... and which "it" are you referring to?
Why is the most powerful, versatile and indispensable chess piece a woman?
Sort:
Dec 18, 2014
0
#23
Why is nature called mother nature,it would seem everything after man is in the feminine gender and therefore subjective to man except the big guy himself who putters around the cosmos chewing up stars
Ellie47 wrote:
Define "trolling"!
I will decline, since that will just start a discussion about how many chess.com trolls consider themselves to be "good guys" who are just livening up the forums and entertaining everyone.
As for "it", you said this was not a venue for attack, and I merely pointed out that I only asked a question (and gave you a helpful tip about the Facebook account you linked to in your profile, to boot).
ONE WORD:
monica lewinsky
Dec 18, 2014
0
#26
Pardon? I am trying to sort out someone who thinks this forum is his exclusive domain for damaging the reputation of other members, and why are you attacking Monica Lewinsky, that's history now and not relevant to anything currently happening in the world!
Ellie47 wrote:
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?
They say "Behind every great man is an awesome woman."
And every poor man, an awful woman.
MuhammadAreez10 wrote:
And every poor man, an awful woman.
It's hardly her fault he's a deadbeat.
You starting to understand how this works?
To answer the question: because the king let's her.
The queen may be the most powerful piece in the game, but her capture doesn't mean the end of the game.
Dec 18, 2014
0
#31
Yes the Indians had it correct didn't they, they could see that the poor old doddery king needed a sharp witted, spirited female to run his army and also protect him, poor guy, he'd be hopeless on his own wouldn't he, he can only move one square at a time!
Ellie47 wrote:
Yes the Indians had it correct didn't they, they could see that the poor old doddery king needed a sharp witted, spirited female to run his army and also protect him, poor guy, he'd be hopeless on his own wouldn't he, he can only move one square at a time!
Don't get the wrong idea; the queen does NOT run the army.
That is still the domain of the king, sweetie.
What are the king and queen doing together at the beginning of the game?
The queen can always be sacrificed as a means to an end.
Dec 18, 2014
0
#35
Don't you "sweetie" me, I am not in the mood to be done a line with. I am aware the queen can be captured or sacrificed but then what happens, her abandoned army are left to protect the old fool on their own! That's no easy task if the other side still has their queen!
Dec 18, 2014
0
#36
I log on to these threads for a bit of fun and I am always amazed at the amount of vitriol between conflicting opinion, lighten up everyone ,the queen is the pivotal piece on the board games are still won in her abscence but seldom I dont know her origin but I recommend a good book called the history of chess a great read and I also should re aquaint myself with it because I have forgotten but if we are talking gender are all the other pieces of the masculine type?I always regarded my Knights as fillys and the rooks are gay and the bishops are well and truly Bent
I think that Queen Isabel asked someoneonc something along the lines of "If the Queen is a royal piece, why is it the weakest piece on the board?", though that may be apocryphal - or I might be taking the TV series "Isabel" too seriously! 
At that time the Queen could generally only move one square diagonally.
At some point a variant ("Mad Queen Chess") arose and became popular (in which the Queen moved as it does in standard game today.
I have always heard of and seen queen sacrifices, but have never done one of my own. Any time I've ever lost my queen, it was a blunder, and I followed her loss up with a resignation. I'm just not willing to go on without her. Her loss is too much for me to bear.
It has been said that behind every successful man is a powerful woman.
Define "trolling"!