How big is too big?
Sort:
Would anyone object to 4.4 inch in club play? I have recently purchased a SC Piatigorsky and I love the dimensions of it, but wonder if it’d be distracting. I think its slim enough to work - whereas the set you linked looks quite bulky. I think the Piatigorsky fits a 2.25 inch board well.
Honestly, a 2” square wooden board with 3.75” pieces is already imposing enough, there’s no reason to go much larger.
I have gotten rid of my 4”+ sets for this reason, you need a fairly large table as it is for a regular tournament board!
I agree w V
Nov 23, 2022
0
#5
I have a combo of a 2.25" square size board and 3.75" pieces, and for me, it is a bit too large. Personally, I feel that 2" squares with 3.5" pieces feels most natural to me.
If you're in the market for some expensive gear, I would recommend maybe getting some plastic pieces and some cheap roll-up board, just to see how the size feels.
Nov 23, 2022
0
#6
MCH818 wrote:
I think 4” is borderline. 4.4” will be too big to use everyday. I have a 4” Lardy from the 70s. I used it before on my 2.25” board to study positions. The board was obviously too small for it. I found it was way too big/tall to use when I was sitting down. It was big/tall even when I was standing up. I prefer my 3.5” sets on a 2” board or a 3.75” on a 2.25” board. I think 4”+ sets are fine if you are going to display.
People keep saying this. That pieces can be too tall to see over. I have 2" square boards. I noticed my 2.25" vinyl mat was a little big for my small table so I got a bigger table. I love the idea of 4.4" pieces on a big board but I guess it would have to be on a lower table playing a slow game. Too bad.
Thanks for all the comments so far. You guys are confirming what I suspected.
As for the suggestion to get plastic pieces, I do have a plastic set with a 4” king and a board with 2.5” squares. I was pretty excited about it, but after playing with my teenage son on it, it felt a little oversized and perhaps more suitable for slower play, which is why I asked. The fact that all these manufacturers seem to offer their best stuff in massive sizes made me question my opinion on the matter.
I’ve bought my fair share of pieces and boards. My personal preference is 55mm squares and king height of roughly 3.75in. 2 inch squares work for my noj 1950s, but 55mm is better, and 2.25 inch squares are just little too big
If the pieces and board are too big you can't take in the whole board in one glance so you can miss stuff. For most 3.75" is optimal and standard in tournaments. I have 1 set with a 4" king only because some sets at our club are bigger and I needed to get my eyes and mind used to a bigger set. Except for that I wouldnt have a set larger than 3.75.
It's just a matter of preferences. It's like going to the cinema, some people like sitting on the first row. Me I like sitting more in the back so I can see the picture relaxed without having to move my head left and right. Same with tennis game, you see people on the first row moving their head constantly.
To play for me 3.75" KH is just about right.
Someone mentioned standards in tournament or club play, keep in mind that (at least in our local club) this is also a consideration with regard to the size of the venue, and how many boards you can fit on a table in addition to the overall size of the space. Bigger spaces, higher rental fees, more expensive tournaments.
Nov 23, 2022
0
#12
After a long day at work - why not take with a few photos - I walked around to each of the four sets I currently have out and about….on king height, the Biro is 4”, the Lardy and Dogface both around 3.5” and the Knubbel 3”.
Caveat - I am not a good player, I picked up the addiction during COVID, so I can’t speak to what works in a club or competition sense because I’ve never been. On preference - line ball between all of them … if I was to pick one … the Biro on a big board with a beer in hand. 
If I'm not mistaken during the preparation of WC's the players are asked what their pieces size preferences are. The size they prefer which is tournament size says enough. I even read a story Kramnik said he wanted size 5 and that's what's been used during 2000 WC. There are plenty pictures of that match to be found.
The king should be 9.5 cm tall and the board should be such that 4 pawns fit on a square.
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/StandardsOfChessEquipment2022
How about a 1.8m king?
https://www.megachess.com/products/megachess-72-inch-teak-giant-chess-set
https://www.megachess.com/products/megachess-72-inch-teak-giant-chess-set
Nov 25, 2022
0
#16
felonet wrote:
Would anyone object to 4.4 inch in club play? I have recently purchased a SC Piatigorsky and I love the dimensions of it, but wonder if it’d be distracting. I think its slim enough to work - whereas the set you linked looks quite bulky. I think the Piatigorsky fits a 2.25 inch board well.
I think they would probably object in rated club games. 4.4" is too cramped for a 2.25" board the tables are usually too small to accommodate the required larger board of 2.375"-2.5" squares. I love playing rated games with wood pieces but even I wouldn't want to play on a 2.25" board with 4.4" pieces.
I personally bought all sets but 1 between 3.5"-4" just so that I could 1) use them for tournaments 2) it's actually easier to play in than 2.5" board for quick time controls.
I’m in the market for a high-end wood chess set in a traditional style. I’m looking at the selection on sites like CB and HOS, and it seems like most of the highest quality sets are quite large, with kings 4” or taller. I plan on actually playing with this set and not just treat it like a showpiece, so I’m wondering if playability starts to suffer at a certain size. It seems like the sets used by the pros at events like the world championship are smaller, with king sizes at 3.75”, played on a board with 2.25” squares.
Is a set with a 4.4” king (like this one), with the accompanying larger board to match, cumbersome for day to day use? Or is bigger better?