If chess were a new game released today, I imagine a lot of these "why'd they make it political" types would probably object to the fact that the most powerful character in the game is the only one that's clearly stated to be a woman.
Sometimes I see a nude depiction and wonder to myself if it's artsy or pornographic. In this case she's fingering herself, so that answers that question
Probably not much, her hand is on her thigh. Though I guess it's possible that a goddess has articulated hair. If you zoom in on this chess piece her finger is clearly extended and going between her legs
And now I want to 3D print myself a couple sets of pieces - One that is Woman in Bikini's in Pin-up poster poses, and the other in Hot AF Beach boys and the like in poses accenting there form.
So what you're saying is that switching it from Vizier to Queen isn't about progressive feminism, but instead about monogamy and heteronormative gender roles? Way to ruin it for everybody! 😠
The Vizier also only moved one space at a time, like the king but without significant importance. It wasn't until the French changed the Queen in the 1600s to move as far as she wants that she was liberated from the shackles of the patriarchy.
Yes, the modern, more powerful piece is still called that even in some languages in Europe, like in Turkish and several Slavic languages, like Ukrainian and Russian. In Polish it's apparently called something akin of "top general".
Well, not if chess were created today, the way it was created originally. It took until 997 for The Queen to replace The Chancellor/Minister, and even then she could only move one square diagonally only. It took till the 1400's for her to gain a flying mount, or whatever the explanation is for her current OP movement status.
Bishops replaced Elephants in the 1200s, but could only move 2 squares, diagonally, at a time.