Why the king is the one that must be protected in chess?

[Xcommunicated]

It’s strategy. The game was invented to teach strategy to military commanders. The king represents the objective. If that point falls the entire battle is lost. Each piece has a pt value. Additionally each has strengths and weaknesses.

this is not a sexist thing. If we extend your argument that it is sexist: the queen is the most valuable piece in game play, without the king there is no game play. This point value and ability raises her to the most fierce, valuable, and coveted piece on the board. Even over every other male represented piece. That argument actually proves the reverse premise.

I do understand the point you’re making. However, I’d suggest not looking at it from the 21st century view. Rather if you consider that it goes back to 570ad when the feudal system and monarchy were the standard forms of government and military representations. To change these representations that have existed for over 1500 years would really be pointless and in the end actually degrading to women.

my father actually used teaching me how to play chess about the value and ability of women. And that my queen in the game and life were to be treated with great care and respect.

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

Piece protection applies to all the pieces in the game, the King just has an instant fail-state built in if it gets trapped. So naturally there's a general top-level strategy that favours defending your King while opening up lines towards the enemy King.

But there are many positions/situations where defending your King isn't strictly necessary (for example, if you're playing a very sharp aggressive line in which opponent's resources are all tied up in preventing major material losses).

In fact the King often becomes critical during King + Pawn endgames, where it can safely centralise, or escort a flanking pawn up to a promotion tile.

Any piece in chess can be used defensively or offensively (within constraints of what moves are 'legal' in a given position). So while you're maybe more likely to see a queen defending a King than vice versa, that's not to say the Queen's purpose boils down to defending the King. In fact, concepts of defense and offense in chess are often not easily separated. High level chess players tend to "read the board" as a whole, seeing all the pieces and their associated possibilities as a shifting mosaic of sorts. They don't say "I have x defending pieces and y attacking pieces", they're instead looking for patterns and motifs and opportunities to exploit, or threats to respond to, and then they reverse engineer which pieces need to occupy which squares to achieve a desired position. Lower level players have a more transactional understanding. They might think attacking with the queen is always the best move because "the Queen is strongest". Or that "I can't ever move my King up the board because it'll get attacked".

[SueShe]

It is obvious that the game was invented by a guy since women were assimilated to objects of lower value.

Can you imagine the uproar if the value of a woman would be higher in the days where this game was invented?

Women were always third class "object", sometimes coming way after animals in certain cultures. Even nowadays, women have no value except for the satisfaction of men.

If women and therefore the queen would have been the most valuable piece on a chessboard, that would be an insult to men in general and no man, even today, will accept that a woman is more valuable than a man.

Hence, the king must be protected and not the queen, the person that actually gives life to men.

[Bee-Hatch]

In simplistic terms they're the rules of the game. It's the only piece that when lost, loses the game. It's the piece with the least mobility. The names are irrelevant really.


Delve back into the origins of the game the king was calls "shah" from the persian/Indian names for a ruler. What we call the queen isn't originally a queen, it was the councilor - wazir/farzin.


Checkmate? Try Shah mat - Persian for the ruler is helpless.


Kind of interesting many folk are seeing it as some kind of feminist thing about the king/queen dynamic of strength vs power, when the names used are crappy translations from ancient languages brought back in the middle ages.

[Anonymous]

The Queen has more freedom, but not more power. It is the king which decides how long the game goes and when it is over. Despite that power, the king is stifled by the responsibility.

If you're question comes from a male vs female perspective, it's because it's a very old game and until very recently in history, males were considered inherently more valuable because of biological strengths. Men tend to be larger and have more muscle mass and in the olden days might made right. (Still does today, but to a lesser extent thanks to technology helping to even the playing field and make the mind more valuable.)

[jgokgotit]

First, the game was created in Medieval times, when the King must be protected at all costs. 2nd, if you think about life today, woman naturally protect men and make them better in some way. For example, a woman may not usually physically fight in a man's place, but many times women stop men from doing something stupid before they go too far out of anger. Take a bar fight. Men love to fight and anything can aggravate us. Many times a fight has been prevented by a woman getting in her man's face and getting him to back down. That's just one example. Whether women realize it or not, they do protect their man in some way, just as the man does for her.

[TallAnon]

As far as I understand, the king is the most powerful piece, because without him, the game ends, to balance this as a game, he can't move far. The queen has a lower value, but a bigger range, likely this was done to speed the game up. It also didn't use to be called a "queen", it used to be "adviser".
So in the end it's all caused by many generations trying to balance the game and there being a lot of translations and cultural differences that dictated the naming of the pieces.
To summarize, I think this ended up this way because of a balance perspective.

[Guffrus]

If you have a problem with it simply switch the names for the King and Queen, problem solved.

Except it isn't of course because a Queens husband can't be a King, so youd have to call the piece a Prince.

But you do understand that this is a game? Right?

The way the Queen and King move is a matter of game balance and mechanics, its not a social commentary or gender statement.

Its also been around for some time which explains why its not as PC as you would like it to be.

But the long and the short of this really is that the person, who ever that was and whatever sort of gentials they had, who made this game named the pieces, they choose because its their creation.

When you create something you can name it whatever the fuck you want.

[Celtero]

Oh fuck, the feminazis are coming for chess too!

I know you feminists like to have it both ways, maybe you and your feminist friends can make up your own rules and make the queen the most powerful piece and the piece that needs to be protected. Gurl power! You'll understand in 20 seconds why that is a stupid fucking choice. But let's be honest, you don't play chess and you don't have any friends either.

You can just switch the roles, the queen gets protected and the king does the fighting, but that doesn't seem progressive enough, does it? Reminds me of the 1950s. So instead, turn the king into another queen, the original queen's minority, disabled, lesbian or trans partner.

If you're really that dumb and actually want an actual answer I'll give it to you... it doesn't matter and it's an arbitrary choice that could've been the opposite. The king and queen having opposite roles is integral to the balance and objective of the game.

[lightbulb27]

its always about taking out the top power. when the top power is gone, then the other side takes control. Could argue the queen is more powerful but historically, the king controls the military so has more power.

It's just a game modeled after human structures. I'm more fascinated by the arrangement of ants and bees and small creatures. They do this as well, often protecting the queen... for the queen holds the key to life and keeping the hive/nest going.

[CaptainOverthink]

I guess..
Because in old times the king was the sole dictator. The VIP.
The queen might not be viewed as a mighty warrior but political power is still very dangerous.

Chess is a very very old game and it's not always about war as much as it's about manipulating the outcome. Don't take the roles of the characters so serious. It's deeply a mindgame both for strategy and socially.

[Kiss_Me]

The King represents "Command and Control." He does not need to move about the board to remain in command. He can leverage others to do the most required tasks. The same is true in Business, the Military, and Governments.

Most people that have never been "command" fail to understand that someone needs to in one place so they can direct the assets necessary to complete the task.

[Kaneki05]

Try not to think about it too hard. It actually don't matter one bit, it's just what they decided what the name should be for western society on the things. Also the Queen piece is the best one on the board and if it was the one to be protected that would be kinda Op. Since she can just move anywhere and it would cause a lot more problems.

[BrianMerritt]

Because that is how the battle works. You capture the king you win the land. Yes, the queen is also protected at all costs but only due to her value as a weapon.
The king is effectively the weakest piece in terms of offense, and yet he is the one that must be most protected. This gives the game of chess a more complex challenge because players must use their offensive pieces to not only attack opposing threats but also to defend a defenseless king.

[NarutoUzumaki007]

First of all what we call "Queen" today was viewed as "War Commander" or "Chief of Army" or similar post back when Chess was invented.

Also if you look a bit at history , Kings were just fat old ass dudes most of the times who didn't know shit about fighting. They were kings because they had royal blood etc. They had to be protected.

So the Queen is more like a "Right hand man" of King who protects the king

[Ozanne]

Why stop there? Why are there even bishops out fighting? Who are these "pawns" exactly? Do any of them consist of women? What about checkers? Black and red pieces? A bit racist, isn't it? And don't even get me started on playing cards. ;)

(In case anyone didn't understand: I'm kidding.)

[Gafgorkion]

Chess is literally a simulation of war. The king is the leader, and if the king is killed, then the war is lost. All the other pieces are the army that must protect the king. The queen is essentially an elite bodyguard in this army.

If the president of the US is the king, then the queen is essentially the secret service. The secret service are badass, but they will sacrifice themselves to save the president since the war depends on saving the president.

[Miristheiss]

Because capturing the King wins the game.
If you capture a queen, a rook, a bishop, a knight or a pawn the game continues.

Kings representing the rulers of a kingdom for 1000s of years.

I hope this question is in jest and you really aren't serious.

[Malik00]

You would think being the most powerful piece on the board would be enough but no. We should remake chess so the queen is both the most powerful piece and what causes you to lose the game should it be taken.

And just take the king out of the game entirely cause men are trash.

[ThisIsMyOpinion]

Hello Chess player here.
If the Queen was the piece that it was important to capture the game would change immensely. If the piece that you wnat to capture is also the strongest any play with it becomes a very high for possibly no reward. Instead you can do serious plays with it to the point you have entire openings devoted to her like the famous Queen's Gambit.

[LillyW15]

I believe it mirrors men irl. The Queen (female) is technically the deadliest piece on the board, and is really the only one to protect the King (male). When a man falls, he brings everyone around down with him, no matter the consequences.


Just a thought! 🥰

[Daniela1982]

Because when the King is captured the Queen is of no further use. The jig is up! The Queen may be more powerful but the King is more important, just like the President.

[Tea-Spaghetti]

It’s just a game not need to be about gender favoritism or anything like that. The female piece is the most powerful that’s better than being some king piece that is weak and tepid and needs protection.

[SunnySri]

Mam the king is a piece that represents you in the game and as you move the other pieces in the chess it is seen as the order of the king. So since you are representing the king 'the one giving order' if that piece died then the game is over. That is why the king is protected.
Just an assumption though mam.

[Koalamate]

Because in medievil times only men could inherit the throne so the king's would often behead their wives in hopes they would have a son instead of a daughter.
But the gender of the child is decided by the male genes so it didn't work.

[BCA6010]

Rules of the game. And it wouldn't make sense for the piece that must be protected at all costs to also be all-powerful.

[allaboutyou2]

? It's a game!!!
Why are different properties in monopoly different values?
It's a game!!!
Why is 4 of a kind better than 3 of a kind in card games?
It's a game!!!
Incase I haven't been clear,
IT'S A GAME!!!

[Variety_3-14]

Have you not heard the phrase, “the strong must protect the weak”
But overall, that’s just how kingdoms works.
No King means No Kingdom

[kingofthellamas]

I'm thinking you are viewing the queen as having the most attack power on the board. I debate that, but it's moot to your question.

To answer chess is both about attack and defence. You win with your attack power. But you will loose if you can defend the defenceless.

Such is life.

[locutus9999]

Is based in medieval times... the king holds and exersise the power ergo dont need to move much, the queen handle the court under the table, so all movement is valid. at least that is my interpretation.

[GAGSucksBalls1]

Without a leader, the pieces cannot move. And so, the king is the most important piece. Queen doesn´t have the most power. Though She can have the widest spread of activity, it is the King who can collapse reality, thus ending the game.

[slatyb]

That just makes the game interesting. It would be too hard to trap a queen.

[morganlove]

Historically speaking, the king was always a historical figurehead that represented power even though the Queen was the actual power people would kill or die for behind the throne

[msc545]

Because the King is the *only* piece that, if it cannot move anywhere or stay where it is without being captured, is the end of the game. This is called checkmate. All of the other pieces function to protect the king and checkmate the opponent's king. Have a look at chess. com for more information.

[Gedaria]

It's a game, a very old game. You can call all your different pieces what ever you like. It is said to have been originally from China.
They have never had kings or queen's..

[NYCQuestions1976]

Those are the rules. The game was invented around the year 500. It's difficult to try and figure out why something is the way it is when it was created over 1,500 years ago.

[Bananaman177]

The King doesn't usually last long after the Queen is lost.

[israelisevil]

everyone wants kill the guy at the top. Its a game dont overthink it

[JosyJosy]

Because the king is so fragile, that's why, powerful queen must use that to protect

[TheReturnOfTheGrump]

Maybe because the queen needs the most protection so it's the most powerful. The king can't be because it would be harder to get in checkmate? So maybe they are being controlled ultimately by the king or something and he controls all of them.

[Espresso-Grande]

The King doesn't need
to move much , because he doesn't need to protect himself; all other pieces do it for him.

Kings are only as powerful as those he protecting him.

[AliceTheNguyener]

Because that's the basic rule of chess, like the very reason the King is given less mobility is so the player can create strategies using other pieces to protect one which is pretty much helpless.

[abc3643]

Because the King has testicles. The Queen doesn't. She doesn't have to worry about being kicked in the balls by a knight, bishop, rook, pawn, or even queen of the enemy, but the King does.

[Fuego_exe]

Cause chess is a game and applies to the old social norms and because society is tired for looking into every nook and cranny to make sure everything is trimmed to perfection for an equality utopia.

[Dchrls78104]

Because if he is put under attack and cannot avoid capture, the game is over.

[007kingifrit]

because if the most powerful peace could also protect itself... well then it wouldn't be a very balanced game huh? it is the dichotomy of the weakness plus the importance of the piece that makes the game dynamic

[codyccc]

Because the game was invented possible 2220 years but at least 1500 ago and the rules were translated into English at some point and the guy who invented it might have tried selling it for 18 quadrillion grains of rice

[Lunatic1]

Medieval basis of the games that a king is the be all, end all of a kingdom.

[Drumlin2001]

The whole point of the game is the capture the opponents king. Losimg any other peice dosen't matter, loss your king and it's game over

[NamerOfStars]

Traditionally, the idea was that the king is a drunk; essentially just a figurehead for the queen, who wields the real power.

[thatchick1010]

They are the weakest piece on the bord, that's why.

[J2ohhhhh]

Would you have less concerns if man, the king had more power and the queen, the female had to be protected?

[Anonymous]

Just how the rules are played. I guess because it emphasises the importance of the King. You notice you don't take the King but check him. The game mirrors politics more than war.

[BeMuse]

Just because women are flexible and can spread their legs full eagle doesn’t mean they are more powerful.

[TadCurious]

The king chess piece has balls which makes him more vulnerable to attack.

[Anonymous]

If the queen was the one to be protected/captured, the feminists would be all over it.

[AFellowWeeb]

Bc chess is misogynist. Get a life, the fact u even posted something like this just proves how privileged you are to have time to take a dumb on this website

[Anonymous]

That’s how the game is, it’s very old and that’s how it’s played

[Dweezil]

Because those are the rules of the game.

Are you attempting to start an anti chess movement because the game is sexist?

[RoastedToast]

I was waiting for the feminism to strike this post 😂 it's just a game invented centuries ago nothing more.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

In my opinion, i always think that it's the king that is controlling all of the pieces so it doesn't have the energy to be as mobile as the other pieces.

[loveslongnails]

Because if your king is captured, the game is lost. You can lose your Queen and still win the game.

[Anonymous]

That is what they decided however many thousands of years ago when chess was invented. The question you should be asking is, why do people still play chess when stratego and shogi are superior games of skill and strategy?

[OddBeMe]

Like most nations, the leader is guarded and can’t do much. Their freedoms are limited. But also, games must have an objective.