Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Equality in Chess

A woman I met mentioned a TV program she is 'hooked on' and suggested I watch a program. The one she suggested was Covert Affairs, Season 2, Episode 8: Welcome to the Occupation. I was able to watch it 'on demand' and found it to be like a comic book come to life. I mentioned this to her at our next meeting, our last, as it turns out. She did not care for what I thought about her "fave program." From IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495708/episodes#season-2): "Eco-terrorists hold a group of oil executives hostage in Mexico City, and Ben Mercer re-emerges as part of Annie's team sent in to assess the situation."
Ben is one of the stud's on the show and he was sent along with the star, Piper Perabo and her superior at the C.I.A. to rescue another agent, a woman, who was undercover, and being held hostage. Ben and Annie (Piper) were scaling the wall, heading to the roof, when two 'bad guys', mercenaries armed with assault weapons, were 'overpowered' by the unarmed women. Excellent C.I.A. training, I presume. It strained credulity, to say the least. Hence, the comic book nature of the show.
My female friend took umbrage at my point of view. So I asked her, "If your life were on the line in real life and you had to choose either the unarmed women, or the mercenaries with assault rifles, which would you pick?" She said, "That's not fair." I retorted, "Nobody has ever said that life is fair." She evidently watches a lot of tube because she proceeded to tell me about many programs with women "kickin' men's ass." She mentioned a female character, Ziva David, a trained Mossad assasin, on the #1 rated TV show, NCIS. I don't know the name of the muscle guy on Leverage, but I recall he is called 'Hitter'. I kinda liked that. When I mentioned it was all fantasy, and only served to emasculate men, I thought she might 'kick some Bacon butt'!
This got me cogitating...
Why is it the Queen is so powerful in chess? It was not always thus. It is time to bring the Lady down a peg or more. Why should the Queen be more powerful than the King? I call for EQUALITY!
I propose the Queen be limited to only TWO moves in any direction, providing the square is unoccupied. I also propose equality for the King, who should be allowed two moves in any direction, same as the Queen. Think of it, if the King is checked by a Knight from f3 in the castled position, the King can capture the Knight if it has an open avenue to do so, unless, that is, the Knight is protected. If the Queen checks a King on e1 from, say, e3, the King can capture the Queen, unless it is protected.
This would, along with allowing pawns to 'advance to the rear' (see post, Revolutionary Proposal For Chess: Free The Pawns! Monday, July 25, 2011, http://baconlog.blogspot.com/2011/07/revolutionary-proposal-for-chess-free.html) alter the game drastically. It would also prevent many draws by repetition. And, more importantly, it would bring much needed equality to the game.

1 comment:

Parx said...

I took my sweet time to finally read this post, but I'd like to address the psychology of the abilities of the queen and king. The king is you (remember the scene in Searching for Bobby Fischer?). You have command of all the other pieces, because you're the king. The piece you value the most is your queen, but you represent the whole of the game/battle. You can win without any single member of your team, but your team can't even play without you. Whether or not the king should be allowed to move two squares or pawns backwards I leave to others to debate. Chess is hard enough for me as it is.

Mr. Parx