[PhilG007]

That whoever invented playing cards and chess must have been chauvinistic. What other reason could there
be for ranking the King above the Queen(?) History has shown that there were powerful queens who,although they
had male consorts, were absolute autocrats. so how did this anomaly of history come about. Anyone have any ideas?

[TylerE]

Because it's hardly an anomoly. Historically, male supremacy is much much more common than the reverse.

[gwnn]

Chess is very debateable. The king is the most valuable piece (its forced loss is the end of the game) but also one of the least mobile pieces. The queen on the other hand is undoubtedly the most valuable non-king piece and is definitely preferable to the king in an attack. I should also mention that in Hungarian, Russian, and Turkish, the "queen" is instead called the leader (vizier). In Romanian and other languages the queen is called "lady" (in Romanian: "damă").

In bridge, also, in many languages, either the king or the queen have different names. In Dutch they are just called Mister and Mrs, etc.

I agree though that spades being superior to hearts is indicative of a certain cynicism or excessive love for gardening. In chess many people have noted that white playing first is racist (although András Adorján and Jonathan Rowson strongly disagree - they claim black is at least equal if not better because they are able to react to anything white does).

[mike777]

PhilG007, on 2016-May-02, 12:23, said:

That whoever invented playing cards and chess must have been chauvinistic. What other reason could there
be for ranking the King above the Queen(?) History has shown that there were powerful queens who,although they
had male consorts, were absolute autocrats. so how did this anomaly of history come about. Anyone have any ideas?

I guess in general males were more aggressive and killed more often than women. But still I think a more interesting question is how women gained power, more power than men. How indeed did Queen Elizabeth I gain such power? How did Cleopatra gain such power?


How in 2016 do women so many many more women gain college degrees/masters/PHD than men in such huge numbers?

[PhilG007]

gwnn, on 2016-May-02, 14:40, said:

Chess is very debateable. The king is the most valuable piece (its forced loss is the end of the game) but also one of the least mobile pieces. The queen on the other hand is undoubtedly the most valuable non-king piece and is definitely preferable to the king in an attack. I should also mention that in Hungarian, Russian, and Turkish, the "queen" is instead called the leader (vizier). In Romanian and other languages the queen is called "lady" (in Romanian: "damă").

In bridge, also, in many languages, either the king or the queen have different names. In Dutch they are just called Mister and Mrs, etc.

I agree though that spades being superior to hearts is indicative of a certain cynicism or excessive love for gardening. In chess many people have noted that white playing first is racist (although András Adorján and Jonathan Rowson strongly disagree - they claim black is at least equal if not better because they are able to react to anything white does).

I totally agree. Provided he plays the opening correctly,Black can and does win.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2016-May-02, 14:40, said:

I agree though that spades being superior to hearts is indicative of a certain cynicism or excessive love for gardening.

Or perhaps just indicative of S coming later in the alphabet than C, D and H.

gwnn, on 2016-May-02, 14:40, said:

In chess many people <snip> claim black is at least equal if not better because they are able to react to anything white does.

I always preferred playing black but I would certainly not claim that black is better. The evidence from a very large number of matches suggests that the optimal result of chess should be a draw but that white starts with a small edge and has the better winning chances. That is not the same as saying that black cannot win of course!

mike777, on 2016-May-02, 22:36, said:

I guess in general males were more aggressive and killed more often than women. But still I think a more interesting question is how women gained power, more power than men. How indeed did Queen Elizabeth I gain such power? How did Cleopatra gain such power?

Elizabeth's primary rivals to the throne (Lady Jane Grey and Mary) were both women. Grey suffered from a lack of support while Mary was a catholic and badly misjudged what that meant in England. Elizabeth on the other hand collected a strong team of advisors around her. Even so, if there had been a strong and charismatic male rival for the throne we would probably not be talking about the golden Elizabethan era now.

Cleopatra's rival was a 10 year old boy (who was also her husband) so it is perhaps not surprising that she was able to win that little struggle. She lost power a couple of years later and survived by becoming, at 21, the lover of the 52 year old conqueror. Quite aside from the physical benefits, that suited Caesar politically.

So what can we learn? They gained power through knowing the right people and not making the wrong eneomies. Pretty much the same way as men have gained power through the ages.

[helene_t]

The four suits are derived from the four tarot symbols. The English "spades" is from Spanish "Espadas", i.e. swords. Hearts and diamonds are not tarot symbols, but is some languages they are, e.g. cupa for hearts in Romanian.

The first time I played bridge in the Netherlands was at a lesbian disco. Someone covered my king with a queen, claiming she had won the trick since "this is a feminist bridge club".

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-03, 07:41, said:

Or perhaps just indicative of S coming later in the alphabet than C, D and H.


I always preferred playing black but I would certainly not claim that black is better. The evidence from a very large number of matches suggests that the optimal result of chess should be a draw but that white starts with a small edge and has the better winning chances. That is not the same as saying that black cannot win of course!


Elizabeth's primary rivals to the throne (Lady Jane Grey and Mary) were both women. Grey suffered from a lack of support while Mary was a catholic and badly misjudged what that meant in England. Elizabeth on the other hand collected a strong team of advisors around her. Even so, if there had been a strong and charismatic male rival for the throne we would probably not be talking about the golden Elizabethan era now.

Cleopatra's rival was a 10 year old boy (who was also her husband) so it is perhaps not surprising that she was able to win that little struggle. She lost power a couple of years later and survived by becoming, at 21, the lover of the 52 year old conqueror. Quite aside from the physical benefits, that suited Caesar politically.

So what can we learn? They gained power through knowing the right people and not making the wrong eneomies. Pretty much the same way as men have gained power through the ages.

Cleopatra was not only Ceasar's lover but also after his murder,that of his heir,Mark Antony. But Antony's long absences from Rome allowed his
rival Octavian(later to become Augustus Caesar) to seize supreme power and they both paid the ultimate price for this error.
Elizabeth never married because she was fearful her husband would surpass her with respect to the throne. She declared " I do not need to marry,
I am already married...to England" It was her unwillingness to provide an English heir that led to her Scottish cousin becoming the first King of
Britain.