this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
476 points (98.4% liked)

AnarchyChess

5169 readers
169 users here now

Holy hell

Other chess communities:
[email protected]
[email protected]

Matrix space

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 56 points 8 months ago (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 8 months ago

Yeah, I checked the bottom of the pieces.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

They need to be to become bishops. Unless they're Anglican....

Chess is br*ish 🤢

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I'm torn between "pawndrogynous" and "anpawngynous"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Non binary pawns pog

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nothing in the image or title implies the gender of the pawn or that all pawns are the same gender though... they might be all female or mixed, none of the options are gender specific.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago

'Changing gender' to become a queen implies a non-female initial gender.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I never understood what the Rook was supposed to represent. Everything else has a rough analog to actual battle. But castle towers are notable non-mobile.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Originally, the rook symbolized a chariot. The Persian word rokh means chariot, and the corresponding pieces in Oriental chess games such as xiangqi and shogi have names meaning chariot. Persian War Chariots were heavily armoured, carrying a driver and at least one ranged-weapon bearer, such as an archer.

Modern ones are akin to siege towers is my take.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago

In German they’re called "Turm" which literally translates to tower…

I suppose siege towers would make sense, however I’ve never seen a chess set that didn’t have them look like a castle. (Which could be one reason they look like that, so castling actually produces a castle)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

You haven't played enough Stronghold

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

siege tower.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

My take is that they represent a fort, or to put it another way, an engineer Corp. They attack linearly, which makes them bad at offense, but they're powerful field control.

They can't get out early and it's easy to spot their attacks, but their range is fantastic

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago

Pawns are all just temporarily embarrassed Queens.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How does a pawn become any of the others?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You can promote to anything

[–] [email protected] 41 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You cannot promote to King or Pawn. As such, your statement is wrong and i feel betrayed.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I'd love to watch someone try to do this at a tournament. Just swapping out their pawn for an extra King with a deadpan expression.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The game would end when any king is captured so having more than one (as opposed to making the pawn a queen) would be a strict disadvantage. I'd allow it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago

Incorrect, the game ends when a king cannot avoid capture. As such, your statement is wrong and I feel betrayed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

I misunderstood the rules and shoved my king into my mouth, with a deadpan expression.

Too bad they cut that out of a clip of Queen's Gambit.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Swap it for an enemy pawn.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Or a bionicle

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Granted, but checkmate on either of the kings = loss

E: And now that I think about it, forking the kinds would also have to be a loss.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can't be promoted to player either

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Pawns were players and players were pawns, once upon a time. Now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Oh, just like real life.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

In the originial, its minister, camel, elephant and horse. So minister or furry.