Square Size Dilemma

This post is mainly questioning loubalch who is, to me, our resident piece-square sizing expert.  Of course I welcome input from everyone else here as well, especially if you have personal experience with the set in question.

The House of Staunton is currently selling off a number of its sets that have long been the mainstay products of that company.  I just saw that they are offering the Marshall Series Set in Rosewood for $219 compared to the normal full price of $599.  The set looks very nice, and I am seriously considering buying it, however.

The base diameter of the King is 1.875".  They do not list the pawn base diameter and when I spoke with the manager there he did not know what it would be.

They suggest a 2 3/8" (2.375") square sized board to go with this set.  That makes the King diameter just a little under 79% the square size.  Lou's suggested 76.5% would give a square size just a touch under 2.5".

I know that this is within the range suggested by the USCF, but it is at the high end of the range.

In looking at the image gallery on the HOS site for this set, most of the pictures show a magnified view of the pieces on a board.  That does show the details of the pieces nicely, but makes it difficult to get a good sizing feel.  There are a few pictures from a distance and in those the King's base appears to really fill the square it sits on, maybe a bit too much.  The pictures give me an iffy feeling about having that set on a 2.375" board.

Now, if someone owns one of these and can say the pieces fit nicely on that size board, I'm fine with that.  I do know that the other dimensions of the pieces play into the complete scene.

What do you fellows and ladies think?

I have a Marshall set and, in my opinion, it looks good on both 2.375" and 2.5" squares. The set looks a little short when on 2.5" squares and a just a little tight when on 2.375" squares. That's mainly a king height to board width proportional thing and may not bother you. The rest of the pieces look good to me on either size. I usually play on a 2.375" board but either is good.

The Marshall is a heavy set with wide bases. I really like that about the set. I also like that the pieces are durable and seem designed to take their fair share of abuse. The thing I like least about my set is I've learned I'm not much of a lacquered finish fan. That's just my personal taste, though. I don't know if the set on their clearance page is lacquered or not. I guess I'll find out. I ordered one this morning. I put it on layaway until May to avoid shipping it through this biting, and probably piece cracking, cold in upstate New York.

I agree w/ Gomer. I have a 4" Collector w/ same King base size as the Marshall, and I play that set interchangeably on a board w/ 2.5" squares and a board w/ 2 3/8" squares. Both work fine, AFAIC.

Well, I've been kind of a sandbagger in this thread, but only kind of.

The first set I bought from Frank Camaratta in 1998 was a 4.0" Collector Series in Rosewood.  That set played nicely on a 2.375" board.

When Frank came out with the Marshall Series I bought one within 3 months of it coming out.  It also did well on a 2.375" board.

When Frank was just producing his Signature Traditional boards, I wanted a Green one, dyed Sycamore and Birds Eye Maple, and he didn't have any so convinced me on the Amboynia.  Well, he accidently shipped me a 2.5" board and when I called he told me to just keep it.  It was more expensive after all.  I'm here to tell you that both of those sets looked really good on that 2.5" board, which I sold with the Collector set a few years later in a downsizing project.

Back in 2007 Sean Sullivan went to a different manufacturer for the sets than the one they had used all before.  These new sets were more robust and kind of thicker than the older, original ones.  I noticed this and found out about the new manufacturer when I got a new Liberty Series back then.

Well, I talked with Scott the manager today and he said that he knows this current batch of Marshall Series sets are definitely different than those produced 10 years ago or more.  He couldn't tell my how they are different as he has been there only the last 2-3 years.  This got me wondering so that is why I started this thread.

I pulled the trigger and ordered one just a bit ago along with a 2.375" vinyl board.  I do own a 2.375" Green Signature Traditional board and the same size in a House of Aragon Oxblood colored leather roll up board.  I expect those to work fine, but just maybe a little tight.

I don't want to gear up with 2.5" boards of any kind as they are too big for my tournament play tastes.  The 2.375" boards are at my size limit for tournament play.

Eye,

Here's a table outlining the USCF standards for king diameter and board sizes.

At 1.875", your Marshall set is right on the cusp, and will probably work with either a 2.375" or 2.5" board, depending on the size of the pawns and other pieces.(If HOS doesn't readily have the pawns specs, I dont' see why they don't simply open a set and take the measurements. I would insist. In fact, I had a vendor do that for me only yesterday.)

As an aside, I recently purchased a set that I felt was perfectly sized for a 2.25" board, with a 1.75" diameter king (75%) and 1.33" diameter pawns (59%). When the set arrived the knight was so large (I'm calling the set the 'Biggie Knight') that I had move up to a 2.375" board, which gave the big knight a bit more breathing space and looks better overall.

FYI, here's the range of USCF acceptable king heights.

Personal preference, but 79% is just too big for me.  I would only use a 2.5" board with that.  Too crowded is just one of those things that really bugs me, and that is well over my max of 76% (72-74% is my sweet spot).

The only thing I will warn about is the fact that the dimensions given at the HOS site are not always correct.

Well, I have gone and committed and ordered the set.  It should arrive on Monday.

As I said before I used to own one of the original sets of this style and it was great on a 2.375" board.

My concern is that this newer model might be a thicker and beefier set than the first and might be a tad big for this sized board.

I also do not like a crowded Chess board and set.  I'll wait for this new one to arrive and if it's too big for the 2.375" board I'll just need to get a 2.5" board for it.

Let us know.  I'd be interested in pictures and opinions when it arrives!

Eye,

A trick I use with roll up boards to conserve space is to take a straight edge and Xacto knife and trim off the indexing. House of Staunton had a sale recently where they were selling off 1.75" & 1.875" vinyl boards for $0.99 each! I bought three of each and trimmed a few. In fact, just today I trimmed a old 2.5" mouse pad board I had lying around.

Also, if you'll be travelling with this set and intend to get a nice wooden board, look for one with a smaller frame. I had a craftsman make me a nice 2.5" board with frame in Padauk and Northern Ash, but the board was so big I couldn't to use in the places where I play, so I "de-framed it" myself, sanded down the edges, and installed a felt backing. And, voila! Now I've got a 20" board -- about the same size as a 2.25" vinyl board.

BEFORE:

AFTER:

Paw,

We all have our preference for scaling the king to the board -- mine is 76.5%. It's a long story, but that figure ties in with my preferred scaling factor for the pawns of 58.6%, which is the exact pawn diameter where two pawns, placed diagonally, fit perfectly inside the square. It's also, by a curious mathematical anomoly, or some mytic juju voodoo, that the square root of .586 turns out to be .765, or 76.5%!

But I digress. There are several other variables besides the king diameter that affect the sizing chess pieces to the board.

Size of the pawns - if over or undersized, you may have to adjust your board size to get a better balance.

Size of remaining pieces - there are many sets where the size of the king is substantially larger than the remaining back row pieces; and other where the king and queen share the same base dimensions. And some, with fancy oversized knights, that force us to consider moving up a size to make things look right.

I tried this 4" set on a 2.25" board, with a 75% king, but the knights were so large I had to move up to a 2.375" before it all worked for me.

Yeah, I'm aware of all that.  Just a preference.  I find your 76.5% preference just a bit too big.  Different strokes.

Here's a pic of the pretty much perfect ratio for me:  1 5/8" king base on 2 1/4" square.  Touch above 72%.

Paw,

It looks nice, I like the board. BTW, what's the diameter of the pawns?