Tweet
Elephant/Bishop vs. Vizier/Queen
It is repeated over and over that the piece that became the queen, the vizier, which moved one square diagonally, was once the weakest chess piece. This widely asserted opinion is simply not true, as anyone can prove for themselves with a little reflection.
Consider the piece called the elephant that became the modern bishop, the tusks forming themselves into a miter. This elephant piece moved the way a checker jumps. Beginning on f1, it could move to h3 or d3, stepping over anything in its way and capturing on the square it landed. From h3 it could move to f5 or back to f1; from d3 it could move to four squares, f1, f5, b5, b1. At b1 it only had one move.
Now take eight pawns, you only need eight of them, and place them on all the squares that an f1 elephant could occupy: b1, f1, d3, h3, b5, f5, d7, h7. Now add up all the squares this elephant could move to from the squares it could occupy. The number is 18, a ratio of 2.25 to 1.
Compare this with the 32 squares that the vizier could occupy, or the 100 it could move to, a ratio of 3.11 to 1. This is not even to consider the field of play: the vizier covered one half of the board, while the elephant only figured in one eighth of it. That is a half halved, then halved again.
The elephant was obviously the weakest piece. Then why is it that the vizier/queen is universally called so? Perhaps it has something to do with the discrepancies between the powers that once were and those that were later attained. Let us compare.
The present day queen enjoys the 64 squares, moving 21 squares from any square around the perimeter, 23 from the next inner square, then 25, and 27 from the central squares, totaling 1456 possible moves or a ratio of 22.75 to 1. Compared to the vizier’s ratio of 3.11 to 1, which only covers half the board, the modern queen is 14.6 times ‘stronger’ than its ancient counterpart.
The modern bishop has a ratio of 8.75 to 1. It only covers half the board though. This is still four times as much as the elephant covered with a ratio of 2.25 to one. In comparison the modern bishop is therefore 15.56 times stronger than its ancient counterpart.
Thus, according to this simple method of calculation, not only was the ancient bishop the weakest piece, it also gained the most ‘power’.
It is repeated over and over that the piece that became the queen, the vizier, which moved one square diagonally, was once the weakest chess piece. This widely asserted opinion is simply not true, as anyone can prove for themselves with a little reflection.
Consider the piece called the elephant that became the modern bishop, the tusks forming themselves into a miter. This elephant piece moved the way a checker jumps. Beginning on f1, it could move to h3 or d3, stepping over anything in its way and capturing on the square it landed. From h3 it could move to f5 or back to f1; from d3 it could move to four squares, f1, f5, b5, b1. At b1 it only had one move.
Now take eight pawns, you only need eight of them, and place them on all the squares that an f1 elephant could occupy: b1, f1, d3, h3, b5, f5, d7, h7. Now add up all the squares this elephant could move to from the squares it could occupy. The number is 18, a ratio of 2.25 to 1.
Compare this with the 32 squares that the vizier could occupy, or the 100 it could move to, a ratio of 3.11 to 1. This is not even to consider the field of play: the vizier covered one half of the board, while the elephant only figured in one eighth of it. That is a half halved, then halved again.
The elephant was obviously the weakest piece. Then why is it that the vizier/queen is universally called so? Perhaps it has something to do with the discrepancies between the powers that once were and those that were later attained. Let us compare.
The present day queen enjoys the 64 squares, moving 21 squares from any square around the perimeter, 23 from the next inner square, then 25, and 27 from the central squares, totaling 1456 possible moves or a ratio of 22.75 to 1. Compared to the vizier’s ratio of 3.11 to 1, which only covers half the board, the modern queen is 14.6 times ‘stronger’ than its ancient counterpart.
The modern bishop has a ratio of 8.75 to 1. It only covers half the board though. This is still four times as much as the elephant covered with a ratio of 2.25 to one. In comparison the modern bishop is therefore 15.56 times stronger than its ancient counterpart.
Thus, according to this simple method of calculation, not only was the ancient bishop the weakest piece, it also gained the most ‘power’.