On being asked by Bill Hyde if "The birth of the chess Queen" author, Marilyn Yalom, also mentions source for the evolution of the Bishop, there is little there, and elsewhere there is various agreement, and to note that Isabella seems to have been
involved in several explanations, and as with the transcendent Queen's evolution in politics and society to its current state [emerging from a male predecessor] here is a report on the Bishop by Former US Chess Federation President John McCrary which
echoes similar sociological ideas:—

The queen and bishop gained their stronger powers in the late 1400s, suddenly. On the how and why behind these changes is a recently published theory, and my own.

The recent theory suggests that the increase in the queen's power was inspired by Queen Isabella of Castile, a powerful monarch whose reign was roughly contemporary with the increase in power of the chess queen. Advocates of this theory, however, still
need to explain the simultaneous increase in the bishop's powers, which would have had no connection to Isabella.

Some supporters of the Queen Isabella theory have argued that the bishop's movement might have already been increased, carried over from a 12th century variant called courier chess -- though there is no evidence that these long-range powers had been used
for, much less replaced, the bishop's otherwise limited movement in the real game.

My theory is that these powers were introduced as a variant of chess, one that intended to be a faster version of medieval chess, though still able to be played with the existing boards and sets. In Medieval chess, only rooks, which had been chariots in
the early game, could move rapidly around the board; the other pieces were limited to short-stepping moves. Using the long-range abilities of the rook as a model, the faster-chess variant’s simple idea was allowing a piece that moves like the rook but
along diagonal lines. Carrying the idea one step further was allowing a piece to move freely along all lines.

And how to adapt these ideas into the game without impacting existing sets should seem relatively obvious: simply bestow these new upgrades on the current weakest pieces, the queen and the bishop. Enhancing the two bishops with the new long-range
diagonal movement worked great, not only keeping their spots in the opening position, but now able to hit all 64 squares as a pair. And since the queen was a solitary piece – and a royal one – rewarding it with the most-powerful skillset worked out
naturally.

One awkward issue within my theory of the 15th century variant remains without an obvious explanation: All these ideas seem applicable to the times and sets that existed, except the king, who needed to maintain his limited movement to allow checkmate,
would now be less powerful than the new queen. Perhaps the inventor of this variant was a woman who thought this had worked out quite well.

As long as the queen's increase in powers is assumed to have been simultaneous with those of the bishop, my hypothesis seems to better-explain the sudden increase in both pieces than the Isabella hypothesis. More common sense that flows from a general
idea of speeding up a slow game and adding powers that were complements to piece movements that already existed in the game. Then the very practical idea of introducing these rules to existing sets, thus avoiding any need for newly designed pieces or
enlarged boards, simply by replacing the weakest pieces in the old game. Being able to use the old equipment would no doubt serve as encouragement to try the new moves.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely to me that introducing a major change in any game, which effectively creates a very new game, would be done just to honor a monarch. Also unlikely is this radically changed, new game driving out the old game into universal
extinction across many nations, including nations where this monarch wasn’t popular.

To me it seems far more likely that major changes in the game were motivated solely by a desire to create a superior practical game. After all, the 15th century, which also saw the invention of the printing press and the voyages of Columbus, was a time
in which old ideas and customs were being challenged, and new ideas being tried in many areas.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 9:29:48 AM UTC-7, Phil Innes wrote:

To me it seems far more likely that major changes in the game were motivated solely by a desire to create a superior practical game.

I tend to agree. Given that, I'm surprised there's no historical evidence that a name other
than "Queen" was ever used for the new Queen with enhanced powers. Which would have
solved the issue of the Queen being more powerful than the King.

Instead, the new chess was distinguished from the old by calling it the Chess of the
"furious Queen", at least in some places.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Yes John, "Mad Queen" and "Queen's Chess" were two variants, even being recalled in Alice in Wonderland [Carrol had two chess-playing aunts]. The particular difficulty here is in accounting for chess variants, and even recovery game scores which might
reveal the moves, thus dating any changes are still evident. Reverting to Yalom she mentions that arabic women had been playing the game since it was invented, 'with chess ensconced within conjugal life' and latterly played by prominent sovereigns as
Isabella and Elizabeth, note to mention Catherine de Medici and Anne of Austria — but by the turn of the seventeenth century the game had become masculinized and no longer fashionable for upper class women to play.

Additionally as late as 1694 the Englishman Thomas Hyde [Oxon., & R. Soc. he founded it] author of the first systematic study of chess, also exhibited an active prejudice regretted the presence of the two pieces we now discuss, writing "They [Europeans]
overlook that the game is an image of battle and for which reason the image of Queen and Bishop are inappropriate and aught to be replaced by Supreme General and Elephant — as is the practice among Eastern nations who were the inventors of the game."
He also bemoaned "the absurdity of letting a common soldier [the pawn] become a Queen in the course of the game — as though a woman could be made out of a man."

And there we have the best chronicler of the game to that time admitting a prejudice. His solution was "to remove the Queen and the Bishop from the game at once," although his criticism had no effect on the game whatsoever post-renaissance women backed
away from the "queen's chess". Neither was he inclined thereby to provide dates for the 'new' chess.

The late Historian Joan Kelly-Gadol asked the question if women had a renaissance? And the answer was that it was not any such renaissance as enjoyed by men, even to recording its path to modern chess. Germaine Greer would have told off Thomas Hyde as
equitably as she did A. L. Rowse for his sloppy accounting and gender omissions even in the Shakespearean era.

I'll keep looking

Phil Innes

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 1:05:14 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 9:29:48 AM UTC-7, Phil Innes wrote:

To me it seems far more likely that major changes in the game were motivated solely by a desire to create a superior practical game.

I tend to agree. Given that, I'm surprised there's no historical evidence that a name other
than "Queen" was ever used for the new Queen with enhanced powers. Which would have
solved the issue of the Queen being more powerful than the King.

Instead, the new chess was distinguished from the old by calling it the Chess of the
"furious Queen", at least in some places.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 8:20:07 AM UTC-5, Phil Innes wrote:

Yes John, "Mad Queen" and "Queen's Chess" were two variants, even being recalled in Alice in Wonderland [Carrol had two chess-playing aunts]. The particular difficulty here is in accounting for chess variants, and even recovery game scores which might

reveal the moves, thus dating any changes are still evident. Reverting to Yalom she mentions that arabic women had been playing the game since it was invented, 'with chess ensconced within conjugal life' and latterly played by prominent sovereigns as
Isabella and Elizabeth, note to mention Catherine de Medici and Anne of Austria — but by the turn of the seventeenth century the game had become masculinized and no longer fashionable for upper class women to play.

Additionally as late as 1694 the Englishman Thomas Hyde [Oxon., & R. Soc. he founded it] author of the first systematic study of chess, also exhibited an active prejudice regretted the presence of the two pieces we now discuss, writing "They [Europeans]

overlook that the game is an image of battle and for which reason the image of Queen and Bishop are inappropriate and aught to be replaced by Supreme General and Elephant — as is the practice among Eastern nations who were the inventors of the game."
He also bemoaned "the absurdity of letting a common soldier [the pawn] become a Queen in the course of the game — as though a woman could be made out of a man."

Shhhhhh!

If the republicans hear about this they'll ban chess in schools.

William Thomas Hyde (no relation!)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

He also bemoaned "the absurdity of letting a common soldier [the pawn] become a Queen in the course of the game — as though a woman could be made out of a man."

Shhhhhh!

If the republicans hear about this they'll ban chess in schools.

I think we're safe here, Republicans don't read, or if they do they cannot successfully communicate any subsequent understanding.

William Thomas Hyde (no relation!)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 6:20:07 AM UTC-7, Phil Innes wrote:

He also bemoaned "the absurdity of letting a common soldier [the pawn] become a Queen in the course of the game — as though a woman could be made out of a man."

Of course, in 1694, they didn't have anaesthesia, and it was before people started
to recognize transphobia as a problem.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023 05:20:06 -0800 (PST), Phil Innes
<vtviewsinnes@gmail.com> wrote:

Additionally as late as 1694 the Englishman Thomas Hyde
[Oxon., & R. Soc. he founded it] author of the first systematic
study of chess, also exhibited an active prejudice regretted the
presence of the two pieces we now discuss, writing "They [Europeans]
overlook that the game is an image of battle and for which reason the
image of Queen and Bishop are inappropriate and aught to be replaced
by Supreme General and Elephant — as is the practice among Eastern
nations who were the inventors of the game." He also bemoaned "the
absurdity of letting a common soldier [the pawn] become a Queen in the
course of the game — as though a woman could be made out of a man."

While it is generally agreed that the new moves for the Queen and
Bishop have vastly improved the game of Chess, I don't see anything to
object to in advocating more appropriate names for the pieces
corresponding to their new moves.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:59:14 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

While it is generally agreed that the new moves for the Queen and
Bishop have vastly improved the game of Chess, I don't see anything to
object to in advocating more appropriate names for the pieces
corresponding to their new moves.

While I agree with you, it's been queen and bishop long enough - and
chess is international enough to need to be accessible in many
languages - that changing them now would only confuse more people than
such a move would benefit.

More people are confused by FIDE regulations than would ever benefit
from such a change - besides which the nature of modern warfare has
long made any view of chess as a war game highly stylistic at best.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 12:59:14 -0600, John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

While it is generally agreed that the new moves for the Queen and
Bishop have vastly improved the game of Chess, I don't see anything to
object to in advocating more appropriate names for the pieces
corresponding to their new moves.

While I agree with you, it's been queen and bishop long enough - and
chess is international enough to need to be accessible in many
languages - that changing them now would only confuse more people than
such a move would benefit.

More people are confused by FIDE regulations than would ever benefit
from such a change - besides which the nature of modern warfare has
long made any view of chess as a war game highly stylistic at best.

What are the confusing FIDE regulations? I only play for fun and never in
any official way, so I'm just curious if there are any strange regulations
that regular amateurs would find strange.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Horny Goat wrote:

More people are confused by FIDE regulations than would ever benefit
from such a change - besides which the nature of modern warfare has
long made any view of chess as a war game highly stylistic at best.

Not true. It took me 40 yrs to see parallels, but they are there. Can
you claim 40 yrs playing that you see no similarities?

Such as when laying a trap that takes 3 moves, deciding on the order to
lay them down to best ensnare the enemy. One has to decide on a
priority, and often it is based on the enemy - is he someone who sees
every threat, or can you pull the wool over his eyes by making the least threatening of the three moves first?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:31:46 -0500, Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The Horny Goat wrote:

More people are confused by FIDE regulations than would ever benefit
from such a change - besides which the nature of modern warfare has
long made any view of chess as a war game highly stylistic at best.

Not true. It took me 40 yrs to see parallels, but they are there. Can
you claim 40 yrs playing that you see no similarities?

Such as when laying a trap that takes 3 moves, deciding on the order to
lay them down to best ensnare the enemy. One has to decide on a
priority, and often it is based on the enemy - is he someone who sees
every threat, or can you pull the wool over his eyes by making the least >threatening of the three moves first?

In addition to 50 years since my first tournament (in my early teens),
I was also involved in my undergraduate university's wargames club (in
the late 70s).

I met Spassky in the 1971 Canadian Open (which he won) as well as
getting yelled at (with a group of other teenagers) by Max Euwe for
making too much noise in the skittles room. I also met (and got my
copy of Practical Chess Endings autographed) at the 1975 Vancouver International which was Paul Keres' last victory (he died in Finland
on the way back to Estonia) which in future years morphed into the
Vancouver Paul Keres memorial tournament which I directed several
times.

As you might expect from the above besides chess I've always been
interested in historical counter-factuals which these days means I
spend time with Quora - which frustrates me endlessly with the number
of questions that show the questioner hasn't done even the most basic
of reading. These days I mostly go to Quora for the historical photos,
my favorite being Churchill with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1910 - the
Kaiser was visiting Britain and was in a British admiral's uniform
while Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at that point)

I was also delighted to find in a recent Informant (158?) the games of
the 1910 Lasker - Schlechter match including game 10 which I had read
about as a boy but never seen a game score till that Informant. (I've
got a complete set of Informants and told my children how I want them
to go when I'm gone - e.g. as a complete set to a long-time chess
historian I've worked several major tournaments with)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Zersterer wrote:

The Horny Goat wrote:

More people are confused by FIDE regulations than would ever benefit
from such a change - besides which the nature of modern warfare has
long made any view of chess as a war game highly stylistic at best.

Not true.  It took me 40 yrs to see parallels, but they are there.  Can
you claim 40 yrs playing that you see no similarities?

Such as when laying a trap that takes 3 moves, deciding on the order to
lay them down to best ensnare the enemy.  One has to decide on a
priority, and often it is based on the enemy - is he someone who sees
every threat, or can you pull the wool over his eyes by making the least threatening of the three moves first?

Another similarity:

Looking around the board for moves until you find one good enough starts cropping up in your decision making.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Horny Goat wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 15:31:46 -0500, Zersterer <nochsfentor@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The Horny Goat wrote:

More people are confused by FIDE regulations than would ever benefit
from such a change - besides which the nature of modern warfare has
long made any view of chess as a war game highly stylistic at best.

Not true. It took me 40 yrs to see parallels, but they are there. Can
you claim 40 yrs playing that you see no similarities?

Such as when laying a trap that takes 3 moves, deciding on the order to
lay them down to best ensnare the enemy. One has to decide on a
priority, and often it is based on the enemy - is he someone who sees
every threat, or can you pull the wool over his eyes by making the least
threatening of the three moves first?

In addition to 50 years since my first tournament (in my early teens),
I was also involved in my undergraduate university's wargames club (in
the late 70s).

I met Spassky in the 1971 Canadian Open (which he won) as well as
getting yelled at (with a group of other teenagers) by Max Euwe for
making too much noise in the skittles room. I also met (and got my
copy of Practical Chess Endings autographed) at the 1975 Vancouver International which was Paul Keres' last victory (he died in Finland
on the way back to Estonia) which in future years morphed into the
Vancouver Paul Keres memorial tournament which I directed several
times.

As you might expect from the above besides chess I've always been
interested in historical counter-factuals which these days means I
spend time with Quora - which frustrates me endlessly with the number
of questions that show the questioner hasn't done even the most basic
of reading. These days I mostly go to Quora for the historical photos,
my favorite being Churchill with Kaiser Wilhelm II (from 1910 - the
Kaiser was visiting Britain and was in a British admiral's uniform
while Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty at that point)

I was also delighted to find in a recent Informant (158?) the games of
the 1910 Lasker - Schlechter match including game 10 which I had read
about as a boy but never seen a game score till that Informant. (I've
got a complete set of Informants and told my children how I want them
to go when I'm gone - e.g. as a complete set to a long-time chess
historian I've worked several major tournaments with)

No Goat, that's a Sea battle. Look at Chinese Chess for sea battle
relevance. There is water on the board.

You haven't seen any similarities?

What about how nations protect their core needs (the king) no matter
what weapon you take to it? You can effectively hold them in check
while pruning the rest of the tree.

I just made that up. Use your goddamn imagination, fool.
--
Zerstoerer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)