 |
|  |
 |
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003 time: 12:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dissident
And the game is chauvenist towards women.
Because even though the queen is the most poweful piece. The most important piece continues to be the male unit- the King. Even though the female is more talented, she is expendable and can be replaced. But if the King is taken- the game is indeed over. |
quote: Originally posted by Molly Bloom
Oh, and yes, the queen was a vizier or counsellor. |
Actually, the Western terminology about chess looks so incredulous to me. What about the Queen in the battlefield? I'm sure there are some examples of this in military history, but to make it a central piece in a game simulating war, is to me utter nonsense.
At least in Turkish we call the piece known as the Queen as "the Vizier" (Vezir) (as pointed out by Molly Bloom). Doesn't it make infinitely more sense in comparison?
Also, what about the bishop? Sure, there were warrior monks in military history, but were they an integral part of armies as fighting forces in history? If you imagine the chess piece bishop ravaging the board, what's that correspond to? A regiment of crazed monks with longswords? Or a crazed regiment of I don't know what led by a bishop? Too much of a strech of imagination .
I don't know the phraseology in Eastern countries but at least in Turkish that piece is called "the Elephant" (Fil).
As for racism in chess, that's totally absurd .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003 time: 12:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Smiley
When state and church aren't separate, there wasn't that much of a difference between a bishop and a lord, so its quite possible they led armies.
There have been numerous cases in history where the queen would act as a sort of vizier.
Hey AECCP comrades, how would you propose a more egalitarian boardgame? |
I see the point. But was there ever a time in European history when the church and the state was not seperate? I mean, there was always a pope and a caesar, and sure at different times one or the other was the dominant factor in politics/policy making, but AFAIK there was never a time when the church and the state were not seperate.
Would my interpretation of the relation between the pope and caesar (church and state) be wrong/inaccurate? That would directly relate to the "bishops would count as lords on the battlefield" explanation.
As for queens acting as viziers, what I meant was that in Islamic and (more often) Ottoman history, viziers actually commanded armies on the battlefield in addition to their roles as court advisors. Queens may have acted as viziers at court but seldom did they actually command armies in battlefields (with maybe a few very rare exceptions, if at all). That was my incredulity about naming that piece as "the queen".
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:35
|
|
its not rock... its the rook, a word which i dont know what it means.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|