lichess.org
Donate

A more politically correct way of identifying your pieces.

Is calling one player first and the other second politically correct? No, as it implies that one player has the "right" to go first, whereas the other player does not have that right. We should call them "player who has the opportunity to move his pieces prior to his opponent, which in no way should be an indictment of any qualities of the opponent, but rather obtained the opportunity in the form of an arbitrary result," and "player, who through no fault of their own, was not provided the opportunity with which to move prior to the other player." For the remainder of this post, they will be referred to as A and 1, respectively

Regarding piece designations, each piece should have their own name. Just because a piece moves like another piece does not mean it is any less unique than its counterparts. Personally, I refer to my b-Knight as Dwayne, for example, while my f-pawn (when playing as player A, of course, to avoid any potential for being misunderstood) is named Steeve Ho You Fat, in honor of the French basketball player's ability to overcome the adversity that his name brings (note: I am not actually sure if Steeve Ho You Fat has encountered all that much name-bullying, as a result of the fact that he is 6-8 and always looks happy. Also, congratulations on getting back into the LNB Pro A, Steeve)

In order to overcome the idea that chess is sexist with regards to the whole king/queen thing, I have developed a solution: player 1's king and queen will be named Lana Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, respectively, while player A's queen and king will be named Andrew Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski, respectively.

I think we can all agree that I am, like, the most politically correct individual since the ironically-now-considered-politically-correct Bill Clinton
Hi Clousems,
I cannot help noticing that even though you offer a very reasonable (and brief, under the circumstances) naming codex above, you then proceed to backslide into the old ways of calling the players A (Para 2, and presumably therefore 'B') and then, even worse some would say, 1 (Para 3 and therefore '2')
I suggest (I think justifiably) that you are alphabetist and numerist. I call recidivist.
I doubt your sincerity. :)
@chessspy1: I appreciate the opportunity that you have provided with which to allow me to re-evaluate the mistakes in my previous (but by no means better or worse, merely temporally disparate) post.
I was going to use A and "alpha" to denote the players, as the ways with which to denote the separate players (these characters are roughly equivalent in meaning, but are both very unique), but my keyboard was not provided the opportunity to be able to produce the character for alpha. I therefore decided to use a letter has the opportunity to appear in the word "alphabet", a word arbitrarily chosen from an arbitrarily selected thesaurus. From there, I had the privilege of utilizing a tool that has the privilege to be commonly known as a random number generator (a label which I have had the optimal amount of fortune with which to find problematic, as it may not actually create numbers) and created a function to assign a letter based upon the value of the random number.

I now realize that I made a mistake in assuming a correlation between letters and numbers, and I also see that confusion could arise. I assure you, I gave no preferential treatment to either the letter A or the number 1, as these characters do not have the right to any "special treatment," but are rather just as unique as any other numbers. I would also like to apologize to Steeve Ho You Fat, as I realize that I assigned him a number based off his size, which I do not have the privilege of having the opportunity of having the right to assign someone a number based off of one's physical characteristics. I would also like to apologize to everyone not addressed by my previous apologies for not having the opportunity to apologize for my previous apologies, as this is not a result of their actions, but rather, of my own ignorance.
@clousems
An A1 answer my friend.
If I may make such a forward assumption of our budding relationship
It is patently obvious that @clousems is blessed with virtually unlimited spare time in which to indulge in deep contemplations over a wide-ranging ambit.
He therefor deserves more respect than being publicly ostracised for his heinous dual character failings of alpha/numericalism.
Rather,society should nurture the time-rich,and in fact make them the societal leaders
There is,in fact, a sci-fi story to that very effect.
@bunyip @clousems
One has to ask two questions I'm afraid.
1 do we need 'leaders'?
2 if so who will vote them in?
3 is there a way to list questions without resorting to numerism
Only by employing that other unspeakable...alphabetism.
Yes..your monty pythonesque abuse of numerialogical logic did not go un-noted.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.