Yeah, or advisor. It became the queen over time. If I had to guess, it was thanks to chivalry producing the original simps.
https://i.imgur.com/nVKmSYl.jpg
why is the queen the most powerful chess piece? shouldn't it be the king?
I think it’s because the piece was originally referred to as “Queen’s Champion”? Basically the king would want the baddest dude to keep his wife safe. Though the scenario of chess suggests I guess the dude is also still brought to the field. Might be a myth since I think I heard it hear.
I haven't seen anything like that. I think the vizier or general makes the most sense since they are next to the king and capable of making moves that the king cannot.
Apparently it was called the vizier in the Arabic world, but it wasn't as powerful as the current version of the queen. Historians seem to believe the current version of the queen coincided with the rise of female monarchs in Europe like Elizabeth I.
The queen could originally only move 1 square diagonally. The queen was given more power because strong female monarchs at the time and to signify that a king was useless with out his queen. The queen was given its modern move in a game called the queen's chess or madwoman's chess.
She was also called the Counselor at that time, not the queen.
The queen’s power up comes alongside a bunch of others to other pieces that basically sped up the gameplay of chess and made it so that the e first phase of the game wasn’t just setting up formations with no interaction. Hang on, I wrote a story where I broadly described the differences between proto-chess and modern chess…
> “Golly! You look great! But anyway, I see the problem. The rules of chess have changed a whole lot!” Her wings started beating as she flew over to a nearby table, then brought back chess pieces from it. She began laying them out. “The pawn can move two spaces on its opening move, and when it reaches the eighth rank it can be promoted to any piece instead of just a counselor. The rook, knight, and king move the same. The bishop moves diagonally any number of spaces instead of just two, and it doesn’t jump. The counselor is the queen now. Instead of moving one space diagonally, it can move any number of spaces in any direction!”
Except “king & queen” has never been a thing outside of fiction. In European monarchies there is 1 ruling monarch, the king OR queen, and their spouse is just their consort
No moron, that's only the case for a ruling queen because the title of king is considered higher than the title of queen. A ruling queen's husband is called a prince because if he was called a king he'd technically be of higher status than the actual monarch. A ruling king's wife is still just called a queen.
See:
King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands.
Except “king & queen” has never been a thing outside of fiction. In European monarchies there is 1 ruling monarch, the king OR queen, and their spouse is just their consort
See:
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip
You are both wrong and right because like most shit in history it depends.
Also if you translate shit it gets worse too.
Queen Regnant is new term.
Historical both Princes as husband and King Consort were used.
Queen Consort is technically also a correct term but mostly noone gives a shit
Ya know, if people actually understood that time and space matter when discussing history and not just eras as they learned in school, and that plenty culturally, politically, and even religiously can change even in as little as a few years, these discussions would include dates and people, rather than just random eras. Or more probably these discuss would never happen. But people are, as usual, stupid about history and still paddle shit they've learned in school that has never been accurate but is thought because... Ease of teaching? I don't fricking know. I never understood these gross oversimplifications.
How am I in any way wrong? The first guy was claiming there *never* were simultaneous kings and queens in European monarchies, then used the modern example of the British queen and prince consort as proof. So I used another modern royal house as an example to show he's wrong and explained the confusion. At not one point in my post do I use past tense or refer to past situations.
In actual chess, there is no queen, it's a vizier (Advisor) which can only move 1 diagonal, making him less powerful than a king.
It was in 15th century Spain that Queen Isabella decided to just cheat at chess by replacing the advisor with a queen that is a mary sue that is as fast as a rook in straight lines and goes fast as a rook on diagonals as well (no other piece could ever do this before, the positions of the bishops were elephants that could only hop 2 diagonal and were vastly weaker than bishop)
Or maybe this figure is just called the Vizier in modern chess, you dumb amerishart.
Nobody uses the term Vizier in any non-contrarian variant of the game. You need to take your meds.
Cope. Ameristan rules the world and you're speaking our language right now.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and you're speaking our language right now.
Thats because Ganker would ban people speaking other language.
some /misc/ anons tried once to learn an unknown conlang and speak there to make sure if some governamental organization was watching Ganker they wouldnt be able to disguise as a user as they would need to learn the conlang (they would be forced to as no one naturally speaks it and its worthless elsewhere).
There is high rotation around those companies and so people that will be hired would need to learn the conlang before even talk with them and if they arent fluent it would show.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(chess)
Look at nomenclature. Vizier, Minister, and Counselor appears 20 times. Queen, Lady, and Empress appear 46. I gave it to the Vizier every time both appear. There's also Flag once in Estonian, Hetmen once in Polish, and whatever the frick Kgošigadi is.
>In actual chess, there is no queen, it's a vizier
no there's a fricking queen you contrarian shit, nobody plays the 14th century variant of the game save maybe for hipster homosexuals like you.
And probably not even the correct version of 14th century chess. Around that time the King had to be captured, not just mated. The mate was introduced because it's basically "no matter how you move I'll capture it, so GG".
She was also called the Counselor at that time, not the queen.
The queen’s power up comes alongside a bunch of others to other pieces that basically sped up the gameplay of chess and made it so that the e first phase of the game wasn’t just setting up formations with no interaction. Hang on, I wrote a story where I broadly described the differences between proto-chess and modern chess…
> “Golly! You look great! But anyway, I see the problem. The rules of chess have changed a whole lot!” Her wings started beating as she flew over to a nearby table, then brought back chess pieces from it. She began laying them out. “The pawn can move two spaces on its opening move, and when it reaches the eighth rank it can be promoted to any piece instead of just a counselor. The rook, knight, and king move the same. The bishop moves diagonally any number of spaces instead of just two, and it doesn’t jump. The counselor is the queen now. Instead of moving one space diagonally, it can move any number of spaces in any direction!”
I actually quite enjoy that. But it was also not very competitive. Just setting up your own position until you decided it's good enough and you don't want to give your opponent more time, then it ends within a few turns... It's interesting, I like it, very army like, but I understand why it isn't used these days.
In actual chess, there is no queen, it's a vizier (Advisor) which can only move 1 diagonal, making him less powerful than a king.
It was in 15th century Spain that Queen Isabella decided to just cheat at chess by replacing the advisor with a queen that is a mary sue that is as fast as a rook in straight lines and goes fast as a rook on diagonals as well (no other piece could ever do this before, the positions of the bishops were elephants that could only hop 2 diagonal and were vastly weaker than bishop)
>In actual chess, there is no queen, it's a vizier
no there's a fricking queen you contrarian shit, nobody plays the 14th century variant of the game save maybe for hipster homosexuals like you.
I don't see why autistic chuds would make this an issue. The most important figure is the king, because he gets captured the game ends. The queen could get taken, a second queen could get taken, etc. and the game continues.
It's the "Queen's Guard", not the Queen herself.
Basically, while the King's Guard were elite soldiers, they were kept in reserve as a last line of defense, and were not allowed to travel any great distance. The Queen's Guard, however, were also elite soldiers, but were able to perform missions even abroad, during which time the King's Guard would protect the Queen. In general, the Queen's guard was less tasked with actually protecting the Queen, and more as a task force that focused on mobility as opposed to defense.
[...]
[...]
I think it’s because the piece was originally referred to as “Queen’s Champion”? Basically the king would want the baddest dude to keep his wife safe. Though the scenario of chess suggests I guess the dude is also still brought to the field. Might be a myth since I think I heard it hear.
It's the Queen's Guard, not Champion, ie. a group of men, not a single man.
Chess is not 1 piece=1 man, unless you would expect two kings to wage war with sixteen people each. Each piece is a full unit, representing possibly even hundreds of men.
With that said, everything else falls into place. It's not some plucky peasant managing to take down an armored knight, it's a field of infantry standing fast and taking down a group of cavalry. It's not a tower roaming across the land, nor a single man in that tower, but the garrison within the tower. It's not a single bishop, but the military attachment fueled by the church's coffers.
And, it's not a lone Queen doing the fighting, or a singular champion representing the Queen. It's the Queen's Guard, an elite group of soldiers who were nominally in charge of protecting the Queen, but in practice were used as a flexible unit outside of the standard military organization and thus able to mobilize quickly under the direct (or near direct) order of the King. While the King's Guard were also under the immediate and direct orders of the King, their responsibility was in fact to protect the King as their name would imply, and thus were not able to move very far from the King himself. However, with the Queen usually being in relative proximity to the King, the King's Guard would be more than enough to serve to protect both of them, hence the Queen's Guard being freed up to really just be a highly mobile force the king could direct to perform various missions, including ones that traveled far from his seat of power.
Fun fact. At various points Pawns were called different things. And sometimes even based in the positioning, like Innkeeper in front of the left Bishop and Doctor in front of the Queen.
Also I would say Bishop makes sense as an army unit. Not a singular bishop but lead by a bishop-warrior, which were common during the Crusades. But something like the Templar would make sense as well, a knightly religious order.
The Rook it's actually based on a siege tower. Makes sense since the elephant didn't make sense for Europeans. Chariot would, but they've been phased out of combat by that point and Knight makes more sense anyways. The Lewis chess, though probably decorative, used berserkers. But a bunch of languages do call it Tower, Turret, Canon, Castle, and some Ship. I prefer Canon myself.
Weirdly enough, the Bishop was also represented as an Elephant sometimes, and in that case the Rook was the Chariot more often than not. But it was also represented as a Camel. We call it Runner or Courier, but I've also heard Shooter or Spearman. I know Italians call it Flag-bearer (Wikipedia says Standard-bearer). Wikipedia also says Hunter, Minister, Officer, and Counselor.
The Knight we call Jumper, and is otherwise called (Riding) Horse, (Mounted) Rider, Mounted Warrior, Hussar, and Donkey for the Sicilians.
All in all, depends on the culture. Hussar makes sense, and in less Christian countries Bishop wouldn't have been used.
No idea of what are you talking about OP.
The Shah (king) is flanked by:
- His general or counsellor (Ferz), that moves one square diagonally
- His vizier or governor (Wazir) that moves one square horizontally or vertically
I recommend to do not play chess if the designer didn't build a pyramid of skulls or two.
Queen Isabella in the 15th century managed to aquire enough power that they changed the rules of chess to reflect this
http://www.uschesstrust.org/the-emergence-of-two-powerful-queens-queen-isabella-of-spain-and-the-chess-queen/#:~:text=It%20was%20not%20until%201495,Queen%20Isabella%2C%20is%20no%20coincidence.
The king might be the head, but the queen is the neck. Where the neck turns, the head looks. This is how most human relationships between men and women work.
I guess to ask just in general, what are your guys favorite historical (let's say before the 16th century when the modern rules were solidified) variants or rules? How about games similar to chess, like shogi or xiangqi?
My favorite variant is Tamerlane chess. Its complexity intrigues me.
For rules I really like King has to be captured, and doesn't disallow putting your King in weird positions. It's a bit of mind games, but was ultimately a trap for new players.
I like shogi, but the Mongolian Shatar looks interesting as well. While not exactly chess, tafl and senet are also amongst my favorites. More so than Ur.
The king is a figurehead
The queen Is a prostitute, but ultimately sucks her way to the top for the good of her kings lands
Pretty accurate huh?
Maybe if you are the queen.
Knights are objectively the best piece for messing with book play nerds
wasn't it originally called the general?
Yeah, or advisor. It became the queen over time. If I had to guess, it was thanks to chivalry producing the original simps.
Fricking sjws ruin everything!
Check your privilege, chud. I won't have you besmirching women on my watch!
Check thine status, knave.
I think it’s because the piece was originally referred to as “Queen’s Champion”? Basically the king would want the baddest dude to keep his wife safe. Though the scenario of chess suggests I guess the dude is also still brought to the field. Might be a myth since I think I heard it hear.
I haven't seen anything like that. I think the vizier or general makes the most sense since they are next to the king and capable of making moves that the king cannot.
Apparently it was called the vizier in the Arabic world, but it wasn't as powerful as the current version of the queen. Historians seem to believe the current version of the queen coincided with the rise of female monarchs in Europe like Elizabeth I.
https://www.chess.com/blog/kiwi_overtherainbow/chess-history--the
So yeah, chivalry simps.
shut up chud she is an empowered womyn piece
Finland was the first European state to give women voting rights.
The queen could originally only move 1 square diagonally. The queen was given more power because strong female monarchs at the time and to signify that a king was useless with out his queen. The queen was given its modern move in a game called the queen's chess or madwoman's chess.
She was also called the Counselor at that time, not the queen.
The queen’s power up comes alongside a bunch of others to other pieces that basically sped up the gameplay of chess and made it so that the e first phase of the game wasn’t just setting up formations with no interaction. Hang on, I wrote a story where I broadly described the differences between proto-chess and modern chess…
> “Golly! You look great! But anyway, I see the problem. The rules of chess have changed a whole lot!” Her wings started beating as she flew over to a nearby table, then brought back chess pieces from it. She began laying them out. “The pawn can move two spaces on its opening move, and when it reaches the eighth rank it can be promoted to any piece instead of just a counselor. The rook, knight, and king move the same. The bishop moves diagonally any number of spaces instead of just two, and it doesn’t jump. The counselor is the queen now. Instead of moving one space diagonally, it can move any number of spaces in any direction!”
Except “king & queen” has never been a thing outside of fiction. In European monarchies there is 1 ruling monarch, the king OR queen, and their spouse is just their consort
See:
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip
No moron, that's only the case for a ruling queen because the title of king is considered higher than the title of queen. A ruling queen's husband is called a prince because if he was called a king he'd technically be of higher status than the actual monarch. A ruling king's wife is still just called a queen.
See:
King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands.
You are both wrong and right because like most shit in history it depends.
Also if you translate shit it gets worse too.
Queen Regnant is new term.
Historical both Princes as husband and King Consort were used.
Queen Consort is technically also a correct term but mostly noone gives a shit
Ya know, if people actually understood that time and space matter when discussing history and not just eras as they learned in school, and that plenty culturally, politically, and even religiously can change even in as little as a few years, these discussions would include dates and people, rather than just random eras. Or more probably these discuss would never happen. But people are, as usual, stupid about history and still paddle shit they've learned in school that has never been accurate but is thought because... Ease of teaching? I don't fricking know. I never understood these gross oversimplifications.
How am I in any way wrong? The first guy was claiming there *never* were simultaneous kings and queens in European monarchies, then used the modern example of the British queen and prince consort as proof. So I used another modern royal house as an example to show he's wrong and explained the confusion. At not one point in my post do I use past tense or refer to past situations.
Have you never heard or William III(II) and Mary II?
This is why it's called the Vizier in normal languages.
Nobody uses the term Vizier in any non-contrarian variant of the game. You need to take your meds.
You take your rat poison, you dumb frick. It's called Vizier across half the globe.
Certainly not in the half that matters
That would be the half without ameristan, so yes.
Cope. Ameristan rules the world and you're speaking our language right now.
>and you're speaking our language right now.
Thats because Ganker would ban people speaking other language.
some /misc/ anons tried once to learn an unknown conlang and speak there to make sure if some governamental organization was watching Ganker they wouldnt be able to disguise as a user as they would need to learn the conlang (they would be forced to as no one naturally speaks it and its worthless elsewhere).
There is high rotation around those companies and so people that will be hired would need to learn the conlang before even talk with them and if they arent fluent it would show.
Anyway they tried that and were banned.
Take your meds
You are speaking ENGLISH you Septic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_(chess)
Look at nomenclature. Vizier, Minister, and Counselor appears 20 times. Queen, Lady, and Empress appear 46. I gave it to the Vizier every time both appear. There's also Flag once in Estonian, Hetmen once in Polish, and whatever the frick Kgošigadi is.
And probably not even the correct version of 14th century chess. Around that time the King had to be captured, not just mated. The mate was introduced because it's basically "no matter how you move I'll capture it, so GG".
I actually quite enjoy that. But it was also not very competitive. Just setting up your own position until you decided it's good enough and you don't want to give your opponent more time, then it ends within a few turns... It's interesting, I like it, very army like, but I understand why it isn't used these days.
Kgošigadi apparently means Queen. So make that 47-21-Flag. Hetmen isn't Vizier, but it is a military commander, so I think it would count, no?
>third world tongues
>normal
In actual chess, there is no queen, it's a vizier (Advisor) which can only move 1 diagonal, making him less powerful than a king.
It was in 15th century Spain that Queen Isabella decided to just cheat at chess by replacing the advisor with a queen that is a mary sue that is as fast as a rook in straight lines and goes fast as a rook on diagonals as well (no other piece could ever do this before, the positions of the bishops were elephants that could only hop 2 diagonal and were vastly weaker than bishop)
>In actual chess, there is no queen, it's a vizier
no there's a fricking queen you contrarian shit, nobody plays the 14th century variant of the game save maybe for hipster homosexuals like you.
Or maybe this figure is just called the Vizier in modern chess, you dumb amerishart.
I don't see why autistic chuds would make this an issue. The most important figure is the king, because he gets captured the game ends. The queen could get taken, a second queen could get taken, etc. and the game continues.
Because the woke radical left has ruined chess with their political shoehorning.
It's the "Queen's Guard", not the Queen herself.
Basically, while the King's Guard were elite soldiers, they were kept in reserve as a last line of defense, and were not allowed to travel any great distance. The Queen's Guard, however, were also elite soldiers, but were able to perform missions even abroad, during which time the King's Guard would protect the Queen. In general, the Queen's guard was less tasked with actually protecting the Queen, and more as a task force that focused on mobility as opposed to defense.
This.
My grandfather taught it as being "The Queen's Champion" and saw it as someone like Lancelot.
It's the Queen's Guard, not Champion, ie. a group of men, not a single man.
Chess is not 1 piece=1 man, unless you would expect two kings to wage war with sixteen people each. Each piece is a full unit, representing possibly even hundreds of men.
With that said, everything else falls into place. It's not some plucky peasant managing to take down an armored knight, it's a field of infantry standing fast and taking down a group of cavalry. It's not a tower roaming across the land, nor a single man in that tower, but the garrison within the tower. It's not a single bishop, but the military attachment fueled by the church's coffers.
And, it's not a lone Queen doing the fighting, or a singular champion representing the Queen. It's the Queen's Guard, an elite group of soldiers who were nominally in charge of protecting the Queen, but in practice were used as a flexible unit outside of the standard military organization and thus able to mobilize quickly under the direct (or near direct) order of the King. While the King's Guard were also under the immediate and direct orders of the King, their responsibility was in fact to protect the King as their name would imply, and thus were not able to move very far from the King himself. However, with the Queen usually being in relative proximity to the King, the King's Guard would be more than enough to serve to protect both of them, hence the Queen's Guard being freed up to really just be a highly mobile force the king could direct to perform various missions, including ones that traveled far from his seat of power.
Fun fact. At various points Pawns were called different things. And sometimes even based in the positioning, like Innkeeper in front of the left Bishop and Doctor in front of the Queen.
Also I would say Bishop makes sense as an army unit. Not a singular bishop but lead by a bishop-warrior, which were common during the Crusades. But something like the Templar would make sense as well, a knightly religious order.
The Rook it's actually based on a siege tower. Makes sense since the elephant didn't make sense for Europeans. Chariot would, but they've been phased out of combat by that point and Knight makes more sense anyways. The Lewis chess, though probably decorative, used berserkers. But a bunch of languages do call it Tower, Turret, Canon, Castle, and some Ship. I prefer Canon myself.
Weirdly enough, the Bishop was also represented as an Elephant sometimes, and in that case the Rook was the Chariot more often than not. But it was also represented as a Camel. We call it Runner or Courier, but I've also heard Shooter or Spearman. I know Italians call it Flag-bearer (Wikipedia says Standard-bearer). Wikipedia also says Hunter, Minister, Officer, and Counselor.
The Knight we call Jumper, and is otherwise called (Riding) Horse, (Mounted) Rider, Mounted Warrior, Hussar, and Donkey for the Sicilians.
All in all, depends on the culture. Hussar makes sense, and in less Christian countries Bishop wouldn't have been used.
work on your art
No idea of what are you talking about OP.
The Shah (king) is flanked by:
- His general or counsellor (Ferz), that moves one square diagonally
- His vizier or governor (Wazir) that moves one square horizontally or vertically
I recommend to do not play chess if the designer didn't build a pyramid of skulls or two.
Captcha: DAM G0
Do you have any idea how powerful the king is? If you lose it you might as well just quit.
>the inventor of chess was an /ss/ chad
Queen Isabella in the 15th century managed to aquire enough power that they changed the rules of chess to reflect this
http://www.uschesstrust.org/the-emergence-of-two-powerful-queens-queen-isabella-of-spain-and-the-chess-queen/#:~:text=It%20was%20not%20until%201495,Queen%20Isabella%2C%20is%20no%20coincidence.
She's the queen, she does whatever she wants.
The king might be the head, but the queen is the neck. Where the neck turns, the head looks. This is how most human relationships between men and women work.
YWNBAW
Because the king has excellent taste and married a hot female knight waifu
>why is the queen the most powerful chess piece?
The king is the victory condition of the game.
that's the most powerful piece.
Because western europeans are cucks. In proper countries it's usually called vizier/advisor/general
because the checkerboard looks like a kitchen floor.
I guess to ask just in general, what are your guys favorite historical (let's say before the 16th century when the modern rules were solidified) variants or rules? How about games similar to chess, like shogi or xiangqi?
My favorite variant is Tamerlane chess. Its complexity intrigues me.
For rules I really like King has to be captured, and doesn't disallow putting your King in weird positions. It's a bit of mind games, but was ultimately a trap for new players.
I like shogi, but the Mongolian Shatar looks interesting as well. While not exactly chess, tafl and senet are also amongst my favorites. More so than Ur.