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.

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

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

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!)

>>>>>>
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!)

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