Talk:Queen (chess)

He was truly called Vazir

In the historical ancestors of chess, shatranj, the queen was a fairly weak piece called a fers or vizier. The modern queen's move arose in 15th century Europe.

I have never heard the sentence above. I urge author to introduce a source for his or her claim.

Well, it is truly called Vazir or Farzin in Persian and the Persia since firstly in ancient Persia and ancient age in general the queen had no political power and status. In ancient Persia, for example, there was a person who was very close to the King and was consulting with the King. Some thing like chancellor or Prime minister. secondly, as you know, when a pawn cross the board and gets over the edge, he becomes queen, well it does not make sense. The idea behind this incident is that the new status is a prize for a brave soldier that passes the enemy's area. Certainly he is not gonna marry the King and become second queen!, it was not practiced in the old Persia. He becomes a minister and a man who has more power. As a result, as I said, they were calling it Minister and in that era, minister or Vazir or Chancellor was the most important person in the country, as you see the current UK political system, the prime minister is having the real power not the queen or King or any other member of royal family. The King in the old Persia was head of state. The practical affairs and ministries were managed by the chancellor.

in addition to what I said above

especially a person who really helped the chess get developed was named "Bozorg Mehr" or Burzoe. In his era, as I said he had a status like chancellor and he was not the King. proved by very well-known sourses and diries, he was playing chess daily with the King (Khosrau I)

pawn turns into queen

I think I read somewhere that in case a pawn makes it all the way to the opposite edge of the board it may be exchanged for a queen. If this is true it should be included in the article.

Note that it doesn't necessarily have to be a queen, it can promote to any piece of its own colour except a king. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the unnecessary "'''Queen.'''" from the diagram caption; it isn't really required. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial placement

The diagram showing initial placement of the queens is wrong; they're shown on the king's file. Akwdb (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Example of sacrificing queen

I think it would be appropriate to add the example of Bobby Fischer's brilliant queen sacrifice on the way to winning The Game of the Century. The two places I was considering putting it were the end of the 1st paragraph under Piece value, or under Queen sacrifice. Do others agree? Where would you put it? DoctorEric (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly appropriate, I would say, and the Queen sacrifice section seems the best spot. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest take a look at pt:Dama_(xadrez)#Sacrifício_da_Dama which mentions others very famous sacrifices. Opera game, Evergreen game and Immortal Game also sacrifice the Queen. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In Estonian (country of Keres, Ehlvest etc) queen is called lipp (flag) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.84.98 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving like a knight?

"In Russia for a long time the queen could also move like a knight; some players disappproved of this ability to "gallop like the horse (= knight)". - sources given:

• [1] (in Russian)
• [2] (in Russian)

The claim was added by User:Anthony_Appleyard, the sources (?) by User:D.M. from Ukraine. But these are, as far as I can see, only dictionaries (and not too serious ones), not supporting the statement. I ask for clarification and better sources. --KnightMove (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

These sources are on-line versions of a well-known Vladimir Dal's Russian dictionary. It is really understandable from that article of the dictionary that once the queen could move like a knight if the players approved this. But I agree that some better sources would be desirable. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I found another ref. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I confirmed the reference in A History of Chess, by Murray. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all - I'm sorry for being too sceptic and harsh in the edit summary. --KnightMove (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

most powerful piece?

The first line says that it's the most powerful piece. However, isn't that subjective? I think the King is the most powerful piece if you base it on winning/losing the game. If your King is checkmated, you lose. You cannot be without a King. I think "most powerful" should be removed, as it's misleading. Even though most people associate the Queen with 9 points (the most second to the King -- which is infinity), this is still a matter of opinion, as some people give it 10 or some may even put it less than a rook. Also, if the Queen is in a terrible position, then it's worth less points.

Maybe it should be reworded to say, "Most players attribute it the most points, second to the King, and therefore, deem it more important than the pawn, bishop, knight, and rook at least in the opening/middle. In the endgame, the pawns may be closer to the edges which can change into Queens, so they may be equal to Queens...."

Or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.86.80 (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The King is the most valuable, not the most powerful. Thats what the scoring is about. The text is fine. A pawn on the seventh is still just a pawn and the threat it poses is potential rather than real. Jkmaskell (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111095017/http://vidahl.agava.ru:80/P240.HTM to http://vidahl.agava.ru/P240.HTM#41651

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yalom

The claim attributed to Yalom that "Eleanor of Aquitaine and Blanche of Castile and Isabella I of Castile, the cult of the Virgin Mary,and the power ascribed to women in the troubadour tradition of courtly love," contributed to the promotion of the queen's power in chess was already made by Henry Adams in his famous book The Mont Ste-Michel and Chartres. It also contradicts the later thesis attributed to Yalom that in fact this shift came about under Isabel la Catolica - hundreds of years later - and spread through Europe because of the printing press and the expulsion of the Sephardic Jews (2604:2000:C5CA:AF00:7D57:B7F3:A393:1704 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)).

I'd be in favour of trimming or eliminating the Yalom material. It is pure speculation and not supported by any other historian or academic that I know of. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be more than one wrong fact from the Yalom reference. It states "Starting from Spain, this new version – called "queen's chess" (scacchi de la donna), or pejoratively "madwoman's chess" (scacchi alla rabiosa) [...]" but if it really came from Spain, there might be an error with the given names in parentheses, as they are in italian. Rorlork (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I say we just eliminate Yalom from the article. It's about a chess piece, not some cult of the Virgin Mary feminist patriarchal theory or whatever. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Power of chess figures

It would we very desirable if we put in the article the famous table of powers for figures of chess because I think chess figures have some nice properties even outside the game of chess itself. Momentaly I have no time to do that but I'll try some day. I must say I don't like the games itself and I don't play it well, but I prefer very much problems related to the game (for example the famous 8 queen problem and similar ones). If you mean the relative strengths of the pieces (queen = 9 points, rook = 5 points etc.), this is already covered in Chess/Strategy and Tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:287B:C691:0:60:CB5F:B301 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)