There can be only one queen

When a pawn reaches the end line, it can get a higher piece back. Each pawn can ask for a new queen, in that way.

I see chess as a translation of real (ancient) warfare, as it was intended. It seems to me that two queens are impossible in a real life situation.

You should only be able to reacquire pieces that you've lost during the game. Like freeing them from the enemy camp.

I can't tell if you're actually serious or not.

I'm serious. It's like having two kings, how absurd would that be. Someone should change the rules so that you can only retrieve what has been lost.

You can tell the chess players from the non-chess players by seeing how they react to this.

Chess players: "What? I don't get it." (Because the rules of the game are absolute truths and can never be changed and changing them is heresy -- the pieces don't represent anything -- a knight is something moves like a knight, a rook is something that moves in straight lines, etc. Nothing more, nothing less.)

Non-chess players: (Talk about things like how there were instances in history with multiple queens, for example)

 "It seems to me that two queens are impossible in a real life situation."

Chess was not invented in Europe but in the East, where many cultures were polygamous.

Cynical answers abide.

In other words, you gentlemen would have no problem that a chess game would exist with, say, six queens?

Rules can change. Who's in charge of those rules, by the way. Does anyone know?

Promotion to more than one queen hasn't always been accepted in chess rule history:

History of the rule

"A player could thus never have two queens, three knights, three rooks, or two bishops of the same color on the board."

Of course, real chess players knew that.

My point is that most chess players view the pieces as mathematical (or whatever word you wish to use) constructs, not as a representation of what they are actually named after. Instead of calling the pieces rooks, bishops, etc., if we called them piece A, piece B, and so forth, would it be silly to have a game where there were six piece D's?

And my post was mostly just an observation, not an argument either way. People who play chess seriously will just look at you funny if you move a knight diagonally.

That is right.

What if you lost nothing?

Like any game the rules of chess are an arbitrary construct.  I've been playing for almost 40 years and while I'm pretty attached to the rules as they stand, there is som common sense to the idea that you should only be able to promote to pieces of yours that have already been captured...kind of like releasing a prisoner.  If you haven't lost any pieces you might just have the pawn sit there and it can reincarnate when something does get captured.  It would certainly make a difference in certain lines of crazy openings. 

Sure... why not? Make your own chess variant, no one's stopping you. The community plays by certain rules in a game. If the game doesn't suit you play it with different rules. However, don't expect everyone else will follow with your ideas.

It's like saying: "America should socialize the health care system." Not everyone agrees of course, but some do.

the king would like more queens

But you have no problem with the concept of a peon reaching the other side turning into a queen in the first place? Perfectly common in real life?

What about queens being the most powerful participants in the battle?

If you want realistic ancient warfare here, the number of queens seems to be the smallest concern...

First of all, I tend to agree with those who view the rules as abstract and perfectly suitable axioms which direct out play.

That said, it should be noted that the queen is actually a European invention, the original piece was a Grand Vizier or Marshal. As we probably agree, it is not out of the ordinary for an army to have several generals. Moreover, it seems quite sensible that a soldier should reach a higher rank by battle experience, where the number of other officers in this rank is secondary. So, there you go, here you have a real-life analogy, if you need it ;)

i liked torkil's analogy of a soldier gaining experience, nice example.

however i can also see the argument of the foot-soldier risking its life to liberate a higher-ranking prisoner

on a seperate note, who says the laws must stand? if they never changed we'd still be playing with these:

I have 2 Girl-Friends and may continue till it is Six; As m a chess player - I hv 2follow da rules.

In Italy in the 18th and early 19th century, the pawn could only be promoted to a piece that had already been captured. Likewise, Philidor did not like the possibility of having two queens, and in all editions of his book (1749 to 1790) he stated that a promotion could only be to a piece previously captured. Lambe also stated this rule in a 1765 book (Davidson 1981:60-61). If none of the promoting player's pieces had yet been captured, the pawn remained inactive until one of the player's pieces was captured, whereupon the pawn immediately assumed that role (Staunton 1848:7). A player could thus never have two queens.

I remember some people during my life who played it this way. Let's say it has more charm. Chess has mathematical aspects, but it is a historic game symbolizing war between two countries.

If it turns him into a queen, one has to wonder what kind of experience the soldier has actually gained

A bit more history is in order here: The origin of promotion was simply the problem of the pawn being unable to move backwards. Once it reached the other side, it would be stuck and immobile. As most people know, the queen was originally the weakest piece: it could only move diagonally one square. So promoting to a queen -- originally a minister who assisted the king -- was the way of giving the pawn the ability to move backwards without upsetting the balance of the game too much.

In Europe the minister became the queen, then the queen became the most powerful piece, and thus pawn promotion, from a minor part of the game, became extremely significant.

I don't really see that much difference in having two queens to one -- if there's been no exchange of queens -- or one queen to none -- if there has been an exchange. The injection of all that extra material unbalances the situation dramatically. Hence, getting a passed pawn is now a major part of chess strategy.