Chess is actually very progressive about gender roles, especially given the time in which the game was originally conceived.

Think about.

The Queen (female) can move in any direction, by any length, and attack and kill anyone she wants.

Conversely,

The King (male), however, can only move one square in any direction, is prone to getting attacked and killed instantly, and once he's been cornered, the game (battle) is over! He's basically defenseless, and has to be protected by his wife!...and other soldiers, of course, but the Queen is still most powerful.

Fascinating, isn't it?

Very.

These questions are fascinating, but I don't think I would call chess progressive in terms of gender roles. Elizabeth I ruled England in the 1500s and had no problem eliminating the competition. Basically, if you were the queen, you have it made. If you were a "normal" woman, you're screwed. Even in much of the world today, woman unfortunately get abused and taken advantage of. By the way, chess has changed much throughout its history. The queen was not originally a queen at all, but a vizier to the king. That should explain a lot right there!

Queens do have a history of not adhering to the standard gender spheres of their time, and a certain Chinese queen was more of a badass than her former husband ever was. Generally-speaking, though, the king is seen as rigid and without any need to take decisive action—I wonder what Western toy-makers were thinking when they adopted the game from East Asian countries, deciding to give more importance to the female ruler!