Best size pieces to go with 2" squares board

What size pieces go best with a 2" squares board?  It seems like a lot of retailers match up a king with a base size of about 1.6," but I find this a bit crowded.  What are your thoughts, anyone?

Those retailers, in my opinion, have it right; especially if so many of them agree that 1.6" for a base King is perfect for 2" squares. This is the standard size, so I'm not sure how you came to think that said-pieces look crowded.

Take note: on a 2.5" square board, the standard is a 2.0" base for King; on both sides of the 2.0"-base King is a leway of .25" before the next square. On a slightly smaller board, a 1.6" base King on a 2"-square board should have .2" (1/5 of an inch) on both sides of it (1.6" base King) before the next square. The scaled down version seems decent.

Just my .2.

1.5" base would be ideal but lots of other factors like the height of the pieces and how "fat" the pawns are.  I think on a small board folks are more accepting of a less than ideal relationship.  Anything much less than a 3" K (OK, maybe a 2.8")makes me an unhappy camper, but we all have our own sense of what makes a set playable or not.

One of our members has a whole formula for matching pieces and boards, but I'm too lazy to look it up for you... 

I'm a near-future luxury chess vendor, and during my investments and design planning, I had to observe a lot on size and scaling. From my personal findings, a 1.5" base on a 2" board is fine, but there is an exact amount of space on both sides of a 1.5"-base King on a 2" square as there would be on a 2"-base King on a 2.5" square. I think both 1.6 and 1.5 bases look fine, but there would be an inaccuracy of scaling; since the judge is based on the standard of 2"-base King on 2.5" squares.

All in all, I say this: if you're for everyday ordinary pieces and aren't a luxury design planner (like me), it should matter little. If the base is smaller than the squares, any smaller size should be sufficient. A "crowded" appearance shouldn't overall (keyword) be an issue that affects game play.

Exception: many timed games and Blitz

this must be it?

a-system-for-sizing-chess-pieces-and-boards

interesting as well

chessusa.com/chess-pieces-size

It sounds like you are very much like me in this regard.  1.5" king base is maximum for me on that square size.  That square size is very awkward to me.  I strongly prefer 2.25", even with the 1.5" king base.  I would probably not go any smaller than about 1.25" for the king base on a 2" square.

Crowded boards are a big problem for me.  It affects visual clarity and freedom of movement.   Adequate spacing is needed visually and physically to slide bishops between kings and queens, etc.

I think "clarity" and "crowdedness" are simply what you're used to.

I grew up with a King-base of 2.75" to work quite nicely on a 3.125" or 3.25"-square board. (I can take a picture of my current luxury set with this, if you like.) I've seen it for a long time, so it doesn't look crowded to me one bit. When I first learned to play chess (on a plastic set with board squares much larger than the pieces), I moved pieces by lifting them high off the board before bringing them down to place on their destination squares. Again, I've always done this, so "freedom of movement" is not a problem to me. It doesn't feel worse or better if I lift the pieces or slide them.

Having said that, again, I say, if the King's base diameter is at least somewhat noticeably smaller than the width/length of the square, you should be fine; no matter what size the King. If one must pay attention to size, I think 1.6 or 1.75 King-base should be the approximate fitting size for 2."-squares. 1.5" is also fine, since 1.6 and 1.5 are virtually the same size with very negligible difference. 

Thank you, everyone, for this.  I'll write more later, and may post a picture in a day or two to ask a further question.

Here's a formula that works well for me.

Board Size (S) x .765 = King Diameter (Kd) x .765 = Pawn Diameter (Pd)

No matter how closely matched the King is to the board, if the pawns aren't properly sized the set will look disproportioned and imbalanced. Consider that pawns make up half of all the pieces on the board (50%), whereas the kings make up only 6%.

The solution is simple, size the kings and the pawns to the same chess board.

For a 2" board this works out to:

[S x .765 = Kd x .765 = Pd]

or, [2" x .765 = Kd = 1.53" x .765 = Pd  = 1.17"]

King Diameter = 1.53"

Pawn Diameter = 1.13"

For example, here's my Cavalier set shown on a 2" chess board. The King Diameter is 1.57", the Pawn Diameter is 1.11".

I have a 2" squares board, and a 2.25" board.  I also have 8 sets of pieces with king heights between 3.75" and 4.5".

Only 2 of my sets seem "right" on my 2" squares board, the rest seem a bit "crowded".  The 2.25" board, on the otherhand, works really well with all the sets.  Interesting how much difference that little 0.25" makes!

Very much so, which is why I led off with the idea that his preferences seem similar to mine.  The physical ability to slide a bishop between two major pieces is not totally subjective, though.  Some may not care about that, but it's a real physical factor.

the way i match a chess set to a board is simple. put the King on its side over two square's and it should fit with a little to spare, then put a pawn on it's side over one square and it should fit. also the Rook sould just fit in the one square...

so a 3 1/2 inch King will fit a 2 inch board and the pawn will be close to 2 inches and the rook will be 2 inches also.

Using the height of the pieces to determine the square size works only if the base diameters of the pieces is in a standard proportion to the heights of their respective pieces.

A set with exceptionally tall pieces would call for a square size much larger.  And a short set would call for a square size that would be too small.

This is why most people that include manufacturers, retailers and consumers look to the base diameter and its percentage size to the square size as the determining factor.

The Piatigorsky Cup set, for example is an excaptionally tall set which would call for larger squares that might end up being bigger than need be.

Oh, for the most part I think your method works fine.  And it sure looks to be quick and easy, especially if you are looking for a board you want to use with a set you have in hand.

The last set I have bought is the Piatigorsky.  Until I got this set, the method of laying the King, pawn and Rook on their sides to size the board would have worked great.  And I plan on using this method for all my other sets and boards.

For instance, I have my Noj GM Pavasovic set that is a tad bigger than my Dubrovnik II sets.  The 2.0" boards just seem a bit tight with this set.  Now I can just pick up the King of the set and lay it on its side for a quick find of a board that it will look good on.

So, as long as the set has dimensional proportions that are balanced like most Staunton sets, this is a handy way to size a set with a board.

A king with a 1.6" base for a 2" sqaure board? That is very crowded! It sounds like the retailers are saying anything they can to make a sale.

I have a 2" square board and the pieces I use are-

the KING is 2 7/8" in height (just under 3") and the its base is 1.25".

The PAWNS are 1 5/8" tall (just barely over an inch and a half tall) have a base of around 7/8" of an inch.

I think this set fits perfectly with a 2" sqaure board. 

This particular set is the Marshall Library Series (HOS analysis set.) Also, one thing I read about correct sizing for your boards and pieces is to see if 4 pawns will fit inside one sqaure. That's what the last picture is and you can see that 4 pawns fit perfectly inside the square.

I hope this give you a good perspective on your question. Anything larger would seem to be too large for a two inch square board. Let us know how it worked out-

@Franquis - This is where personal preference comes in. I think those pieces are lost on that board.

I would prefer them to be a little closer together. I have gone backwards from what I think looks good to check with the system @loubalch talks about and I find that i agree with his ratios/sizing. Usually spot on with what is comfortable to me. In fact I just got in a new set today with a 1.5" K base and tried it on my 2.25" board and my 1.75". Not comfortable with either (I felt like Goldilocks) so it is off to find a 2" board, one that should be "just right".

A square size that is about 1/2 inch (0.50 in.) greater than the base diameter of the king is typical and appropriate in most cases.  Anything larger or smaller is simply a personal preference.

Personal preferences are usually just slight; some preferences may be 3/8's or 7/16's larger.

You also have to keep in mind that the 1/2 larger standard is typical for Kings of the common 4.5" height with 2.0" base. Things become flex when you scale the pieces up or down in size. (A King with 3.0" height and 1.5" or 1.375" base could probably get away with squares that are 1/4" or 3/8" larger.)