A more politically correct way of identifying your pieces.

So I was thinking of George Carlin and how he was often against the softening of language in favour of more subject sensitive content. I personally don't have a problem with any chess terminology but I thought it would be an interesting intellectual exercise to see if any more politically correct chess terminology could be defined. For example some might think the king being the most important piece is an example of patriarchy; another problem could be raised in the racial overtones in black and white being sequenced in move order as they are. Lastly the whole concept of pawns knight's rooks and bishops seems to be a homage to some sort of feudal system of organizing society. I want to again state that I am not against the current terminology this is purely an intellectual exercise.

All that being said one idea I had that comes to mind for me is instead of calling the pieces white and black we could instead as players identify as being either first or second. This is because no matter whether your pieces are white or black you will always move for move be either the first or second to move.

Sometimes I refer to the the Bitch... George would have liked that...He once said...You don't take a shit...You leave a shit...Its true unless you are a turd burglar. Plus...There are a lot of things in the world that are referenced as white or black, that don't have a thing to with race :]

Pawn: one step forward piece that can move two squares forward on its first move and captures one square diagonally forward
Bishop: colourbound piece that moves along diagonals it occupies
Rook: piece that moves along ranks and files it occupies
Queen: Bishop plus Rook
Knight: jumping piece that has multiple definitions of the way it moves, the most common being moving in an L-shape; they can only capture enemy pieces they land on and not on the pieces they jump over.
King: a piece that can only move to adjacent squares; when attacked, the player with their copy of this piece being attacked must stop it from being attacked in that turn; if they cannot, they lose

Replacing all of the above pieces with the specified definitions avoids piece-degrading terminology. Here at the IA headquarters we work hard to make sure not to offend our pieces or unreasonably butthurt people.

As for white and black, hmm, sure, first and second.

How about the Animal Kingdom?
King is the Lion
Queen is the elephant.
Bishop is the giraffe
Knight is the Zebra
Rook is the Hippo
Pawn is the monkey.
I was thinking of Africa but you could do another continent.

Once a King,always a King...
But once a Knight's enough.

Interesting idea..could be a nice niche-market for piece sets.

Here's my go at Australian pieces...
King= Struggling with this one..suggestions welcomed.
Queen=Saltwater crocodile
Knight = kangaroo (of course:) )
Rook=Wombat (built like a brick outhouse and go in straight lines..even if there's a wall there)

@bunyip I refuse to use your Australian chess set if it doesn't somehow include a koala. :)

Here's my version of the pieces, with elements:

Pawn = Hydrogen (1st element, the simplest atom, and pawns are worth 1 point)
Knight = Lithium (3rd element, knights are worth 3 points, and the atomic symbol is actually a model of lithium - a lot of people use knight moves as atomic openings)
Bishop = Beryllium (okay, 4th element, even though bishops are typically worth <4 points, but close enough - plus it begins with a B, and you could have hilarious notation like Bee4)
Rook = Carbon (okay, so the 5th element is actually boron, but rooks are pretty solid, strong, and bulky, and some of carbon's forms are like that - plus, diamonds! :D)
Queen = Fluorine (9th element, and fluorine's extremely reactive and powerful, fitting with the queen's extreme versatility and usefulness)
King = Neon (10th element, NOBLE gas, fairly unreactive (in atomic, the kings can't capture and can be next to each other just fine), and rather important)