Activists protest against chess as 'racist'

[Caligastia]

I once had an idea for custom chess sets in which each side represents a different race. You could have Blacks v Whites, East Asians v Indians...the possibilities are endless. And the inevitable controversy would be sure to generate sales.

[NeOmega]

I AM CALLING YOU OUT!

WHERE DID YOU HERE THIS AND WHERE IS YOUR LINK?

THIS IS ACTUALLY A LINE FORM ONE OF CHRIS ROCK'S STAND UP ROUTINE.

I googled them and they are an old 60's anti-racism coalition.

Where did you hear this, and where is your proof?

Those links are nothing. One is to an obvious right wing joke page, the other just goes to the Berkely board of Education page.

[Q Classic]

actually the entire print media, and business society is inherently racist.

everything is printed on white paper. i mean, wtf?

[Dis]

the only thing I don't like is the black market. why is it called the black market?

[Caligastia]

The laws of nature are racist. Darkness is black.

[DaShi]

Black people aren't black.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Dissident
And the game is chauvenist towards women.

Because even though the queen is the most poweful piece. The most important piece continues to be the male unit- the King. Even though the female is more talented, she is expendable and can be replaced. But if the King is taken- the game is indeed over.

Originally posted by Molly Bloom
Oh, and yes, the queen was a vizier or counsellor.

Actually, the Western terminology about chess looks so incredulous to me. What about the Queen in the battlefield? I'm sure there are some examples of this in military history, but to make it a central piece in a game simulating war, is to me utter nonsense.

At least in Turkish we call the piece known as the Queen as "the Vizier" (Vezir) (as pointed out by Molly Bloom). Doesn't it make infinitely more sense in comparison?

Also, what about the bishop? Sure, there were warrior monks in military history, but were they an integral part of armies as fighting forces in history? If you imagine the chess piece bishop ravaging the board, what's that correspond to? A regiment of crazed monks with longswords? Or a crazed regiment of I don't know what led by a bishop? Too much of a strech of imagination .

I don't know the phraseology in Eastern countries but at least in Turkish that piece is called "the Elephant" (Fil).

As for racism in chess, that's totally absurd .

[Winston]

The Bishop is not called a bishop in all of the Western cultural sphere. In Danish for instance, it's called "Løber", which I'm not able to translate directly, but it signifies a certain position at the Royal Court of a close personal aide to the Monarch.

Likewise, the Knight is called "Springer" in Danish, which pertains to the horse itself and not the aristocratic/professional status of the rider.

[:) Smiley]

When state and church aren't separate, there wasn't that much of a difference between a bishop and a lord, so its quite possible they led armies.

There have been numerous cases in history where the queen would act as a sort of vizier.

Hey AECCP comrades, how would you propose a more egalitarian boardgame?

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Smiley
When state and church aren't separate, there wasn't that much of a difference between a bishop and a lord, so its quite possible they led armies.

There have been numerous cases in history where the queen would act as a sort of vizier.

Hey AECCP comrades, how would you propose a more egalitarian boardgame?

I see the point. But was there ever a time in European history when the church and the state was not seperate? I mean, there was always a pope and a caesar, and sure at different times one or the other was the dominant factor in politics/policy making, but AFAIK there was never a time when the church and the state were not seperate.

Would my interpretation of the relation between the pope and caesar (church and state) be wrong/inaccurate? That would directly relate to the "bishops would count as lords on the battlefield" explanation.

As for queens acting as viziers, what I meant was that in Islamic and (more often) Ottoman history, viziers actually commanded armies on the battlefield in addition to their roles as court advisors. Queens may have acted as viziers at court but seldom did they actually command armies in battlefields (with maybe a few very rare exceptions, if at all). That was my incredulity about naming that piece as "the queen".

[Winston]

It doesn't have to be logical what they're named. Like with most things dating back to near pre-historic times, just a single King (real one!) at the appropriate time decreeing that a small cross should be added onto one of the pieces and it henceforth be known as the Bishop, is all it really takes. Maybe he did it so he could marry a Bishop's daughter...

Don't put too much into this naming of pieces business, you run the risk of becoming like the activists in the original post.

[:) Smiley]

Well, the queen piece originally could move only one space, so essentially was stuck in court. Then I suppose some time later, someone decided that the new stats made for a better game.

[Last Conformist]

Black people aren't black.

That's awfully racist of them. Isn't black good enough for them, eh?

@Ancyrean: I guess the best example of warlike bishops would be those of the Ottonian empire, where one of the chief duties of a bishop was to maintain a certain number of knights, that the bishop then normally led in battle himself.

In Swedish, the bishop is called löpare "runner" (presumably refering to a courier of some sort), and the knight either springare "steed" or häst "horse".

The one that freaks me out is the rock - how can it move?!? The Swedish name is no better: torn "tower".

[Al B. Sure!]

its not rock... its the rook, a word which i dont know what it means.

[:) Smiley]

In the US its represented as a castle. That is indeed a good question, how the heck are large stone buildings supposed to be one of the most mobile pieces? In asian chess, theres a piece with the same function, except its called the chariot.