BISHOP_e3 wrote:
Here's a pretty rook...
Now that's the best looking rook I've seen! Hell, I wouldn't trade that rook for two minor pieces.
Why Is the Rook so Short?
Sort:
Hey, FBloggs, " this thread's official historian, chessspy1." Isn't that enough for one lifetime?
Here is a sop to all the 'art' appreciators.
This is thought by some to be a 5th c chesspiece. (not me)
FBloggs wrote:
eulers_knot wrote:
28 pages of this thread and still the truth about why the rook is so short has not been revealed? And here I thought FBloggs advertised that he could get you nowhere faster. 28 pages! Harrumph.
Frankly, I'm surprised. It's a known fact that the filmmakers of This is Spinal Tap based their little Stonehenge bit on the historically-accurate inaccuracy of the size of the rook. When the game designer drew up the plans for the chess pieces, he inadvertently used the wrong unit symbol when dimensioning the piece. And now we're stuck with it.
Actually, the truth of the rook's height was revealed (at least to my satisfaction) 26 pages ago courtesy of this thread's official historian, chessspy1.
"Actually, this question about the relative sizes of the chess pieces does deserve to be taken seriously in my opinion.
"I have written an article on the origin of the Staunton pattern chess pieces which is the correct and last word which needs to be said on that.
"The Edel family of woodturners in Germany had quite a lot to say about the different size of the pieces, Micharl Edel said that the tops of the pieces should slope down in size if a rule were placed along the tops of the pieces when they were in their start positions.
"So it is the rooks destiny because of its position at the edge of the board to be the shortest of the main pieces."
So rather than 28 pages to nowhere, it was two pages to somewhere. Pretty damned efficient, no? Of course we're still here but that's 'cause we've got other things to talk about as well as looking at pictures of scantily clad women. Oh you missed that, huh?
Chessspy1's explanation might address latter day issues of minor changes in rook height, but does nothing to address the point that got this going, which is why the rook is so out of scale with the rest of the pieces. To wit:
FBloggs wrote:
The rook represents a castle. Castles are far taller than kings, queens, bishops and knights in the real world. Why is the rook so short? What king would have such a diminutive castle built? It would make His Highness a laughingstock! And what knight worth his salt would bother protecting a castle shorter than him? If this draws enough responses, I will start a petition.
Sure, you say that you accept chessspy1's explanation as the answer now, when it suits your whims as thread dictator. I don't know if you know it, but that's what they call denial. After 28 pages of drivel, only now when the real truth is presented to you--a truth so obvious and compelling, so plausible and practical-- must you reject it to bolster your reputation for efficiency and avert becoming a laughingstock. You are latching on to some sort of answer to keep your minions in line. You probably just don't recognize it, as your brain is befuddled by all those pictures of scantily clad women which you've been looking at.
I say this full well knowing it may displease you, my liege, but it's about time somebody told you that you're not wearing clothes. What kind of a king would have such a diminutive castle built? Indeed. What kind of thread dictator would accept a second order adjustment as the explanation for the original question at hand? The parallels are striking.
Well, Buford,
I made several copies of this as the original was kept in Algeria. It is an interesting turning exercise especially as it is supposed to be so old. The bottom is similar to a rooks castellations as you see and the top is similar to a modern king's cross.
BISHOP_e3 wrote:
She's a mighty fine piece for sure!
Don't play with minors.
Yes, a mighty fine piece - and not a minor. 
chessspy1 wrote:
Hey, FBloggs, " this thread's official historian, chessspy1." Isn't that enough for one lifetime?
Here is a sop to all the 'art' appreciators.
How many threads have official historians? Of course I take advantage of opportunities to announce it. By the way, nice queen.
chessspy1 wrote:
This is thought by some to be a 5th c chesspiece. (not me)
What do you think?
eulers_knot wrote:
Chessspy1's explanation might address latter day issues of minor changes in rook height, but does nothing to address the point that got this going, which is why the rook is so out of scale with the rest of the pieces. To wit:
FBloggs wrote:
The rook represents a castle. Castles are far taller than kings, queens, bishops and knights in the real world. Why is the rook so short? What king would have such a diminutive castle built? It would make His Highness a laughingstock! And what knight worth his salt would bother protecting a castle shorter than him? If this draws enough responses, I will start a petition.
Sure, you say that you accept chessspy1's explanation as the answer now, when it suits your whims as thread dictator. I don't know if you know it, but that's what they call denial. After 28 pages of drivel, only now when the real truth is presented to you--a truth so obvious and compelling, so plausible and practical-- must you reject it to bolster your reputation for efficiency and avert becoming a laughingstock. You are latching on to some sort of answer to keep your minions in line. You probably just don't recognize it, as your brain is befuddled by all those pictures of scantily clad women which you've been looking at.
I say this full well knowing it may displease you, my liege, but it's about time somebody told you that you're not wearing clothes. What kind of a king would have such a diminutive castle built? Indeed. What kind of thread dictator would accept a second order adjustment as the explanation for the original question at hand? The parallels are striking.
Thread Dictator? I don't like that title. Maybe Thread President for Life. What "real truth" (which is redundant, by the way) was presented to me? If you think I keep my "minions" in line, you haven't been following this thread. And since when do I have a reputation for efficiency? Your post didn't displease me. However, it gave me the impression you're not enjoying this thread, which may be not only the greatest but also the most enjoyable thread in the history of threads. That makes me more puzzled than displeased.
Speaking of short, here's the shortest decisive game in world championship history.
By the way, if you like playing over brilliant games, you should visit my other thread. And that reminds me.
Are you enjoying Why is the rook so short? What a stupid question! Of course you are! And that means you're sure to enjoy my other outstanding lighthearted thread, My rematch request was rejected! If you're sick and tired of sore losers whining about being denied their constitutional right to a rematch, join the thread dedicated to mocking them! Click on the link below to get My rematch request was rejected! And for a limited time, it's absolutely free!
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/my-rematch-request-was-rejected
But wait! There's more! Since you appreciate serious topics too, you'll also get my exceptional substantive thread, Favorite famous game. You'll find some of the best games of chess ever played and if you don't find your favorite, you can post it! Act now to get Favorite famous game free of charge! And you won't even have to pay additional processing and handling!
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/favorite-famous-game
That's right! You get both of these amazingly incredible threads at the unimaginable price of nothing! How can I possibly offer all this value for free? Volume! But you must act now! Tell 'em some guy who vaguely reminds you of Billy Mays sent you!
Morning Fred,
I don't know what the Butrint piece is. There are a number of problems in calling it a 5thc chess piece.
1st Chess is not mentioned in any literature until about the 10thc. Before chess, there were only race games similar to backgammon.
2nd the cross on top was not introduced until the 15thc
3rd, It does not resemble any of the other known early pieces (http://history.chess.free.fr/first-persian-russian.htm)
4th, the castellations, presumably meant as a base are something of a puzzle.
A little history of board games, in general, might be appropriate on this thread; if things are going to take a serious turn. I will think about it.
chessspy1 wrote:
Morning Fred,
I don't know what the Butrint piece is. There are a number of problems in calling it a 5thc chess piece.
1st Chess is not mentioned in any literature until about the 10thc. Before chess, there were only race games similar to backgammon.
2nd the cross on top was not introduced until the 15thc
3rd, It does not resemble any of the other known early pieces (http://history.chess.free.fr/first-persian-russian.htm)
4th, the castellations, presumably meant as a base are something of a puzzle.
A little history of board games, in general, might be appropriate on this thread; if things are going to take a serious turn. I will think about it.
You haven't let the lighthearted nature of this thread keep you from adding serious content. You've been doing that since the second page. Lighthearted or not, the thread is about a chess piece and thus information about the development of chess pieces and the game itself is appropriate. You don't have to wait for things to take a serious turn. Just do it.
BISHOP_e3 wrote:
Is that King Abdullah II? Looks like him.
Feb 12, 2018
0
#540
Here's a pretty rook...