"Correct me if I am wrong but I think most FIDE tournaments go with 3.75 inch kings and 2.25 square boards."
FIDE Tournaments use 55mm board which would be around 2.16" square.
Board-Pieces proportions: a better way to pick a board with a set.
Sort:
theendgame3 wrote:
Mohan_Kumar_Chess wrote:
"Correct me if I am wrong but I think most FIDE tournaments go with 3.75 inch kings and 2.25 square boards."
FIDE Tournaments use 55mm board which would be around 2.16" square.
I think its 50mm
https://shop.chess.co.uk/Official-World-Chess-Championship-Chess-Set-Boar-p/cb04616.htm
FIDE rules allow to use 50mm to 60mm square sizes. But what they actually are using is 55mm DGT E-boards.
Use whatever works for you as far as measuring. That’s a good idea lining up the pieces tightly and comparing to the length of the rank to get a working ratio. 👍 (I’m kind of surprised no one came up with that before!)
Personally, since I found it I’ve been using this system here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/a-system-for-sizing-chess-pieces-and-boards-long
And have had good luck just using the .765 conversion factor described. The one variable both systems are missing is King height. I have one theme set (Nigri) with a very tall King that really needs larger squares than the King and pawn bases would indicate, or the board looks crowded.
By the way, I got bit years ago when I didn’t know enough to ask, when just before they went out of business I ordered a “Drueke Tournament board” with “Drueke Tournament pieces,” assuming they’d be compatible. The setup looked OK, but a bit crowded.
The large 4.3” King has a 1.875” base, and the rosewood/boxwood pieces are larger dimensioned overall. The board is a standard 2.25” square though, giving an 83% coverage, which is a bit too crowded for me. It looks OK if you like a tight board, but they look much better on a 2.5” board, or a 2.375” board which I don’t have. I don’t know for certain, but I’m sure Drueke made those larger square board at the time, but I didn’t know to ask for them. I’ve since bought a 2.5” and the extra space helps them look much more balanced.
Svashtar wrote:
Use whatever works for you as far as measuring. That’s a good idea lining up the pieces tightly and comparing to the length of the rank to get a working ratio. 👍 (I’m kind of surprised no one came up with that before!)
Personally, since I found it I’ve been using this system here:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/a-system-for-sizing-chess-pieces-and-boards-long
And have had good luck just using the .765 conversion factor described. The one variable both systems are missing is King height. I have one theme set (Nigri) with a very tall King that really needs larger squares than the King and pawn bases would indicate, or the board looks crowded.
Interesting, I wasn’t aware of that board/piece ratio post. Interesting also if I follow that 0.765 rule I get a larger square outcome than I would like to see. Like Endgame I also prefer a slightly tighter setup. On second thought formulas and online pictures only help a little. Maybe best to get some cheap paper or vinyl “boards” to see what matches your own pieces before buying something expensive...
martyn-n wrote:
Maybe best to get some cheap paper or vinyl “boards” to see what matches your own pieces before buying something expensive...
That would be perfect.
Dec 20, 2020
0
#7
martyn-n wrote: Anything larger than 1.5 is drowning the pieces in space too much. Smaller than 1.35 is too tight. For me.
All you need to know is the number that suits you best.
Yes, this is a good way to record your personal preference. I like ~1.6 (despise the sensation of not being able to see past/between the pieces easily)
The first purchase I made went totally wrong with the board size because I had no idea and simply relied on the seller’s recommendation. Since then I tried some online explanations (mostly quite unclear) and just seeing a lot of pictures. Correct me if I am wrong but I think most FIDE tournaments go with 3.75 inch kings and 2.25 square boards. But you may want to buy other sizes or you may not like the FIDE proportion.
After getting my own boards in most all sizes it got easier and just put pieces and boards together as it pleased the eyes most. When proportions are off it can still look ok, but it gets very hard to play chess and see clearly what is going on. Either when board too large or too small. Even very small differences can get quite disturbing for the eye. For example without the pieces I think no one can distinguish between a board with 2.25 squares or 2.375 squares. But some 4 inch king pieces can go on either, and some really can’t (for my eyes).
As I just discovered not all 4 inch sets are the same (at all), so a certain King size fits a certain square size is also not reliable. This goes for all the other king sizes as well I assume.
More important than how tall a king is, is how much space a set takes on a board. So I came to the following formula: length of 8 squares divided by the length of the 8 offficers (king, queen, bishops, knights and rooks tightly lined up.
So my Marshall’s officers measuring 12.57 inch go well on a 2.25 square board of 18 inch length. 18/12.57 = 1.43 which is for me the best looking quotient. So the fields are 1.43 times larger than the pieces. Anything larger than 1.5 is drowning the pieces in space too much. Smaller than 1.35 is too tight. For me.
All you need to know is the number that suits you best. Takes some time and can not be done (imho) with online photo’s. After that, when buying a new set I think it is not too much to ask of a seller how much 8 officers measure standing all together.