Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Why is Queen more powerful than the King?


  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #1

    mariceldelara

    Why is it? while in reality even in palying the game.. women are almost always second in power? 

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #2

    richie_and_oprah

    more powerful does not mean more important or more valuable

    it is more powerful because it is capable of controlling a greater number of squares 

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #3

    letsgohome

    Happy wife, happy life brah. That is the philosophic prremise of chess which has proven true to this day. This is the most important thing you can learn from chess. Also, positivity brah is the most important thing you can learn in life.  

    The time when chess was popular many kings did not go battle, but stayed where in the castle however i have an argument here, where the queen in actuality is the general for the play a similiar role. In the dark ages the general was usally the best tactican and best fighter which the queen is  in chess is. Food for thought i may be just rambling

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #4

    waffllemaster

    In the past I don't think it was a queen (or female) and it couldn't move nearly as far (only 2 squares in any direction I think?)

    I'm not chess historian, so this is just a rough sketch lol.  When it moved to Europe the names of pieces changed and certain rules were added to help speed the game up.  Among these were pawns able to move two squares forward, en passant, castling, and increased range of the queen piece (whatever it was called at the time).

    Also you could say it's for practical purposes that the king is not the most mobile piece.  Imagine trying to checkmate a piece that can hop like a knight and move like a queen.  In fact, when it comes to game play the icons aren't meant to tell a story.  The movements and rules simply create a game rich in strategy and tactics.  The rook's solid brick walls and bishop's piety are frivolous historical relics or pure imagination unrelated to the game itself.  Similarly it's unnecessary to try to explain castling or promotion.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #5

    Mersaphe

    Because chess is a feminist game.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #6

    kco

    waffllemaster wrote:

    In the past I don't think it was a queen (or female) and it couldn't move nearly as far (only 2 squares in any direction I think?)

    I'm not chess historian, so this is just a rough sketch lol.  When it moved to Europe the names of pieces changed and certain rules were added to help speed the game up.  Among these were pawns able to move two squares forward, en passant, castling, and increased range of the queen piece (whatever it was called at the time).

    Also you could say it's for practical purposes that the king is not the most mobile piece.  Imagine trying to checkmate a piece that can hop like a knight and move like a queen.  In fact, when it comes to game play the icons aren't meant to tell a story.  The movements and rules simply create a game rich in strategy and tactics.  The rook's solid brick walls and bishop's piety are frivolous historical relics or pure imagination unrelated to the game itself.  Similarly it's unnecessary to try to explain castling or promotion.

    What you said in the first two paragraphs is correct. 

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #7

    CrimsonKnight7

    Because the King needed to know, that he was nothing without his subjects.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #8

    waffllemaster

    CrimsonKnight7 wrote:

    Because the King needed to know, that he was nothing without his subjects.

    Well... except all his subjects could be captured (killed?) while the king was never harmed even in defeat... in fact he sat in the corner all game while the rules forbid players from making a move that didn't remove the threat to his majesty.  I wouldn't quite characterize the game as pro-proletariat.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #9

    ivandh

    Would be a pretty lame game if the king could just capture any threatening piece.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #10

    letsgohome

    waffllemaster wrote:

    In the past I don't think it was a queen (or female) and it couldn't move nearly as far (only 2 squares in any direction I think?)

    I'm not chess historian, so this is just a rough sketch lol.  When it moved to Europe the names of pieces changed and certain rules were added to help speed the game up.  Among these were pawns able to move two squares forward, en passant, castling, and increased range of the queen piece (whatever it was called at the time).

    Also you could say it's for practical purposes that the king is not the most mobile piece.  Imagine trying to checkmate a piece that can hop like a knight and move like a queen.  In fact, when it comes to game play the icons aren't meant to tell a story.  The movements and rules simply create a game rich in strategy and tactics.  The rook's solid brick walls and bishop's piety are frivolous historical relics or pure imagination unrelated to the game itself.  Similarly it's unnecessary to try to explain castling or promotion.

    exactly my point the dark age- European influence brah

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #11

    letsgohome

    very good analysis

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #12

    creolord

    Queen Isabella etc etc if you search history.It's simply europeans dont had any concept of advisor.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #13

    Ziryab

    Marilyn Yalom, The Birth of the Chess Queen describes the several century process from the entrance of the queen in place of the vizier (noted by wafflemaster) and the queen becoming the most powerful piece during the reign of Queen Isabella of Spain.

    Yalom credits me with introducing our game to Spain in 822.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #14

    MrEdCollins

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #15

    CrimsonKnight7

    It is not true that Kings were never harmed nor even killed in combat. Anyway according to the origins of chess, (BatGirl's article) that is the main reason chess was invented, so the King could learn humility. Check her article out. You don't have to take my word for it, lol.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #16

    Soorat92

    I am not going to argue with the historical reasonings for why the queen came to be called a queen - but I like the way how we've all accepted the idea that the queen is always the second in power and the weaker sex

    Try telling that to these regal ladies:-

    Elizabeth Bathory

    Queen Boudica

    Queen Rani Lakshmibai

    Queen Zenobia

    Tamar of Georgia

    Wu Zetian

     

    I am sure there are plenty I've forgotten.

     

    I know British history is full of revered and often feared Queens

    Elizabeth I

    Victoria

    And lets not forget Mary I who put so many to death she earned the name Bloody Mary

     

    Lets face it queens have always kicked ass Kiss

    Quite right they should be represented as powerful figures on a chess board

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #17

    kco

    and Elizabeth II

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #18

    Soorat92

    Well yes I wasn't discounting our current queen

    I was just looking backwards through history rather than focusing on the present

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #19

    CANNABALCORPSE

    waffllemaster wrote:

    In the past I don't think it was a queen (or female) and it couldn't move nearly as far (only 2 squares in any direction I think?)

    I'm not chess historian, so this is just a rough sketch lol.  When it moved to Europe the names of pieces changed and certain rules were added to help speed the game up.  Among these were pawns able to move two squares forward, en passant, castling, and increased range of the queen piece (whatever it was called at the time).

    Also you could say it's for practical purposes that the king is not the most mobile piece.  Imagine trying to checkmate a piece that can hop like a knight and move like a queen.  In fact, when it comes to game play the icons aren't meant to tell a story.  The movements and rules simply create a game rich in strategy and tactics.  The rook's solid brick walls and bishop's piety are frivolous historical relics or pure imagination unrelated to the game itself.  Similarly it's unnecessary to try to explain castling or promotion.

    The queen could only move one square. The king could move two. Also the rooks and bishops could only move one square.

  • 12 mesi fa · Cita · #20

    Raja_Kentut

    I suspect chess was invented by a woman to keep men engrossed and occupied for hours. That's why the Queen is the most powerful piece on the board.


Torna a inizio pagina

Pubblica la tua risposta: