chessspy1 wrote:
Fred, you know the answer to that ^
But does Adam know? 
Why Is the Rook so Short?
Sort:
Adam, do you know?
If not, read some back postings which make all this abundantly clear. Abundantly CLEAR!
Very CLEAR.
Not just abundantly clear or even very clear, but kind of clear.
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
Should the rook be felted at both ends in case there is a queen shortage?
That's not a bad idea because there is often a queen shortage - especially when my opponent is one of those annoying people who refuse to resign. I make him wait until I've queened each of my pawns before putting him out of his misery. When I run out of upside down rooks, I use salt shakers and vanilla extract bottles if playing white - or if playing black, pepper shakers and Worcestershire sauce bottles.
Like this ?
Well, that's not exactly what I had in mind.
FBloggs wrote:
AdamCheng8 wrote:
the king and the queen are bigger than the rook because the queen and the king rule over the rook.(the king and the queen to a castle, the queen or the king controls the army(kinda))
Why are bishop and knight taller than the rook?
The rook is just a castle, so the rook cannot rule over the bishop and the knight since it's just a big manmade house made of wood, metal, and stone.
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
AdamCheng8 wrote:
the king and the queen are bigger than the rook because the queen and the king rule over the rook.(the king and the queen to a castle, the queen or the king controls the army(kinda))
Why are bishop and knight taller than the rook?
The rook is just a castle, so the rook cannot rule over the bishop and the knight since it's just a big manmade house made of wood, metal, and stone.
I didn't suggest that the rook rules over the bishop and knight. I asked why they're taller. Pay attention, man!
The knight and bishops are cooler that's why
what
Mar 2, 2018
0
#730
Interesting facts:
From the original chess game invented in India, the "queen" was not a queen piece. It was the King's minister, his right-hand-man, or main general (Commander of the Army). Called "Wazir".
When Western countries started playing chess, this piece got renamed as queen because it made more sense to them.
Side note - see the Indian bollywood movie titled Wazir. Very good!
EndgameStudier wrote:
The knight and bishops are cooler that's why
The knight and bishop are cooler than the rook? I've got a news flash for you, buddy. If it can't mate, it ain't cool.
ilovesmetuna wrote:
rocks don't grow.
Obviously you've studied geology.
mysteryicn wrote:
Interesting facts:
From the original chess game invented in India, the "queen" was not a queen piece. It was the King's minister, his right-hand-man, or main general (Commander of the Army). Called "Wazir".
When Western countries started playing chess, this piece got renamed as queen because it made more sense to them.
Side note - see the Indian bollywood movie titled Wazir. Very good!
I assumed it got renamed because westerners dig chicks.
BatDragon wrote:
what
You don't have to ask what in a forum. Just read it again.
@ilovesmetuna: By the way, how many posts are required in order for a thread to become an official blockbuster? I'll guess more than 800.
ilovesmetuna wrote:
we have failed threads, that started on a false premise and collapsed under their own weight such as the "science" (lolcopter) of evolution. that's been mocking human intelligence for a few years now. the main prerequisite of "blockbuster" category is that it's got more than 7 posters expressing joy joy feelings for at least 3 months, bloggsy.
That's an arbitrary standard. Who decides what posts express "joy joy feelings"? I'm not buying that. I'll consider this thread a blockbuster of sorts when it hits 1000 posts.
ilovesmetuna wrote:
well i am enjoying it even though you think the thread is basically a pile of crap, and i reckon the 2 criteria for blockbusterization will have been fulfilled on 1000.
I think what thread is basically a pile of crap? Surely you cannot be referring to Why Is the Rook so Short? I have, on several occasions, referred to this thread as the greatest thread in the history of threads!
ilovesmetuna wrote:
i stand corrected (yet again).
That's cool. But you thought I had a low opinion of this thread? Not sure why you thought that. Maybe it was because I've mentioned that I created it as a parody of stupid forum topics. I like this thread for a couple of reasons. First, it's been my most successful and second, it has been a good blend of humor and information (the latter thanks mostly to chessspy1, the thread's official historian).
I'll help to give a push to achieve 800
Fred, you know the answer to that ^