Philosophy Now Forum

It is a game representing the noble and honest (those who take the square path), the sly and coy (those who take the angled path), the magicians and liars (those who take a crooked path), and of course the simple minded functionaries obeying simple orders (those with the least power and most expendable).

You can figure out which is which.

The more modern figures used often have a different reputation than they used to. Knights, for example, were men who served the king through deception "in the dark". Queens and bishops function through secret messages sent to distant places. The king commands the others, not intentionally endangering himself in the field of play.

The name of bishop is surprising.
Can it be explained somehow ?
In German and Polish it is a runner or a messanger or an errand person.
In French it is a madman: le fou.
In Italian it is a banner carrier (or leutenant ?).

The "queen" in Polish seems to be some kind of king´s advisor (hetman), some kind of important duke.

What would feminists prefer ? That a woman figure is included in the game or not ?
Is it dignified for a lady to run around a lot and to fight for the sake of the king ?

I would not call a knight a sneeky piece even though he moves as he does because it is clear what options he has so there should be no surprise really.

The pawns are like page boys, they run forward first and leave for a tea-party to the side of the chess-board first, but not necessarily so.