It's just that... the name 'Queen' is the accepted standard name of the piece nowadays. If we change the name here, it might create confusions among the newer players.
I can see what you're trying to say here, though. Even in my language, my dad calls the Queen piece as 'Minister'. You can call the piece according to your personal preferences, but when it's something official, it's better to use an established name that is recognized worldwide by all Chess players.
I always thought it would be neat to name it a "General" since it is the most powerful piece on the board. But that being said, "queen" is a very romantic name for the piece as well.
Well, that word is not a typical English word. Plus, the original "queen" or farzin was basically the weakest piece on the board. The modern-day queen trumps the old farzin 1000 times. So I am not sure it is fair to call it by that name - that being said, there you go. A can of worms. ;-)
I will call my queen Madam Minister from now on
Here in the first world, we regard women as equals, Osama.
bit racist no??
in fact this whole topic is messed up
I understand your argument, but chess is a typical English word. Like I said, can of worms ;-) If you want to argue about that, you can. But many more English speakers are familiar with chess than farzin. Most chess players have never heard of a farzin or an alfil.
Just as in board games from other cultures the value of the piece is related to social status. I suppose for the roots of western culture that means the highest power is the king, and 2nd most would be the queen. Bishops and knights come next and last is pawn, from pedonem, meaning foot soldier.
Considering this maybe the better question is why isn't the king a pope and the queen called king. Perhaps because the next lowest order would be a minor piece which there are two of and they didn't want two queens? Or maybe these standards came about after Luther and the reformation?
Maybe some chess historian has info on the names for pieces pre-1500s
Also the queen was not always so powerful, so that piece's value may not have been greater than bishops, knights, or rooks. Likely this means that more than one order was imposed on the movement and name norms through the course of history.
Mephisto, agreed, unless they are referring to the piece as a type of High minister, high priest, etc.
...the OP makes sense, has offered a logical line of thinking to his argument...why would you send your "Queen" to fight for your King?...seems like it should be the reversed situation...no? I do hope we have some chess historians who may be able to answer that one out...it clearly makes no sense in any culture or time...so why was it made so?
...and to the writer who indicated-
"Here in the first world, we regard women as equals, Osama."
...you don't have a clue as to who the OP is yet you are insulting him...you are first trying to suggest that the "first world" is better than the "third world"...you are also insinuating that his culture does not regard women as equals...and lastly, you call him by the name of the most well known terrorist known to western culture...
...and then you want to know why the international community hate Americans?...it is because you have no respect for anyone...and shows no regard for those who you share this Planet with...
yeah, a piece named "queen" also make a confusion in my mind.
minister is a good name for such piece, its more logical.
All the names of pieces seem somewhat arbitrary. Bishop's are overseer's in a church not war; knights make sense except that it's just a horse (which wouldn't do much good on it's own); and I read rook's could have possibly come from the word "chariot" (dictionary.com). Rook, as a castle, seems like it should be a defensive piece, but chess doesn't designate offensive/defensive pieces.
Anyways, back to the original topic. I like the idea that the most powerful piece should be called the Minister, but then why is it wearing a lady's crown?... To fool the opponent?... But the opponent's Minister is wearing the same thing!
It's just a name.
As one lady pointed out, chess is an interesting game, where the queen fights and the king hides.
...yes "oinquarki", it is just a name...but when developing a game there must be some logic in the characters being developed...in this case, chess is clearly a battlefront of two opposing kingdoms...the object of which is to capture the other's King...fair enough...the Bishop piece I can understand, because long ago there was no separation of church and state, they were one and the same...so in fact the church has also been called to arms to defend your Kingdom...this is also logical...the Rook, your castle which is being defended (but why two?)...and your fareless worriors represented by the Knight (who rides a horse)...the pawns are obvious the foot-soldiers...so you see most of the pieces fit the character...
...except for the Queen...It would have made more sense if the King had the power of the Queen, and he was the strongest piece...protecting his Queen and Kingdom...I can't recall any social structure where the Queen fights for the King...it is rather peculiar...and I never noticed it before...
but when developing a game there must be some logic in the characters being developed
But they aren't characters, just arbitrary names for pieces that don't affect the game at all.
This is why I think "General" is a more useful description - the general is typically the strongest fighter in the army. But of course, we have a female general! ;-)
Well, it is not called queen everywhere. In midle Europe the piece is usually called the Lady - Damen in German.
Arabs brought chess to Europe and they in turn took it from Persia. This early form of the game was called Shatranj. In Shatranj Fariz - the Vizir - moved one sqare diagonaly, and Fil, the Bishop, moved on the second diagonal sqare, jumping over the first one. When Shatranj was reformed in XV century, biggest changes were in the movement of said two pieces. Consequently, new pices got new names - the Elephant (Fil means elephant in Arab) became the Bishop (or the Fool, the Runner, Archer, or even Hunter in different languages), and Vazir, being closest to the KIng, became the Queen. Also the Queen is the most mobile piece on the board and we all know that la donna e mobile.
Dear Chess.com
I have comparatively recently joined Chess.com , though chess was one time my #1 game. I wonder why the most important piece in chess was named the 'Queen' ! In Indian sub-continent it is called the 'Minister' (may be war/defence minister). I think that is more logical. A 'queen' is fighting with all her subordinates to defend the king and the 'king' is just enjoying the fight and trying to escape his capture when threantened! What an unrealistic practice and a shame on the part of the 'king'.
I know there are many Kings in modern world whose Queens are the real monarchs; but these queens do not fight wars for their idle kings. Even now-a-days lady PMs, who are the real power-source in a state, do not fight; it is the war/defence ministers who do the job.
It was true when the chess was invented hundreds (may be thousands) of years ago and it is still true in modern days. That is why in the sub-continent is it the 'minister' and not the 'queen' is responsible for such job. I think that is more appropriate.
May I , therefore, request you to think about renaming the 'queen' to the 'minister' to make it more commonly/logically accepted. This is just my opinion and people may/will agree/disagree with me. One great writer said that ...a rose is a rose whatever name is given to it