13048 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
You don’t have reason on your side.
Yes, I do, which I've already explained.
You are assuming that the manufacturers changed their weights (which you have no evidence for), which would also mean that by chance I happened to buy only sets that did not have the slotted weights.
No, I'm not. I said that if your pieces were manufactured by the same company as the broken pawn pieces, then it wouldn't be at all surprising if they changed the method of weighting at some point. For one thing, that's not an assumption, but rather, it is a very plausible possibility, and for another thing, it is predicated on your assumption (for which you have no evidence) that your pieces were manufactured by the same company as the broken pawn pieces. In other words, even if your assumption is correct, it doesn't even remotely preclude your pieces from having a different weighting method than the broken pawn pieces.
The only assumption I've made is the initial assumption, i.e., that the threaded weight has a method for screwing it in tightly, which is based on reason. You've made two assumptions, neither of which are based on reason, i.e., (1) that your pieces were manufactured by the same company as the broken pawn pieces, and (2) that this automatically means that they are identical in every way.
I don’t find that a reasonable argument.
Negated, given that I've just demonstrated that you didn't even understand the argument. See above.
You haven't proved that the lead was not poured in when molten or that they were screwed in by finger pressure alone (they don’t have to be screwed in tight when there is plenty of thread and a glued baize pad to hold them in place).
For one, it doesn't look like they were molded in wood, as I mentioned earlier, and two, there are some gaps/voids around the weight that would have been filled by the lead had it been poured in:
Also, pouring molten lead into a threaded wooden hole would make the fit too tight to ever unscrew, which defeats the purpose of incorporating threads in the first place. In order for threads to work properly, there needs to be sufficient clearance between the male and female threads. Not only would there be extreme friction preventing it from unscrewing, due to the no-clearance fit of lead poured into a hole, but the lead would also flow into every little irregularity in the hole, creating countless little "fingers" holding it in place.
Screwing it in with finger pressure would mean you could hardly apply any torque once the weight was screwed in too far for you to grip its edges, which would mean it would require hardly any torque to come unscrewed. A glued-on piece of cloth wouldn't hold it back for long. According to Alan Dewey, even the Jaques weights, which definitely did have tool slots for tightening them properly, could work their way out over time. What do you think would happen if the weights weren't even screwed in tightly in the first place?
And why would anyone rely on finger pressure when it is so easy to add slots for a tool in order to tighten it properly? Lead has such a low melting point that all you need to do is heat the end of your tool with a torch and push it into the weight. Wait a minute for it to cool, and you have your tool slot.
Get a room.
Many good ideas; I worked as a machinist and I can see that most of the ideas I`ve read are very good. Best of all, if one can purchase them, is simply to buy triple weighted pieces.
Interesting. There is another topic on this forum that drifts into a similar discussion, where one contribution might be helpful here as well. Although the post I’m referring to fails to provide an anal retentive elaboration on the matter, it points out that there seems to be an ideal relationship between the physical and functional properties of the chess piece. The post also suggests that the shape determines the weight if one is to obtain «optimal playability». Lastly it proposes a method of measurement, which might come in handy here:
Note: The picture conatins a little easter egg for the observant reader (hint: check the small print on the box).
Nice post :)
Just to be rid of this discussion, I checked one of my pieces and I could see the start of the screw thread at the base of the weight. Thus, it has a screw thread and it has no tool marks.
Do you have a picture?
A timeless crazychessplaya classic.
"Melik and Me! with GM Melik Khachiyan & Brother Josh"
How can I get RonaldJosephCote back?
by Syd_Arthur a few minutes ago
What has happened to my rank on chess.com?
by glamdring27 a few minutes ago
Just can't beat this guy! Why?
by LongIslandMark 5 minutes ago
Why do I keep getting 5 minute bans!?
by Doggy_Style 5 minutes ago
All Chess Puzzles
by Pawn_King_2 8 minutes ago
Fun End to a Blitz Game
by mromanian 11 minutes ago
Why is the most powerful, versatile and indispensable chess piece a woman?
by Eseles 13 minutes ago
by LongIslandMark 14 minutes ago
12/18/2014 - Mate in 4
by mingbrothers 18 minutes ago
by BoardOfWar 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!