I think that chess can compare to medieval life in a very similar way. First of all the pawns can compare to serfs in a very similar way, for instance they are weak and just about useless in a war. They are usually sacrificed to save bigger and better pieces. Serfs usually were not cherished at all and not protected, to the point that they could even be traded. That also explains why it does not matter if you lose all your pawns, because they are not important. Another that you can compare easily is the king. He can go anywhere but he cannot be killed or its all over. So as most people play and based on real medieval life, you always want to travel with protection around your king. The king is the tallest piece on the board, and is as well defended on the chessboard as in medieval life. In medieval times, the surrender of the king would mean the loss of the kingdom to invading armies and that could mean change for the worse. It was to everyone’s advantage, from the lowest serf to the highest-ranking official, to keep the king safe from harm. The king is the most important, but not the most powerful piece in chess. If you do not protect your king, you lose the game.…show more content… Realistically no one care if the queen dies. So that is why on the board the queen can go just about anywhere without needing protection, but still somewhat having authority she can kill a lot of players. The knight is one that is really obvious, like for instance it is the one of the most valued players on the field. That explains why it has such a good area of range to move on the field. You do not want you knights to die unless they have
