Does size really matter?

Does size really matter?

I just started playing chess over the board and was looking for a nice set of my own. I went to the local hobby shop and began looking at a few sets. They had glass, wood and plastic on display, after touching them all I decided to go with a triple waited plastic set. When I took them up to the checkout the cashier told me that the set I wanted was to big for tournaments, the King measured four and a half inches tall. He said that all tournament sets had to have a King that was less than four inches. I bought them anyway and have been using them but not in a tournament yet.

Is there any truth to his statement?

I don't know, but I believe your pieces can't be bigger than 75% of  the size of the square.

Found this article. They don't explain why size matters, but it is stated in the article.

http://www.chesscentral.com/chess-set-tournament.htm

But again it states that the king can be between 3.5 and 4.25inch.

This isn't generally true in the US. In some scholastic tournaments, sets will be provided, but in general you are expected to bring your own equipment to a chess tournament.

the title of the treath seems really gayish for a site where most players are men jaja =p. but i do not think that size matters in chess!

     You should always have a set you enjoy playing on.  My Simpson's

     set gets a workout every holiday!

One of those cheapo 3.75" solid plastic sets will satisfy most anyone at a tournament, they are legal, and the usual vinyl boards are a good match for them. The big set does not go with a 2-1/4" board. So, buy one of those cheap plastic sets and always have a set for tournaments and the park that you don't have to worry about. Keep the big set for other occasions.

I have a set with a four inch king, and bought a vinyl board without letters and numbers around the edges in order to have large enough squares. It is the largest set I take to tournaments--I tend to take it to blitz and rapid events to protect my wooden set that I use for slow events.

It's a rare chess event in the US that provides chess sets, although I am organizing one for which we will be purchasing 650-700 boards and pieces to match.

Is it really that rare? I live in Kansas, and pretty much all of the tournaments have boards provided. Clock shortage is also never an issue, because a family that goes to almost every single tournament bought 50 clocks, and it allows the players to use them.

I think tournament sets are too big; you've got to sway your head about as if you are at a tennis match to see every obscure square. This doesn't help your concentration.

 me too

I have been to a few tourneys and they never provided sets for players. If you do not have a set or a clock the TD will ask if someone will allow you to play on their sets but if no one will, then you are on your own.

It sounds to me as if a family with equipment is providing it rather than the tournament organizers.

The large expensive tournaments typically provide equipment, but not always. Small club events--the vast majority of tournaments in the US--may or may not depending on the size and resources of the club. My local club has several sets, but they are of poor quality--mismatched pieces, boards with creases from the way they are stored. I almost never play on these sets because I bring my own and prefer to play on it. Even when I have White, we will often use my set because it is excellent quality. But, my clock is an old, noisy analog thing, and we usually use my opponent's clock when he or she brings a digital.

I run scholastic tournaments, and sets are generally provided because a few schools together can provide enough sets. I'm usually on the phone a day or two before one of these either asking another coach to bring sets, or being asked the same.

For the state elementary championship, we will be buying 650+ commemorative boards and sets. Future scholastic tournaments in my town will probably use some of these new sets.

Popinjay, and Wilio, you need to read it closely instead of cursorily.

Quote from the url above:  "First, the chess pieces should be made of wood, plastic or an "imitation of these materials" such as resin compounds. But fine wood or high-impact plastic are the most common materials used. The King's height should be 3.50 inches to 4.25 inches (or 8.5 to 10.5 cm.), and the diameter of the King's base should measure 40% to 50% of its height. The size of the other pieces should be proportionate to their height and form; other elements such as stability and aesthetic factors are also taken into account. The weight of the pieces should be suitable for comfortable moving and stability.  "  end quote.

Did you notice the word SHOULD in that?  That size 'limit' is a recommendation for aesthetic and functional purposes and not an absolute size limitation.

  Take your set along - if the pieces have 'stability' when set down - i.e. don't fall over easily, (if set down at a 5degree angle, do they fall over or easily 'right' themselves to sit where placed), and use it.

    If someone objects to the size, ask to see the 'rule' they are citing - in print - and read it and accept it immediately if they show you one.  if not, use the criteria of "reasonable person" - would a reasonable person hold to the position you take - given the circumstances.  Just be reasonable - and if your opponent agrees to the size of your set, use it and enjoy it.

an example of a 'non-standard' and unacceptable chess set for a tournament would be a "civil war Collectors edition" - where the figures are civil war figures instead of traditional/standard Staunton style figures.

The TD will make an interpretation of the rules. Sometimes you agree and sometimes you don't. A 4-1/2" set on a 2" board is way too crowded for me but maybe the TD will shrug and say it's ok. Part of the reasoning behind the "should" wording is that if no standard equipment is available, then the closest to standard is ruled acceptable.