Indeed.
Moreover, the idea that the "Queen" is of the female gender is pretty shallow thinking for an anon.
Primarily, its all about game theory, using the metaphor of chess.
In general:
King = the key point, the implosion point, the piece that once checkmated brings the game to a halt, and the side whose king was trapped loses.
Queen = the 'most powerful' piece in the game. Can move in all directions, dominates if unopposed. The primary protector of the King.
In chess, when do you attack the King? In the mid to end game. You do not start out attacking the King. Move too early, and you'll be handing your opponent an advantage.
So, in the beginning or the mid-game, you need to knock out the Queen, as this piece protects the King, and symbolizes the capacity to counter-attack.
Q's drop responds to an anon posting the article about Graham not calling Obama to testify (May 2020). Q responds by posting the article where Graham explains he will had the chairmanship for the Judiciary Committee back to Grassley (Oct 2019).
But Q also points out that in chess, one attacks the King (presumably Obama here) not at the beginning of a game but at the end (middle-end). It looks like Q's use of the Chess Queen metaphor was also a dig at Graham, but Graham was also handing the chair back to Grassley, which a deep state would not want to do (as Grassley is clearly a Patriot).
Then, we're left with the question: was 2020 still early in the game? or was it middle-end of the game?
If it was early in the game, we can easily speculate that Trump's calling out for Obama to testify was kayfabe (aka action done for show and narrative effect, to influence the game board), and that also Graham's protection of Obama "It would set a precedent" perhaps wittingly or unwittingly played in to DJT's hand.
Too early to bring out Obama and attack Obama. But during the Biden administration, all sorts of precedents about how former Presidents can now be handled are being set.
Indeed.
Moreover, the idea that the "Queen" is of the female agenda is pretty shallow thinking for an anon.
Primarily, its all about game theory, using the metaphor of chess.
In general:
King = the key point, the implosion point, the piece that once checkmated brings the game to a halt, and the side whose king was trapped loses.
Queen = the 'most powerful' piece in the game. Can move in all directions, dominates if unopposed. The primary protector of the King.
In chess, when do you attack the King? In the mid to end game. You do not start out attacking the King. Move too early, and you'll be handing your opponent an advantage.
So, in the beginning or the mid-game, you need to knock out the Queen, as this piece protects the King, and symbolizes the capacity to counter-attack.
Q's drop responds to an anon posting the article about Graham not calling Obama to testify (May 2020). Q responds by posting the article where Graham explains he will had the chairmanship for the Judiciary Committee back to Grassley (Oct 2019).
But Q also points out that in chess, one attacks the King (presumably Obama here) not at the beginning of a game but at the end (middle-end). It looks like Q's use of the Chess Queen metaphor was also a dig at Graham, but Graham was also handing the chair back to Grassley, which a deep state would not want to do (as Grassley is clearly a Patriot).
Then, we're left with the question: was 2020 still early in the game? or was it middle-end of the game?
If it was early in the game, we can easily speculate that Trump's calling out for Obama to testify was kayfabe (aka action done for show and narrative effect, to influence the game board), and that also Graham's protection of Obama "It would set a precedent" perhaps wittingly or unwittingly played in to DJT's hand.
Too early to bring out Obama and attack Obama. But during the Biden administration, all sorts of precedents about how former Presidents can now be handled are being set.