this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
41 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22763 readers
19 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm not talking about the technical rules of legal moves when your king is checked. I'm talking about when there's checkmate and the victor and the loser are set in stone. Why can't I capture the king at that point? I can understand why you can't do so with a resignation because your pieces likely aren't near the king.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

One THEORY I've heard from some college professor I had back in the day, chess originates from ancient Iran and in that place and time, the "King" was often more a symbolic figure and who was really in charge was whatever clan controlled him. Basically some powerful tribe would hold the king as a gilded hostage who they could "politely ask" him to issue royal decrees on their behalf. So really when you win in chess you're taking the king hostage.

Again this was a theory a kinda quack professor of mine had. Don't take it as fact.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ehhh i dont think sasanian iran was particularly "figurehead-y", at least any more than the 'normal' amount you get in monarchies.

unless prof was talking about abbassids and beyond, they did get freaky with it in medieval times between caliphs, sultans, shahs, and atabegs

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Yeah like I said the dude was a bit of a quack. Interesting quack but a quack.