Mis-Scaled Chess Sets

What’s wrong with these pictures?

In both pictures they're using a computerized DGT chess board with 55mm (2.17") squares.

The first picture is a screen shot from the Sinquefield Cup Tournament ongoing in St. Louis. They're using a special set House of Staunton makes up for this event. The king is 3.75" tall with a 1.85" diameter. I'd say the king looks a bit cramped here.

The second picture is from the DGT website showing their board with their Timeless chess pieces, with king height of 3.75" and a diameter of 1.44". Here, the king looks a bit undersized.

In neither case do the sets conform to either FIDE or USCF guidelines for sizing chess pieces and boards, which call for a king diameter of between 1.58" and 1.69" for play on a 2.17" chess board, which works out to a scaling factor of between 73-78%.

Calculating the scaling factors in both photos above:

PICTURE 1: (1.85"/2.17") = 85.3%!

PICTURE 2: (1.44"/2.17") = 66.4%!

In both cases, a 3.75” tall king with a 1-5/8” (1.625”) diameter (not an uncommon size) would give you a scaling factor of 74.9% on the same DGT board. A perfect fit and well within both FIDE and USCF guidelines.

So my question to FIDE and the USCF is this – why even bother to publish equipment guidelines if you’re not going to follow them yourselves?

This is why I don't like the HOS sets that seem to have quite a proportionally large flared base on the King: they require you to scale up the board, and then the pieces seem too far apart visually

It's a question that kept me going until the following combination suited me:

Tournament Series (CB) Staunton Chess Pieces with German Knight in Stained Dyed & Box Wood - 3.7" King (96mm) and King Base  1.4" (36 mm)  on a walnut - maple board with 2.16" (55 mm) squares. I know it's not conform to the specifications but I just like it a lot.

It works because the pawns are large enough to fill the squares, and the other pieces fit as well, making the two kings the only pieces ill suited for the board. It's a case where the majority (30 out of 32) carries the day.

The trouble is that the most common (by far) pairing is a 2.25" square board plus a 1.5" king base.  This is the default size for the very common vinyl roll-up boards and the standard plastic tournament and club set sold by nearly everyone.  This gives a king size % of 66.6% and almost everyone is very used to this.  This proportion is outside of the guidelines.

Thus, to my eye, and I suspect, most people's, the second set (in the OP) looks totally fine.  The first set looks ridiculously crowded and I would immediately object to having to play with such a setup.

FIDE/USCF need to update their guidelines to include 66.6% due to its pervasiveness/popularity.

And the first set that looks crowded is the actual one used right now in the Sinquefield Cup where the world's top players are competing.

OMGChess14 wrote:

The trouble is that the most common (by far) pairing is a 2.25" square board plus a 1.5" king base.  This is the default size for the very common vinyl roll-up boards and the standard plastic tournament and club set sold by nearly everyone.  This gives a king size % of 66.6% and almost everyone is very used to this.  This proportion is outside of the guidelines.

 *true, my Vinyl boards from wholesale seemed oversized with 3.75/1.5 King (standard club) & it took a while to get use too. But as soon as you see everyone else having the same set-up, it seemed ok?

What was considered normal back in the late 1800's or early 1900's was totally different. The pieces were tall and boards were crowded and no one minded because that was the norm.  I would love to have a 1904 Cambridge Springs set on a crowded board, just saying.  Of course I wouldn't want to play a tournament these days with a crowded looking board and set. 

The main reason people are using 2.25" boards with 1.5" diameter kings is because there are NO OPTIONS. No U.S. vendor currently stocks a 2" (5.0cm) vinyl chess board! Which is the ideal board for the 1.5" set (1.5"/2.0") equals a scaling factor of 75% -- perfect!

I would think the fact there are so many 3.75" chess sets with 1.5" diameter kings out there would justify stocking  2" vinyl boards. I mean, they're all made in China anyway.

I found a Canadian vendor who had 2" boards, but he wanted to charge me a $25 for shipping! I finally found a dealer in the U.K. (Chess Direct Ltd.) that had them at a very reasonable price, so I ended up ordering half a dozen.

http://www.chessdirect.co.uk/acatalog/Vinyl-Chess-Board-Green-and-Cream-50mm-squares-VB200G.html

This, and the lack of 2-1/8" (50mm) vinyl boards, are most definitely "dead zones" when it comes to providing a full range of tournament supplies. Don't forget, the USCF okays the use of chess boards from 2" to 2.5" for tournament play. Great, so where are the 2" and 2.125" vinyl boards?

FYI, a 2.125" board is a perfect fit for a set with a 1-5/8" diameter king. (1.625"/2.125) equals a scaling factor of 76.5%. Again, a perfect fit, in line with both FIDE and USCF guidelines.

So I don't think we need to change the guidelines, we need the vendors to step up and start ordering the right equipment to go along with the chess sets they're already selling.

I agree with loubalch.

It's baffling to me why USCF sells tournament combo packages that don't comport with their own written guidelines.

I've spoken to a number of domestic chess vendors. All of them seem to be getting their vinyl boards through a master distributor, who's getting them from the manufacturers in China. So unless the distributor orders them, we won't be seeing them.

I understand their position, why should they order 2"/2.125" vinyl boards when there's no demand from the vendors. It's the chicken and egg all over again.

Since the USCF writes the specifications and conducts the tournaments, as the governing body for chess in the U.S., perhaps they should step up and provide them through their website, which is fulfilled by the House of Staunton. When they sell a set with a 1.5" king, they should be recommending a 2" chess board. When selling a set with a 1.625" king, they should be recommending a 2.125" board -- both of which conform to their own specifications. These board should be available IN STOCK through the USCF (and HoS). Once they set the pace, other vendors will follow suit, and perhaps we can move beyond the morass of mis-scaled chess sets.

Another point to consider, yes, a 1.5" diameter king on a 2.25" board has an almost acceptable scaling factor of 66.7%, but what about the typical 1" diameter pawns that accompany that set, they look pretty scrawny swimming around in those 2-1/4" squares, with a 44% scaling factor!

The sets are out there, as well as matching boards, but they aren't currently available stateside. It seems pretty clear to me that the problem is one of distribution, not supply.

It's time for the USCF and the House of Staunton to step and become the leaders they purport to be. And stop recommending chess boards that don't fit the sets you're selling.

One last anecdote, I just saw a vendor online who is recommending a 2" chess board to go along with a set that has a 1.7" diameter king? Vendors should know better than to recommend equipment that doesn't meet USCF and FIDE guidelines. Wake up! It's time to arise from your slumber.

Ignorance is when you don't know any better, when you've been informed and still do nothing, that's stupidity!

Shelby, of American Chess Equipment has followed what Dewain Barber, the original creator and owner, has done.  He buys the vinyl in large sheets.  He has it cut down to size, and then he brings it to a printer that prints the chess board design on the vinyl.  So, those boards are indeed made in the USA.

There are a couple of developments over the last month or so that shows a change.

Shelby has recently sold his company and is now working for the owner of Wood Expressions.  The American Chess Equipment business is now owned by Wood Expressions, or at least the owner of that company.

Shelby is an employee now.  And the amchesseq.com website is being redesigned by the Wood Expression tech people along with Shelby.

Shelby just sent a few of us a link to preview and critique that new website.  He then called me for my opinion.  During that discussion he told me that they are going to make it so people can order customized vinyl boards.  There will be options for different colors.  He did not mention different board sizes though.  I believe they will simply have the vinyl blanks and then just print up the custom orders on them.

A number of months ago, I asked Shelby about producing 2.0" and even 2.125" boards.  He told me it wasn't going to happen because there was no guaranteed demand.  I guess there is a definite setup cost for the board design for printing.  And 2.0" and 2.125" boards each require their own setup cost.  This is all for using a screening process when printing the boards.

I'm thinking they are going to a printing process now for these customized boards.  With that I see no reason why they can't print different square and board sizes by just changing the print file.

The problem with the USCF is that the guys in charge don't really care about equipment or their standards.  I don't know of any on the Executive Board that would care.  While you might get some Delegates to care, they would need to make an advanced motion, ADM, before the annual meeting in August, and have either a committee or in a workshop at the US Open decide to clarify what they want in equipment standards.  And then it would require a majority vote of the Delegates to change anything.

Of course, The House of Staunton company is the vendor selling US Chess labeled equipment.  And I don't see any of the US Chess authorities being able to dictate to the owner, Shawn Sullivan, that he needs to change what he has been doing, with success, all these years.

Also, we are talking about Scholastic Chess that uses the vast majority of vinyl boards and plastic sets.  And they buy their stuff in volume. 

When Chess play gets higher than Scholastic Chess, you also see the equipment become higher in quality.  This is where you see the weighted plastic and wood sets.  These sets are better proportioned to the board square size of 2.25".

Last night, I opened up my packaged, HoS Library Reykjavik set.  I had bought it with come trepidation because the King base diameter was 1.5" while the height of the King was only 3.25".

The profile pictures of the set on the web site showed the set was pretty well proportioned from piece to piece.  I bought this set to use with a 2.0" Palisander folding board from The Rochester Chess Center.  I was concerned the set might be too small for this board.

This set actually is like the Official Staunton Piatigorsky Cup set in that it works on 3 different sized boards.

When I put it on the 2.0" board, it works well.  It also works very well on a 1.875" vinyl board and it even works on a 1.75" board!

I'll take some pictures later today when I get home and post them on this thread.

What I noticed was that the base diameter of the other pieces were smaller in proportion than the King.

I know this might be heresay but I'm starting to think we need to take this King base diameter sizing system to match to a square size more loosely.

Look at the picture of the set in the OP.  Yes, the King takes up most of the square and looks as if it really could use a larger square size.

But, the other pieces look alright on their squares.  If you took the King piece out of the picture that set looks alright on that square size and is not cramped.

Conversely, we might want to look at the standard USCF plastic set in a reverse way.  While the King base diameter, at 1.5", is technically small for a 2.25" square, the other pieces look alright.

Unfortunately, I am feeling we need to really put a set on a board to see how it fits.  Not only will we consider the base diameter of the pieces but also the visual bulk of the pieces on the squares.

Yes, the Soviet sets are known for being cramped on the board.

Lou, if my memory is correct at one time you listed the different percentages of piece base sizes.  You know, you said things like the Pawn base diameter compared to the King base diameter.  DId you also put in a range for the other piece diameters?  I can't remember.

Also, do we now need to consider the piece heights compared to their base diameters?

And is there a way we might look at the widest part of a piece compared to the height and even base?

I don't know if there is a good, numerical way to tell.

Also, Lou, you had talked about a set being of perfect dimensional proportions.  I think you said the Ultimate set was one.

What are these golden proportions, again?

I think all the pieces look way too big in that first picture, not just the king.  I tend to like my squares to be a lot roomier than some people seem to.  I want my bishops comfortably sliding between pieces on the diagonals and some visual separation between the pieces because I feel like it increases clarity.

As promised here are some pictures of my latest aquisition, HoS Library Reykjavik Ebonized with a 3.25" King and 1.5" King base diameter.  First is on a 2.0" Mahogany folding board from Rochester Chess Center:

And now the same set on a 1.875" vinyl board from HoS:

And finally here is the same set on a 1.75" folding linen board from HoS:

Maybe I'm too much like Goldilocks, but I like this set best on the 1.875" square size.

I think the pawns, bishops and rooks look too small on the 2.0" squares.  Remember that the base size of the King at 1.5" on this square gives a 75% ratio, which is not too low.

And the rooks, bishops and pawns look good on the 1.75" squares while the rest of the set looks a bit cramped.

I was originally going to send this set back but when I put it on all these boards, I realized this is perfect for me to carry as a nice analysis to small tournament setup.

The point is though that the 1.5" King base diameter can be misleading when sizing this set to a board size.

Thank you for the comments.  That is exactly how I plan on using this set and boards.  Of course if the room were more limited for play or I had more room for analysis, the 1.875" board will fill in nicely.

Eye,

I don't know whether these proportions are 'golden' or not, but they work for me. My calculations are based on the number/ratio: .765

1) Starting with the size of the chess board (S), multiplying that by .765 gives you the diameter of the king (S x .765 = Kd) .

2) Next, taking the diameter of the king, multiplying that by .765 gives you the diameter of the pawn (Kd x .765 = Pd).

3) But there's more, taking the size of the square (S) and multiying that by (1.765) gives you the height of the king (S x 1.765 = Kh).

4) And lastly, taking the diameter of the pawn (Pd), adding .765 gives you the height of the pawn (Pd + .765 = Ph).

The point is (or should be) to scale the chess pieces to fit an appropriately size chess board.

Using your 2" as an example, here are the calculations:

1)  King Diameter (Kd) = (2" x .765) = 1.53" (Scaling Factor = 76.5%)

2)  King Height (Kh) = (2" x 1.765) = 3.53"

3)  Pawn Diamter (Pd) = (1.53" x .765) = 1.17" (Scaling Factor = 58.6%)

4)  Pawn Height (Ph) = (1.17" + .765) = 1.94" (Ph/Kh = 55%)

Given these dimensions, the set would fit much better on your 2" board, because the pawns would be properly scaled (two pawns placed diagonally would fill the square). In other words, the pawns would fit the 2" board they way they currently fit your 1.875" board.

Thank you for this. I bought these exact same pieces and was wondering which board to pair them with. Was considering 50mm squares but yours looks great so I know 55mm will be my size too. Also, walnut goes well with darker pieces. Makes everything more transparent.

Remy,

First off, there is no right or wrong way of sizing chess pieces and boards. Whatever combination of pieces and boards you find pleasing is the right way for you! My formulas are merely a suggestion, which many sets seem to follow, of arriving at a pleasing presentation of pieces and chessboard.

That being said, a 55mm board gives you a king/square ratio of around 66%. Moving down to a 51mm (2") board, the king/square ratio increases to 71%. However, for the purposes of analysis or playing in a confined space, a 47/48mm (1.875") board, lands you at 75%, right in the middle of the acceptable range and specified by FIDE. The beauty here is that it gives you a choice of three different size boards to go along with your chess pieces.

The second picture with the DGT timeless looks fine. The top players like it and are used to it. Here in Europe it is also standard in amateur tournaments and in clubs. I don't think the king being 'only' between 60-65% of the square looks 'wrong'. I think length and the size of the pieces in general is more important.

It also depends on the model. Some pieces other than Staunton, like the Baku or Tal chess set have pawns that have almost the same diameter as the king!

I think those USCF and FIDE guidelines are more a 'max' than some kind of ideal ratio. But I agree they don't make sense if all the big tournaments with DGT setups just have standard European ratio's that don't match the one in the guidelines.

World Championshop sets are also often very different. And when I look at how super cramped old Soviet sets are then you can come to the conclusion that a big part of 'ideal' is what you are used to. Top players seem to be able to play on anything.