every great man is an even greater woman?
Because women can multi-tasking :)
Jan 12, 2015
0
#215
....and catch men in lies really ez.
Did you know the first piece a child learns how to move in chess is a King ?....'Cuz they're simple.
Women are indispensible. Some men too. Clearly not all men.
because a woman can make or break your life as a man.
Whatever, a good Queen sacrifice can win the game, how the heck is that indispensable? LOL.