Isn't it good... Norwegian wood.
(No, other than appearence, it makes no difference.)
Rosewood pieces have a higher winning percentage than sheesham. However the 4'' kings seem to advantage the player. When taking the 3.5 kings with sheesham, statistics show an advantage to the white player. I just ordered my first wood set this morning..Can't wait to get it!!
Rosewood and Boxwood make for a great set. My cousin has a board and set that are made of those woods and I thought it was very nice. But what matters to me more is the aesthetics and the weight of the pieces. A triple to quadruple weight is my preference and fine detailing to each piece (especially the mighty Knight ) is also desirable.
By coincidence, this thread just popped up for me today. Two years ago, I ended up opting for Sheesham ("golden rosewood"). I had never been happy about it, but it cost too much to upgrade to a completely new set of pieces.
Then, I saw a fantastic sale at chesscafe.com. So, now my premier Chess set has a board with maple and walnut, and rosewood pieces, and it looks very, very, nice.
I don't know if the chesscafe sale is still on, but last week I got a set of weighted Rosewood and boxwood pieces, with extra queens, and knights with some nice detailing for fifty bucks, including shipping. Very good price.
Does the type of wood used to make Chess pieces really matter? Of course, some might prefer a certain appearance, but, functionally, is there any difference?
Specifically, Sheesham seems to be the cheapest of for decent quality pieces. It's hardwood. It ought to do just fine. Rosewood is more expensive. I like the look of the Rosewood, so I'm inclined to get that. However, what about functional qualities, like weight and durability? If I take these pieces to a tournament, will my opponents be happy about playing with Sheesham, or Rosewood, or for that matter, plastic?