Why in chess is the only 'female' piece (the queen) the most powerful? Serious answers only please.?

Question

I don't need lots of accusations of 'why not, woman-hater?'. I'm interested from an anthropological perspective. I would have thought that attributing that much power to a female symbol as long ago as when chess was invented would have been quite unusual. Anyone have any background knowledge? Speculation welcome. Thanks.

Answer 1

i think you need to look into the history and evolution of chess. As i recall, the original game ( well something similar) came from India.
from wikipedia:

Origins of the modern game (1450–1850)

The pieces in shatranj had limited movement; the elephant or aufin (the predecessor of the modern bishop) could only move by jumping two spaces diagonally, the counselor or fers (the predecessor of the modern queen) could move only one space diagonally, pawns could not advance two spaces on their first move, and there was no castling. Also, pawns could only promote to counselor, which was the weakest piece (after the pawn), due to its limited range.[7]
Original Staunton chess pieces by Nathaniel Cook from 1849, left to right: pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, and king.
Original Staunton chess pieces by Nathaniel Cook from 1849, left to right: pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, and king.

Around 1200, rules started to be modified in southern Europe, and around 1475, several major changes rendered the game essentially as we know it today.[8] These modern rules for the basic moves had been adopted in Italy[9] (or in Spain according to other sources[10]): pawns gained the option of advancing two squares on their first move and the en passant capture therewith, while bishops and queens acquired their modern abilities. This made the queen the most powerful piece; consequently modern chess was referred to as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess".[11] These new rules quickly spread throughout western Europe, with the exception of the rules about stalemate, which varied from place to place and were finalized in the early 19th century.[12]

Answer 2

I found this at the website quoted in the source box. I just copied an pasted it. It takes a little reading but it answers your question very well.

In the end of the middle ages, the slow Ferz was replaced in the game of chess by the modern Queen. This was part of an overall reform of the rules of chess (c. 1475), making the game much faster. Although the Queen wasn't really based on the Ferz, its name was tied in with the history of its predecessor. In Chaturanga, the Ferz, which could move only one space diagonally, was called a mantri, meaning counsellor. The Persians translated the name as farzin, which had the same meaning. The Arabs shortened this name to firz, and this became ferz or fers in Europe. These became fercia, then fierge. According to Davidson, the sex of the piece changed through homophony between fierge and the French word vierge, which meant maiden or virgin. In a predominantly Catholic Europe, it was natural to make the association with the Virgin Mary, who was regarded as a lady and a queen. This led to calling the piece names that meant lady or queen. Most European languages began calling it a lady, but its place by the King's side made it natural to call it a queen. It is a lady in French (dame), German (Dame), and Italian (Donna). It is a Queen in English and various other languages. The Russian name is still ferz. The piece's name changed in this manner even before its powers changed. One legacy of this is the use of the name "dame" for checkers, which move one space diagonally. When its powers changed so drastically from the weak ferz to our modern Queen, it seemed all the more appropriate to retain the change in name.

Answer 3

I vote for nikipetts. But I have something to add. I agree, we here in Arabia, we still call the queen, as counselor or "Wazeer" In Arabic.

So if That person Nathaiel Cook had changed the rules and the names, it is not about a whole society psychology; it is only about Nathaiel's psychology.... agree? I mean you can not say the whole society think of the queen as the strongest.

On the other hand, the popularity of this game in Europe then, might had something with the issue you think about. Maybe at time that guy changed the rules and the names, Europe started to give more importance to women politically.

That was a historical social try to explain the issue, but I am not convinced with it. I think, human psyche is the same anywhere, and in all ages. So, simply, we can suppose that deep in our hearts, we know that man is the master of the family (only in form), while the women (the mother) owns the real mastery... if we come to practice.. this what the society requires.

The queen is the manager of the house, while the king is the master as being looked from the "outside"... But actually, if we come to reality he is just lazy when inside his house... (and notice how much lazy kings are usually)

Answer 4

Having read the other answers, I would like to venture a little theory of my own.

The King is in fact the most powerful piece, as only the King can be in position of check, thus forcing the defending player to either move the King or block the check with another piece, and only the King can be in check-mate to establish a victor and a vanquished (so, as you see, I don't agree that her greater mobility gives her more 'power', if you view the game philosophically).
Traditionally, western society has given the title of 'Queen' to the King's wife, (though not normally vice-versa, in accordance with the sociological views of male superiority you make allusion to in your question) so 'Queen' would be the obvious name for the piece to sit beside the King at the start of the game, and to be the second most powerful piece on the board.
I don't think the game would have had quite the same appeal in the western world if we'd followed the Arabic custom and called the piece 'chief adviser'.

You may think that's a load of bull, but there you go....

Answer 5

If NIkipettis is correct and the Queens chess developed in the 15th century it may be that the queens wide range of motion and power reflects the diplomatic power and function of queens of that time. It would have been more possible for a queen to travel unmolested through many lands. She may even have had family in enemy courts and so been a source of diplomacy as well as powerful in her own right. The king by contrast would have been the protection piece, no longer a battlefield leader, esconced in his capital.

Pure speculation that by the way.

Answer 6

Pure speculative answer:

The King rules and goes to war against another King from another Empire. Every King has his Queen. During war an Empire has to be guarded (kept secure) and has to continue to operate as the King would have it; that being the case, the Queen would be *the* most important person in the Empire during his time spent in battle because the Empire must carry on.

She would have to be kept safe and would be considered the most important person because the King is absent. At the end of any war the King would once again return to his full status of ruler of all within his Empire.

OK; that's my uneducated theory. Bear one thing in mind though ... I have little knowledge of even playing Chess ... hence such a fanciful theoretical answer ;)

~FrankiE~

Answer 7

Women have a lot less testosterone messing up their minds than men do, and as a result of this they are capable of much calmer, clearer and constructive thought patterns than men.

This makes them able to make much more logical and rational decisions about the day to day running of their [and our] lives.

In times gone by, and around the time that the wonderfully mind-numbing game of chess was thrust upon the World by a Chinese man named Yu Won Plae Chess An Yu Wil Cos Aye Sae, this made them a powerful force because they were able to direct the men from the background and get them to go hunting and fishing etc.

This ability makes women more powerful than men, and as a Queen is a female [unless you're a member of a certain rock group, or enjoy wearing the apparel of the fairer sex], this is why the Queen in Chess is the most powerful.

M'kay!

Answer 8

why not women historically have traditionaly occupied positions of power in chess the queen has the most freedom but is not the most important piece which is obviously the king besides pawns don't really have a specifyed gender.
chess is based on war however it is still a game imagne what the game would be like if the king had the movement of the queen

Answer 9

Well, interestingly enough the same happens in other games as in draughts. Many people say because they know it that the one who makes decisions at home is the woman. Women are terrible creatures that men have been unable to decipher, yet they have US well figured out. Many species have dominant females: think about the praying mantis, the bee/ant/termite queen, the lioness and many others. Evolving towards the human reign, remember Shakespeare's "The taming of the shrew?" I wonder where he got that from. These indomitable yet fascinating creatures have the ability of doing and undoing us, they give us life and for them we could die. Venturing into more spiritual lands, remember mother nature; she is a strong creator and a ferocious destructor, just a Kali, the Hindu Goddess, who is a perfect example of feminine ruthlessness present in many deities all over the world.
They are not weak, they just want us to think so bwahahaha.
As to Queens, well..let's see...how many queens were vital when it came to alliances and they weren't mere decorative objects, most of them were exceedingly wise and even cunning. popes counted on them to convert pagan Kings, Kings lost their Kingdoms to/for them. Boadicea, Victoria, Cleopatra, Isabella of Castile. Oh, an I was forgetting about the mythic Amazons and their contemporary Chinese real counterpart, whose name eludes me at the moment.
In a nutshell, women are strong and they always have been. Probably someone inventing the game was perceptive enough to note this and express it in that way.
Who knows...

Answer 10

Yes and the vast majority of chess pieces are male. This is because although men held the power there were few select women who were equally as influential as men but had to be incredible individuals to obtain the same level of power as a man.

Answer 11

It is because the queen is the penultimate piece, and the power of all the pieces get higher as they go up the pecking order, hence, the queen being the most powerful (apart from the king).
No other theory is correct, there are no other double meanings here, no ancient history involved, its just simply what is stated above.