Why is Queen more powerful than the King?

well now i had plenty to answer.. thanks.

and educates me.. thanks again,

and makes me more witty.. lol.

It's girl power!

Been developing in society for a long time too - seems chess is ahead of its time, but everyone knows we now live in a world where men are essentially become superfluous. Like the king on a chess board only moving one square at a time - men are being overtaken and left behind!

Endevour to acquire and put to action equality, "battle of the sexes" is damaging and a preconceived unbalanced unfair biased favouritism for any one "pro-gender" belief isn't helping anyone, this is inclusive of jokes that entertain this. 

When we say "powerful Queen" what do players usually mean? Great attacking potential?

As powerful as the chess piece Queen is, quite usually her attacking power isn't fully utilized in many many games we play. For instance, early Queen development may slip you up into a trap, or an early forced exchange so we delay the development of the Queen, so development is usually quite late (middle to end game) and more often than not, if you look through your games history archive you will find your Queen is playing a more defensive role behind your minor pieces by reinforcing their attacking potential than actually leading an attack. Which is usually uncommon. 

So she may be ascribed great power, but her real strength isn't just "attacking potential" as many non-titled chess players envision her as, her strength isn't limited to attack, the ability to alternate between attack/defence with a long range scope, is what gives her a powerful advantage over other pieces. 

For some time in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the new chess (powereful queen and bishop) was called mad queen chess. The term reminds me not of Queen Isabella, but of her daughter, Joanna of Castille (Juana la Loca).

Like the old saying goes, Would you rather speak to the man in charge, or the lady who knows what's going on?

There is a big difference between higher-ranking, and more powerful.

now jus holdon ther. looz yer Q anit aint over looz yer K anitiz 

Nahid.. your English is fine as your story of the old age. Much appreciated.

never lost your touch Soorat

That's a new story masquerading as an old one. I remember playing chess in Baghdad in the year that Xians call 815 C.E. The vazir could move one square diagonally and had to stay close to the king.

because the King must be protected..

Have your ever tried to checkmate a queen???

The king is the most important piece. The king is the most powerful piece. His power is felt in other ways. The queen is often expendable. The king is never expendable.

Might as well say that chess is a game for masochists where the goal is to have your queen mate the other guy.

Oriental kings (chess came to Europe from the East) had harems (and many wives in it). Together they were stronger than one man. 

would be fun to try to play with the king and queen reversed in powers. 

Well... it would just be a draw, right? To win you'd have to checkmate a king that moves like a queen.

you would checkmate him eventually i think, besides it would be interesting  to find a balance between using the powerful king and keeping him safe

Perhaps... in any case, I think you can say that the endgames would be nuts.

lol

wait, i just realized, in the endgame, the kings can help a lot with the mate, since it limits the other king's squares 

This is kind of funny, but the Queen is not "stronger" than the King right? I mean the Queen clearly has better maneuverability around the board (superior to the King here for sure), but look at all of the famous chess games involving a Queen sacrifice; I have never seen a game with a King sacrifice where that side won  

Oh, and by the way, I have given many lectures before - including on the historical origins of chess. The truth here has nothing to do with gender; chaturanga is the board game from India that serves as the origin to chess, checkers, and similar strategy games played on an 8x8 square board. When the game came to Europe centuries later, the pieces were renamed to match European monarchy (Kings and Queens in addition to clearly European positions such as Bishops). However, in this Indian game the equivalent to the King was the "leader" or "emperor" implied to be the player (which is why the game is over when the King is gone). The equivalent to the Queen was the "commander". This explains why this piece is so must stronger than say pawns (" infantry" in chaturanga), and also explains the idea of "promotion" - and so on, chess makes a lot more sense in this perspective. Interestingly, other pieces make more sense too. For example: Rooks were "chariots" which explains the poor "turning ability" with adjacent movement.

Exactly. The king is more powerful. It's just his power is felt in other ways.

Some people say the king is valued somewhere between 2-4. But the king is infinitely valuable so assigning points to the king is just silly.