• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Why is the queen the most powerful chess piece?

3,655
Posts
16
Years
I know the queen used to be the weakest chess piece when the game was originally created but now it is the strongest. But why? Isn't the queen meant to be weak in combat? I don't understand why they made her the most powerful piece. Maybe you can provide an answer for me.
 

arbok

cobra pokemon
196
Posts
12
Years
  • Age 29
  • Seen Mar 10, 2013
as a wise man once said "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".
 

Alice

(>^.(>0.0)>
3,077
Posts
15
Years
I did a little googling, and it seems that a lot of the pieces, especially the queen, were buffed to make games go by faster.
 

Wings Don't Cry

Maybe she's born with it
1,939
Posts
15
Years
Have you not seen Dragonball Z? Who's the one person that Goku is afraid of?

Also it might have something to do with the fact that Queen Elizabeth has been around for decades.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
Well it depends on the situation I suppose. The knights certainly can be stronger than a queen and they are also my favourite pieces. But generally speaking, the queen is stronger.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
There have been plenty of queens at the head of countries so it's not like it's strange to have a queen be the most powerful. She is still royalty like the king. If I had to guess it was that they wanted to do something to make the king and queen different somehow. Maybe because they didn't think a king and queen ought to be equal.

Maybe it's just that someone decided that the royal pieces ought to be the strongest on the board, but then realized that they also have to make one of them special in that if they get taken that's the end of the game. Because the game needs some way to end it and because historically if you capture a king you get to take their kingdom, or something. It would be too hard (impossible maybe?) to win if the king could dance across the board like a queen (lol) so it had to be restricted and made less powerful.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
There have been plenty of queens at the head of countries so it's not like it's strange to have a queen be the most powerful. She is still royalty like the king. If I had to guess it was that they wanted to do something to make the king and queen different somehow. Maybe because they didn't think a king and queen ought to be equal.

Maybe it's just that someone decided that the royal pieces ought to be the strongest on the board, but then realized that they also have to make one of them special in that if they get taken that's the end of the game. Because the game needs some way to end it and because historically if you capture a king you get to take their kingdom, or something. It would be too hard (impossible maybe?) to win if the king could dance across the board like a queen (lol) so it had to be restricted and made less powerful.

LMAO! I just envisioned myself dancing through the battlefield slaughtering a whole bunch of enemies with a lightsaber >_____>

But yes Scarf, I am aware of how important and politically powerful the queen generally is in an empire. But what I'm trying to emphasize is that I just can't see most queens sweeping the fields, destroying everything in their path >_>
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
LMAO! I just envisioned myself dancing through the battlefield slaughtering a whole bunch of enemies with a lightsaber >_____>

But yes Scarf, I am aware of how important and politically powerful the queen generally is in an empire. But what I'm trying to emphasize is that I just can't see most queens sweeping the fields, destroying everything in their path >_>
I always think of chess as more political than anything. I mean, bishops don't run across battlefields. Or if they do they aren't exactly what you'd call warriors.
 
3,655
Posts
16
Years
I always think of chess as more political than anything. I mean, bishops don't run across battlefields. Or if they do they aren't exactly what you'd call warriors.

That is very true and that also crossed my mind. Originally the Bishop could only move one space in a diagonal direction, so my argument still stands as to why they decided to make the Bishops that much more powerful when they don't exactly have the tendency to rush the battlefield.

I guess I can accept what you say though, that they converted political power into actual battle strength for the game.
 

Cirrus

dreaming a transient dream.
1,577
Posts
14
Years
It's because of the concept of courtly love that occurred in the 12th / 13th centuries, I think; the queen was the most important piece to the king and once she was gone the board contained nothing else that was as valuable, et cetera. Also Eleanor of Aquitaine and her granddaughter Blanche were OP during the middle ages.
 

Soul Saint

Ghost~
93
Posts
12
Years
  • Age 29
  • Seen Jul 9, 2015
It's because of the concept of courtly love that occurred in the 12th / 13th centuries, I think; the queen was the most important piece to the king and once she was gone the board contained nothing else that was as valuable, et cetera. Also Eleanor of Aquitaine and her granddaughter Blanche were OP during the middle ages.

QFT

Exactly what I was thinking. Many Kings, leaders in general, get their power from their Queen. It comes from the relationship they have. Without the Queen, the King in most cases is much weaker. Depending on the circumstances that is. Looking at Queen Elizabeth, she was one of the greatest leaders the world had ever known. The pieces were changed to it's current form when it was first played across Europe - For strategy I'd say. Both on the battlefield and politically.
 

Briar

how do you make coffee sexy?
294
Posts
12
Years
because if she's more powerful, she's also more vulnerable? the queen can make such bold steps that she presents herself to more danger than the king (chess-wise), which, in a sense, kind of makes her the king's most trusted sentinel, as sexist as that seemingly sounds. just my musings though.
 
3,509
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Nov 5, 2017
It's nothing to do with sex, gender, or names to reflect power.

The queen was known by many other names before being named the queen. After Chess become prominent in Europe, the piece was renamed the queen by Europeans simply because it's starting point was next to the king.

The way pieces move were adapted simply based on their starting position and tactical/strategic value or fairness in an attempt to enhance the game, nothing to do with the pieces names. Why would a castle be highly manoeuvrable? Why do knights only move in an L shape? Why are bishops on the battlefield? Why is a weak and vulnerable king on the battlefield? The names mean nothing to chess.
 
Back
Top