@Cindy_Pu
This sounds like a very philosophically feminist question.
This isn't a question about chess, but about gender roles.
You need to study history.
Most kings are chosen because of their valor in Warfare.
Historically, it's a man role to provide and to protect.
Men would rarely assume the throne by virtue of politics.
It begins with the ability to protect ones people.
Same with tribal leaders... they are the leaders because they have lead in war.
Because chess is a centuries old game the modern feminist ideologies didn't exist.
A queen is the WIFE of the king. That's what makes her the queen.
If a woman is the sole ruler, it is because she is a widow and her husband's son is young and is being prepared to be king.
Some people call this concept patriarchy, but it truly stems from the leaders most proven in battle.
There are a few examples in different historical cultures where women went to war, and as a result, the most valiant became ruler of the land. This happened in Ghana History.
But we all know that biologically, men are stronger than women and that women need to be protected because they carry the reproductive ability with the role of protecting the children while then men are away being men.
In this modern society, we've created women's only leagues so that women can compete at an exhibition level and receive achievements in their own rites, but you'll never see the strongest woman fighting the strongest man in an MMA match.
She cant compete.
You'll never see a woman compete against the likes of Gary Kasporov, or a Magnus Carlsen, or any of the world champs.
They can't compete. Chess, like fighting displays the innate disparities between natural ability and competitiveness of men and women.
In chess, the queen is the most powerful piece having a monetary value of 9, but the king is most important, having an unlimited value. When the king dies, the game is over. When the queen is captured, traded or is sacrificed, the game continues.
It's a very feminist idea to question why the queen isn't the most important piece.
It's a very feminist idea to suggest that the queen take the place of the king.
Until a woman becomes world champion, this shouldn't even be a topic of conversation.
Until a woman dethrones Magnus Carlsen, All hail the KING!
1Peter 2:17-
Respect all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King.
This sounds like a very philosophically feminist question.
This isn't a question about chess, but about gender roles.
You need to study history.
Most kings are chosen because of their valor in Warfare.
Historically, it's a man role to provide and to protect.
Men would rarely assume the throne by virtue of politics.
It begins with the ability to protect ones people.
Same with tribal leaders... they are the leaders because they have lead in war.
Because chess is a centuries old game the modern feminist ideologies didn't exist.
A queen is the WIFE of the king. That's what makes her the queen.
If a woman is the sole ruler, it is because she is a widow and her husband's son is young and is being prepared to be king.
Some people call this concept patriarchy, but it truly stems from the leaders most proven in battle.
There are a few examples in different historical cultures where women went to war, and as a result, the most valiant became ruler of the land. This happened in Ghana History.
But we all know that biologically, men are stronger than women and that women need to be protected because they carry the reproductive ability with the role of protecting the children while then men are away being men.
In this modern society, we've created women's only leagues so that women can compete at an exhibition level and receive achievements in their own rites, but you'll never see the strongest woman fighting the strongest man in an MMA match.
She cant compete.
You'll never see a woman compete against the likes of Gary Kasporov, or a Magnus Carlsen, or any of the world champs.
They can't compete. Chess, like fighting displays the innate disparities between natural ability and competitiveness of men and women.
In chess, the queen is the most powerful piece having a monetary value of 9, but the king is most important, having an unlimited value. When the king dies, the game is over. When the queen is captured, traded or is sacrificed, the game continues.
It's a very feminist idea to question why the queen isn't the most important piece.
It's a very feminist idea to suggest that the queen take the place of the king.
Until a woman becomes world champion, this shouldn't even be a topic of conversation.
Until a woman dethrones Magnus Carlsen, All hail the KING!
1Peter 2:17-
Respect all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the King.
The King can never be lost.
#52
It is easy to see that the conditions of providing and protecting have shifted from strength to skill.
It is easy to see, chess as a geometrical exercise is not logically linked with representing armies.
Chess is a fight between two groups of pieces, played by two people. The charaters have developed historically and while being well defined enough to last 'til now could be changed.
Everybody have their say.
It is easy to see that the conditions of providing and protecting have shifted from strength to skill.
It is easy to see, chess as a geometrical exercise is not logically linked with representing armies.
Chess is a fight between two groups of pieces, played by two people. The charaters have developed historically and while being well defined enough to last 'til now could be changed.
Everybody have their say.
@Rookitiki said in #55:
> @DontShadowBan
>
> You missed your own, "point“: in chess the Q protects the K.
I loved the post that @ungewichtet made on the second page of this thread.
According the historical development of chess, the Queen wasn't always the queen, but began as the counselor.
Imagine Yoda to Luke, and Morpheus to Neo.
The king is the protagonist of the epic, but without the counselor, they would not prevail in the climax revealing a tragic end.
The chivalry movement of the Renaissance impacted society the way the Feminist movement and today's Extreme Liberalism/LGBT movement continues to reshape society today.
> @DontShadowBan
>
> You missed your own, "point“: in chess the Q protects the K.
I loved the post that @ungewichtet made on the second page of this thread.
According the historical development of chess, the Queen wasn't always the queen, but began as the counselor.
Imagine Yoda to Luke, and Morpheus to Neo.
The king is the protagonist of the epic, but without the counselor, they would not prevail in the climax revealing a tragic end.
The chivalry movement of the Renaissance impacted society the way the Feminist movement and today's Extreme Liberalism/LGBT movement continues to reshape society today.
Estimado señor Spaniards:
Por cuanto utiliza este nombre, daré por sentado que conoce la noble lengua de Cervantes, que es la mía también, por lo que en adelante me evitaré el trabajo de traducirle mis reflexiones al ingles, dado que ud. no merece tal esfuerzo. Siga usted balando en sus defensas del nazi-feminismo, en la versión que ud. quiera, tanto sea la suiza como la de cualquier otra parte del mundo. Efectivamente, éste es un lugar en el que se discute ajedrez. Y seguiré sosteniendo que las nazi-feministas de cualquier parte del mundo encontrarán apropiado denostar al rey por cuanto lo consideran una figura "heteropatriarcal" en sus obnubiladas cabecitas. Vea un ejemplo: lo que opina Muzychuk sobre el "ajedrez machista" según ella: www.efe.com/efe/espana/destacada/anna-muzychuk-el-ajedrez-sigue-siendo-machista-y-se-refleja-en-los-premios/10011-3608783.
Y es tan sólo un ejemplo. Porque las nazi-feministas no tienen problemas con el ajedrez, lo tienen con los hombres.
Lea ésta nota: www.excelsior.com.mx/adrenalina/2018/02/20/1221476. Allí encontrará que las feministas acusan al ajedrez de ser machista y heteropatriarcal.
Y si no le resulta suficiente, haga alguna modesta búsqueda de notas similares en internet. Encontrará centenares en el mismo tono.
No son preocupaciones, le muestro la realidad.
Ya de deje sus plañideros gemidos en defensa de las feministas, que solo deslucen sus seguras capacidades en el tablero.
Atentos saludos.
Por cuanto utiliza este nombre, daré por sentado que conoce la noble lengua de Cervantes, que es la mía también, por lo que en adelante me evitaré el trabajo de traducirle mis reflexiones al ingles, dado que ud. no merece tal esfuerzo. Siga usted balando en sus defensas del nazi-feminismo, en la versión que ud. quiera, tanto sea la suiza como la de cualquier otra parte del mundo. Efectivamente, éste es un lugar en el que se discute ajedrez. Y seguiré sosteniendo que las nazi-feministas de cualquier parte del mundo encontrarán apropiado denostar al rey por cuanto lo consideran una figura "heteropatriarcal" en sus obnubiladas cabecitas. Vea un ejemplo: lo que opina Muzychuk sobre el "ajedrez machista" según ella: www.efe.com/efe/espana/destacada/anna-muzychuk-el-ajedrez-sigue-siendo-machista-y-se-refleja-en-los-premios/10011-3608783.
Y es tan sólo un ejemplo. Porque las nazi-feministas no tienen problemas con el ajedrez, lo tienen con los hombres.
Lea ésta nota: www.excelsior.com.mx/adrenalina/2018/02/20/1221476. Allí encontrará que las feministas acusan al ajedrez de ser machista y heteropatriarcal.
Y si no le resulta suficiente, haga alguna modesta búsqueda de notas similares en internet. Encontrará centenares en el mismo tono.
No son preocupaciones, le muestro la realidad.
Ya de deje sus plañideros gemidos en defensa de las feministas, que solo deslucen sus seguras capacidades en el tablero.
Atentos saludos.
The king is most powerful because the opposite king cannot stand directly next to him and vice versa.there is a forcefield around opposite kings . They cannot stand together. These are the only two pieces that stand apart. That's my thought anyway. xxx so the king is most of all and least of all xxx
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.