y can the king move only one step ?
Sort:
In Shaturanga, one of the predecessors to chess, the king was permitted to have one knights move per game. On the condition that he had not been placed in check yet. (Obed the oxcart driver used it effectively against the tavern owner to reduce his tab.) circa 650 a.d. rumors have it that Obed was the leading member of his local Shaturanga club until his impalement by visiting Moors (date unknown)
Clownfish wrote: Why don't the pawns have guns?
because there were no guns in the medieval times
Assuming that the chess pieces are representative not of single entities (like the Knight is actually one guy) but of groups of people (so knight = a whole cavalry), we can see how the movement rules make sense. I always imagined that the King is hampered because he's actually "playing" the game - like Napoleon in his war tent with several advisors, maps spread out on the table. It is actually remarkably difficult to dissasemble, move and re-establish the King's command area, whereas a Cavalry, already mostly battle ready and with horses, can cover a lot of ground on the battlefield. I can imagine the Rooks like Elephants (and yes I know that the Bishops originally were, I've seen that debate) or like large seige weaponry - catapults or trebuchets, and the Bishops like archers, etc. So the King can only move one square per turn because he is actually responsible for coordinating the whole battle! It would be an interesting variant to allow to the King to move two squares or something at the cost of a piece - like, you sacrifice a knight on the far end of the board for an extra king square - very costly - representing the idea that the King had to move in haste, and because of this couldn't get his orders to one of his units deep in enemy territory, losing it automatically, but just barely escaping with his life. What do you guys think?
Why can't you just instantly win?
You are an idiot if you take this as a serious question 0_o
I think a lot of people are unduly mocking this question. I tried at least to reason out an actual answer.
Howabout this one: why are people on the threads so instantly hostile? Maybe it's that the overall combatitiveness of the chess atmosphere pours over and into the threads ... so people are making "move-threats" with their speech even as they threaten one another in the games.
Yeah... I think that there is a lot to that. Maybe I'll make an article about it.
play a game where you have to checkmate the queen, you'll see how hard it is! :)
Jaguarphd wrote:
Why can't you just instantly win?
You are an idiot if you take this as a serious question 0_o
it was a question that needed an answer. you're an idiot if you can't provide, and have to be unnecessarily hostile towards something so trivial. pathetic.
Feb 9, 2008
0
#49
The only stupid question is one that isn't asked. That was a good question. I don't have the answer but I am not to proud to be able to say I don't know. You rude individuals attacking him for asking a question need to get some manners and think a little more before posting. A little respect goes a long way...
Selangor wrote: Well....imagine that if a King can move like the way Queen did (plus a move of a Knight) instead of a single move as per the rule of Chess. How can we able to checkmate the King ? Try it yourself in Over-The-Board(OTB) play.
this is actually a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does.
King_William wrote:
Well as a noble king myself I'll give you, peasants, a insight as to why we Kings only move one square at a time. (I sense a civil uproar rising should this issue not be put to rest)
First and foremost we are noble and have to behave noble, rocketing around the board will have us look like jumping-jacks and I believe even you guys will grasp that this is not acceptable?
Secondly we never run. We let people run. Understood?
Thirdly, we eat well. We are not poor and being born into Royal families is our reward for not being paupers. Will you eat bread, when you have the whole shebang at your disposal? Don't be ridicules!
this is also a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does
add wrote: Selangor wrote: Well....imagine that if a King can move like the way Queen did (plus a move of a Knight) instead of a single move as per the rule of Chess. How can we able to checkmate the King ? Try it yourself in Over-The-Board(OTB) play.
this is actually a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does.
I disagree. Let me rephrase the original question to "What was the rationale of the original inventors of the game of chess, wherein they clearly wanted to make chess representative of actual warfare, behind the King's clearly stunted mobility?"
Selangor answers (paraphrased): because that is the only way the game could possibly work.
Untrue. IF real combat was different than this, the game would have to be representative of it. The truth is - in real "wars" the king (and his obviously stationary castle) WOULD have been rather static for the most part... ie. He has to stay in the capitol city of his land.
Selangor has it reversed. The reality of things is the basis for chess and is why so many ancient rules/statesmen loved it - it was the original "simbattle".
Selangor implies that the game designers, while "designing" chess determined the mobility of the king on the basis of the games operability and not on comabt realities.
add wrote: King_William wrote:
Well as a noble king myself I'll give you, peasants, a insight as to why we Kings only move one square at a time. (I sense a civil uproar rising should this issue not be put to rest)
First and foremost we are noble and have to behave noble, rocketing around the board will have us look like jumping-jacks and I believe even you guys will grasp that this is not acceptable?
Secondly we never run. We let people run. Understood?
Thirdly, we eat well. We are not poor and being born into Royal families is our reward for not being paupers. Will you eat bread, when you have the whole shebang at your disposal? Don't be ridicules!
this is also a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does
I disagree again. This is a tounge-in-cheek response clearly intended to be humorous and not a "pretty good explanation".
He boils it down to we "never run" because we "have to behave noble" and not "jump around", nor would we run to save our own lives, moreover we're obese.
Thanks, but that's not how I think of my King (effectively myself) at all.
But hey, Add, if you think that "explanation" is "pretty good" for you, then hell, it's been "explained".
Rael wrote: add wrote: Selangor wrote: Well....imagine that if a King can move like the way Queen did (plus a move of a Knight) instead of a single move as per the rule of Chess. How can we able to checkmate the King ? Try it yourself in Over-The-Board(OTB) play.
this is actually a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does.
I disagree. Let me rephrase the original question to "What was the rationale of the original inventors of the game of chess, wherein they clearly wanted to make chess representative of actual warfare, behind the King's clearly stunted mobility?"
Selangor answers (paraphrased): because that is the only way the game could possibly work.
Untrue. IF real combat was different than this, the game would have to be representative of it. The truth is - in real "wars" the king (and his obviously stationary castle) WOULD have been rather static for the most part... ie. He has to stay in the capitol city of his land.
Selangor has it reversed. The reality of things is the basis for chess and is why so many ancient rules/statesmen loved it - it was the original "simbattle".
Selangor implies that the game designers, while "designing" chess determined the mobility of the king on the basis of the games operability and not on comabt realities.
Yes, you are completely rite i had ignorantly forgotten that the game was so clearly based of of war fare. And not just checkmating the opponent.
So the question remains why does the king move the way he does.
Rael wrote: add wrote: King_William wrote:
Well as a noble king myself I'll give you, peasants, a insight as to why we Kings only move one square at a time. (I sense a civil uproar rising should this issue not be put to rest)
First and foremost we are noble and have to behave noble, rocketing around the board will have us look like jumping-jacks and I believe even you guys will grasp that this is not acceptable?
Secondly we never run. We let people run. Understood?
Thirdly, we eat well. We are not poor and being born into Royal families is our reward for not being paupers. Will you eat bread, when you have the whole shebang at your disposal? Don't be ridicules!
this is also a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does
I disagree again. This is a tounge-in-cheek response clearly intended to be humorous and not a "pretty good explanation".
He boils it down to we "never run" because we "have to behave noble" and not "jump around", nor would we run to save our own lives, moreover we're obese.
Thanks, but that's not how I think of my King (effectively myself) at all.
But hey, Add, if you think that "explanation" is "pretty good" for you, then hell, it's been "explained".
OK, i do not agree with you hear first of all you yourself said that the game was based of of true warfare Now i will agree when you said it was meant to be funny but some of the points in there if you ignore the hole obese part and stuff are actually good. Because that is how a king would behave, he would behave noble, and in history there were many cases when a king would not flee and would just stand his ground because he wanted to keep his dignity.Also you and i have no idea how a king would really behave therefor this conversation is pointless......
add wrote: Rael wrote: add wrote: King_William wrote:
Well as a noble king myself I'll give you, peasants, a insight as to why we Kings only move one square at a time. (I sense a civil uproar rising should this issue not be put to rest)
First and foremost we are noble and have to behave noble, rocketing around the board will have us look like jumping-jacks and I believe even you guys will grasp that this is not acceptable?
Secondly we never run. We let people run. Understood?
Thirdly, we eat well. We are not poor and being born into Royal families is our reward for not being paupers. Will you eat bread, when you have the whole shebang at your disposal? Don't be ridicules!
this is also a pretty good explanation of why the king moves the way it does
I disagree again. This is a tounge-in-cheek response clearly intended to be humorous and not a "pretty good explanation".
He boils it down to we "never run" because we "have to behave noble" and not "jump around", nor would we run to save our own lives, moreover we're obese.
Thanks, but that's not how I think of my King (effectively myself) at all.
But hey, Add, if you think that "explanation" is "pretty good" for you, then hell, it's been "explained".
OK, i do not agree with you hear first of all you yourself said that the game was based of of true warfare Now i will agree when you said it was meant to be funny but some of the points in there if you ignore the hole obese part and stuff are actually good. Because that is how a king would behave, he would behave noble, and in history there were many cases when a king would not flee and would just stand his ground because he wanted to keep his dignity.Also you and i have no idea how a king would really behave therefor this conversation is pointless......
Well, if you re-read the thread you will see the idea I put forth. Care to respond to my earlier post wherein I try to answer the question?
Sly wrote:
As v all know in chess the main objective is to protect the king . so y does the king get only one step . the queen can do anything that the other pieces can the castle can move straight . the horse can move L shape . the bishop can move side ways [ sorry dont know how to say how the bishop can move ] . if these pieces can move so freely then y does the king get only one spep anywhere ....
Actually the king is not always limited to single square moves...perhaps you have heard of castling.
Also I have heard that in some versions of ancient chess, which I believe is before the castling move was invented, the king could actually move like a knight, but only once in a game.
As an aside, the king can move thru check in monster chess.
Rael wrote:
Assuming that the chess pieces are representative not of single entities (like the Knight is actually one guy) but of groups of people (so knight = a whole cavalry), we can see how the movement rules make sense. I always imagined that the King is hampered because he's actually "playing" the game - like Napoleon in his war tent with several advisors, maps spread out on the table. It is actually remarkably difficult to dissasemble, move and re-establish the King's command area, whereas a Cavalry, already mostly battle ready and with horses, can cover a lot of ground on the battlefield. I can imagine the Rooks like Elephants (and yes I know that the Bishops originally were, I've seen that debate) or like large seige weaponry - catapults or trebuchets, and the Bishops like archers, etc. So the King can only move one square per turn because he is actually responsible for coordinating the whole battle! It would be an interesting variant to allow to the King to move two squares or something at the cost of a piece - like, you sacrifice a knight on the far end of the board for an extra king square - very costly - representing the idea that the King had to move in haste, and because of this couldn't get his orders to one of his units deep in enemy territory, losing it automatically, but just barely escaping with his life. What do you guys think?
i think that variation of chess seems like a good one ill try playing it some time.
I agree with TalFan. It would be really hard to chackmate someone if he could all of a sudden move his king to the other side!