September 21, 2004

history of chess pieces

zzzzazzdggg74.jpg
Chess pie­ces move the way they do for a rea­son:
A drunk Scot­tish guy in a pub told me this story. Fisk away.
Chess pie­ces are wee repre­sen­ta­tions of ancient war­fare.
1. Pawns. Foot sol­diers. They were orde­red to advance, fight to the death, and never retreat. Manoeuv­ring a pha­lanx of them in any direc­tion other than for­wards was pretty much impos­si­ble until the advent of the highly trai­ned, highly dri­lled pro­fes­sio­nal sol­dier, which didn’t appear until much later with the Romans.
2. Knights. In ancient times, Cal­vary never advan­ced head on, but flan­ked i.e. they went around the back and attac­ked at the side.
3. Rooks. The ori­gi­nal chess rooks were not cast­les, but war elephants. Elephants are fairly uns­top­pa­ble once they get going, but not very manoeuv­ra­ble. Hence they can go in straight lines– for­ward, back­ward, left, right– but little else. In ancient times war elephants carried little 

14 Responses to “history of chess pieces”

  1. Katherine says:

    Actually, the queen didn’t even exist in Indian or Arab chess. She was a southern Euro­pean addi­tion around 1000 AD, and was a very weak piece until 1500 AD or so. Cf. Birth of the Chess Queen : A His­tory, by Marilyn Yalom.

  2. J.P. says:

    So how does this trans­late to the modern world? i.e. the cor­po­rate world??

  3. Basileios says:

    Why must everything trans­late to the cor­po­rate world? Let things be, che­rish the past and move on. After all, as Froyd said ‘some­ti­mes a han­ger is just a hanger’

  4. Jefferson says:

    This is fun — except for the bit about naval war­fare going into dec­line after the fall of the Roman Empire. Not exactly. Naval War­fare didn’t even reach its zenith until the 20th cen­tury. So how about after World War II, just a few years later?

  5. Charlotte says:

    I really like this his­tory. I am pas­sing along to my Dad. Every Thanks­gi­ving we play and 2001 I beat him. Oh how I relish that day. :)

  6. hugh macleod says:

    Ummm.… Jef­fer­son, the dec­line I’m tal­king about star­ted in about 500 A.D. and las­ted for about 1000 years.
    Wes­tern Euro­pean naval war­fare had very little inno­va­tion in that time frame. Refi­ne­ment of Helle­nic methods (i.e galley sla­ves), and litle else. Spain, Europe’s big­gest navy in 1587, was still using galleys.
    That all chan­ged with the advent of gun­pow­der, of course.…

  7. Hamish says:

    I miss Kays. Or the Antiq.
    Sit­ting inside on a long lazy win­ter after­noon with the sun strea­ming through a pint of fizzy indus­trial lager, stri­ving to get the per­cep­tion level down until the shite that the guy next to you was telling you see­med pro­found. In those days I was young, and that was about two pints.
    Those voi­ces! All smo­kers with tones that an ad man would dream of, all eth­nic sin­ce­rity, and damn plau­si­ble. Everything was fine, in that little world, then you step­ped out of the door, and the magic vanished.
    There you were, on the street in the cold, and it sud­denly occu­rred to you that it wasn’t pos­si­ble to solve the world’s ills from the stool in the pub. But by God that didn’t stop them making some epic attempts.
    Now, you have to be more or less uncons­cious not to notice the fact that these guys are lova­ble idiots.
    Not to say that a stop­ped clock can’t tell the right time twice a day, because that chess story is inte­res­ting, if not espe­cially plau­si­ble, at least it shows an inte­rest in why it’s such a good game.
    That’s another sign of the 21st cen­tury. I lost inte­rest in chess about the time that my mobile phone star­ting win­ning against me…

  8. hugh macleod says:

    Yeah, I remem­ber being 17 or 18 in Edin­burgh and thin­king that’s what grow­nups did for a living… collect fun sto­ries and tell them to ran­dom tee­na­gers in pubs. Heh.

  9. Marilyn Yalom with their latest book

  10. leslie says:

    alright kathe­rine i have a question…if the queen wasn’t in the ori­gi­nal game what was there in her place how did they keep the board even??? did they have to kings???

  11. leslie says:

    alright kathe­rine i have a question…if the queen wasn’t in the ori­gi­nal game what was there in her place how did they keep the board even??? did they have two kings???

  12. Philboid Studge says:

    You may be inte­res­ted to know that “pawn” and “foot sol­dier” are liguis­ti­cally rela­ted. From http://www.etymonline.com:
    “lowly chess piece,” 1369, from Anglo-Fr. poun, O.Fr. peon, ear­lier pehon, from M.L. pedo­nem “foot sol­dier,” from L.L. pedo­nem (nom. pedo) “one going on foot,” from L. pes (gen. pedis) “foot” (see foot). The chess sense was in O.Fr. by 13c. Fig. use, of per­sons, is from 1589.
    Or not.

  13. Anonymous says:

    asian les­bians

    girls pee in sho­wer wet pants gol­den sho­wer gay piss <a href=“http://www.generalwebsite.com/…