This is intended as a forum for serious discussion of the relationship between how chess pieces are moved on the board and the elements of medieval warfare. You all may know, for example, that the knight is supposed to represent the medieval armored cavalry, or that the pawn is the lowly foot-soldier. Now, let us examine how these pieces are actually moved in chess. The pawn acts very much like an infantry unit in warfare: it moves slowly; it attacks best from the flank; and it is at its best arranged in long, neat lines. The pawn's behavior in chess mimics very closely the way in which real infantry work. Now, let us examine the Knight, and we will find a very different correlation. An actual armored calvary unit of medieval times would not behave as a knight does in our modern chess. In fact, I submit to you all, that the knight actually represents the primitive artillery of the time.
If you are interested in this subject, or have your own theory about how chess piece movement reflects the elements of ancient military strategy and tactics, please respond to this thread. Thanks
Originally posted by frodomustdieThe Rook is easy; it represents a chariot, and moves in straight lines quickly as ancient chariots (and heavy cavalry/Knights) did.
This is intended as a forum for serious discussion of the relationship between how chess pieces are moved on the board and the elements of medieval warfare. You all may know, for example, that the knight is supposed to represent the m ...[text shortened]... litary strategy and tactics, please respond to this thread. Thanks
The Queen was originally a Minister and moved much differently; very slowly, as a minister is a poor fighter with little mobility. I don't know why she became the way she is.
Bishops were originally Elephants, and they moved exactly two squares along diagonals, jumping over one square. I have no idea why they moved this way or why they were changed.
Yes...excellent. Thanks for mentioning the elephants. I have heard that theory before and others like it. One could assume that the elephant charge takes a good while to build momentum, and thus the bishop can develop the longest charge in chess (other than Queen, of course).
But back to the knight, who clearly represents something which it does not mimic. The only possible facet of ancient warfare which develops the type of attack as the knight is primitive artillery. Think about how the knight moves for a minute... it literally flies over the heads of troops to bring horror and death from afar. What else could the knight be?
Originally posted by frodomustdieThe problem is that the Bishop is not the Elephant. The Elephant became the Bishop; the Elephant itself could only move two squares exactly along a diagonal, giving it four squares it could move to if placed in the center of an empty board. It was a really weak piece. It had the worst qualities of both the Knight and the Bishop combined. It could only land on like 1/4 of all the squares on the board, ever.
Yes...excellent. Thanks for mentioning the elephants. I have heard that theory before and others like it. One could assume that the elephant charge takes a good while to build momentum, and thus the bishop can develop the longest charge in chess (other than Queen, of course).
But back to the knight, who clearly represents something which it does n ...[text shortened]... es over the heads of troops to bring horror and death from afar. What else could the knight be?
I don't know about the Knight. Artillery is usually a long ranged weapon, while the Knight works better at short range. In addition it has a clearly descriptive name which calls it a specific, standard military unit, unlike any other piece or Pawn (except the Elephant). This name and the way the piece moves have the greatest consistency over the evolution of chess compared to any other piece. The Rook and King match it for consistency, but neither has more. Pawns, the Queen, and the Bishops have all changed.
I'll tell you what I've heard about the knight. Knight jump because cavalry could jump, though I'm not sure about over the head of something, but that's irrelevant. Their L shaped move is based on the fact that knights had difficulty attacking something that was under them. Thus they are unable to attack ay adjacent sqaures. I think the L move was something just to make the game more interesting. The creators wanted a new kind of move besides vertical horizontal and diagonal.
Dear A Thousand Young- You are obviously quite learned in the history of the chess pieces. I am grateful for your valuable input to this thread. To be honest, I personally believe that the Bishop represents the strong arm of the powerful Church of the times, and not an elephant unit. I have heard that the Church kept its own guards which were potent forces, used in wartime as well.
Dear Unexplained Bacon- Your statements were also quite enlightening... both frank and true. I agree that people have changed the pieces' movement over centuries to improve game flow.
I think that the knight actually repesents ancient artillery for three reasons:
1. The knight is the only piece which can fly over something's head in chess.
2. If you were to scale-down an average medieval tactical-level war, a front a mile or so, to a gameboard eight-by-eight, the maximum range of a catapult would approximate the knight's leap.
3. Examining the knight's leap in this context, one is led to the observation that that L-shaped movement pattern is actually very similar to the TRAJECTORY of a boulder, flaming carcass, heads of fallen comrades, or what have you.
For what you gentlemen have to say to that, I will try to be patient... Frodo must die
I've heard that chess is based on each piece having different areas of control within a 5x5 square.
The Queen used to be the counselor and only moved one square diagonally.
The Bishop used to be the Alfil and jumped two squares diagonally.
The Rook was the same, and the following position shows how the Knight got its odd-looking move.
The L-shaped moves are the 'leftovers', after the other pieces have been assigned squares.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIf that's NOT true, it oughta be because it's soooooooo completely logical.
I've heard that chess is based on each piece having different areas of control within a 5x5 square.
The Queen used to be the counselor and only moved one square diagonally.
The Bishop used to be the Alfil and jumped two squares diagonally.
The Rook was the same, and the following position shows how the Knight got its odd-looking move.
[fen]B1 ...[text shortened]...
The L-shaped moves are the 'leftovers', after the other pieces have been assigned squares.
Horsemen could jump over hedgerows and obstacles in real war.
Horses can be trained to walk sideways and push crowds out of the way as the swordman riding slashes at foes. The L shape to me represents alot of that IMHO.
Warriors were meant to stand in line and take there licks and die like men in the old days so when a pawn tries to "escape" an attack by jumping out 2 squares past the attacker its seen as cowardly and he can be hacked off at the legs as he tries to escape en' passant.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHey Big Dog-
I've heard that chess is based on each piece having different areas of control within a 5x5 square.
The Queen used to be the counselor and only moved one square diagonally.
The Bishop used to be the Alfil and jumped two squares diagonally.
The Rook was the same, and the following position shows how the Knight got its odd-looking move.
[fen]B1 ...[text shortened]...
The L-shaped moves are the 'leftovers', after the other pieces have been assigned squares.
Good information. I've never heard it before. Thanks. Could you possibly give me a source for your information?
The modern day bishops represents archers, they snipe targets from long distance. The modern day knight is simply your elite infantry that can "jump" out of hotspots here and there. The rook is battery/heavy artillary, staight lines of devestation and penetration. The king is the leader of your army, it's important he stays alive, he has good fighting/defensive ability, but like most leaders, doesn't move much and is vulnerable when left to himself. The queen? I won't even go there. Seeing that chess is a war game, many chess pessimists have argued a wild and powerful lone peice like the queen is overpowered and imbalances the game, which is why they don't play chess. Obviously, throughout history, this peice, and it's name, it's look and it's rules has changed continiously. I do honestly somewhat agree with them the queen wackiness of movement really has no place in a patternized strategical war game like chess, and it does seem kinda "wild". My guess is they put the queen in there, with all it's movements, to make the game more interesting and make mating patterns in the middle game more possible.
There's also theories that the queen, was a product of an early form of feminist movement and invented by women, although many chess historians will quickly deny this. Women who played chess wanted the game more crazy, wild, and interesting, so they created the only chess peice with a distinct female title as a giant powerhouse, with almost godly like movements. At first such games, back in that time, with the queen, were perhabs similar to "bughouse" of today, perhabs in middle aged terms, the game was simply called, "she's a biatch", lol, but within time, the queen idea was catchy, entertaining, fun, and all the majority of chess players, who are mostly men BTW, enjoyed the game immensely with the queen and the idea caught on forever for entertainment purposes and then became common rule.
I do know that the queen itself, and the "en passant" rule are very modern rules in terms of the ancient game. I wonder if we will see any new rules this century? I doubt it, humanity is kinda in conservative mode about such things, and often feels like it's none of their business to change a "historical" game (that's been changed all the time anyways), but we'll see. . .
Another interesting question, if there were to be a new rule in chess, what would that fair a logical rule be and why would you create it? Personally, I would probably do something to reduce the queen's power a bit, maybe allow her to still move diagonals and in lines, but just not as far, although I don't know how to do this without confusing people further.
Originally posted by ExiledVery interesting. You appear learned in the subject. How did you learn these things? I agree about the bishop, king, and rook. What do you think about the knight? Yes, the queen is too strong for good play balance. Personally, I would increase the knight's leap to three up, one over.
The modern day bishops represents archers, they snipe targets from long distance. The modern day knight is simply your elite infantry that can "jump" out of hotspots here and there. The rook is battery/heavy artillary, staight lines of devestation and penetration. The king is the leader of your army, it's important he stays alive, he has good fighting/defe ...[text shortened]... es, but just not as far, although I don't know how to do this without confusing people further.