3 1/2" King Height Set

Greetings all. I am considering acquiring a 3 1/2" king height set, and I find the House of Staunton "York" to be a likely candidate.

I am wondering if any of you have one of these sets and if so, are willing to share any thoughts at large you have about them. I am most interested in what might be considered the "playability" of the set. Is there anything worth noting about it's weight, balance, etc. when in use? How do they feel in hand, in play?

I would also be interested in any observations about it's quality; Specifically how it's held up through use, and do the pieces seem to be prone to cracks or splitting? I would not be playing blitz with them. The temperature and humidity levels in my home are regulated enough to keep my violin both intact, and pretty much in tune. (Not saying I can play the damned thing very well, in tune or not). The point being conditions are "favorable" for chess pieces.

Thank you in advance for any thoughts or observations you are kind enough to share.

Bang for the buck it looks hard to beat.  I don't have the York, but I do have an older HOS 3.5" tournament set that I picked up at an estate sale.  It's a fine little set although the knight is slightly cruder than the York.  Not sure why HOS is recommending a board with 1.875" squares for the York since a 1.5" base king is perfect (75% ratio) for a 2" square board.  The weight and balance on mine are fine although that may not help you much since they're not quite the same set.

I do prefer larger sets and can't help wondering why you want a 3.5" king when a 3.75" (with a 1.75 base) and a board with a 2.25" square is pretty much the tournament standard.  But then I use a 4.4" with a 2.75" board as an analysis board, so clearly I just like big pieces.  Seems like a good deal though.  Ebonized pieces will eventually fade a bit, my 3.5 is now this wonderful dark chocolate color but no cracks or other problems.  If you own a violin then you know about the importance of humidity levels so I very much doubt you'll ever have a problem.  A good starter set anyway.  Hope my rambling thoughts help and good luck with your purchase.  

OMG.. That is one nice looking set for 79 bucks.! I like a 3 1/2 King myself. The pawns bases appear very wide & it might look nice on a standard 2 1/4 inch board. I use the 4 pawn rule: place 4 pawns on a square & if they fit slightly under or over then the board is OK. If they fit exactly in the square then its even better. Some perfectionists here use some scientific mumbo jumbo for matching pieces to a board but, the 4 pawns rule works for me. I would buy this myself if I needed another set.

Those pawns appear to have a 1-1/8" base, and you'll want a 2" to 2-1/4" board for that. The 1.875" board they recommend would be undersized for both the king and pawns.

That's another one of those sets for which it would be impossible to make it comply with both FIDE and USCF board size recommendations. For FIDE, a 2-1/4" board is correct (50% rule for the pawn base), and for USCF, a 1.92" to 2.05" board is correct (king base 78% of the square size; squares up to 1/8" larger allowed).

Thank you all, for your comments. The reason I am looking for a 3 1/2" set is that I have had an older wooden board with 2" squares for many years, and it needs a set to go with it. This set looks like it will sit and move nicely on it. I have had a plastic set for about 10 years (or so) known as The Ultimate Chess Set (no longer available) which sports a 3 5/8" king, and it has always played very nicely on a 2 1/4" board. Additionally, with their weight they throw accurately if you are angered by your opponent. Being plastic, they are easily cleaned up after extracting it from an eye socket.

In an effort to curb such behavior, Some 4 - 5 years ago  I acquired a HoS Grandmaster set, which is advertised as 4", but in fact measures 3 7/8". It too plays nicely on a 2 1/4" board, and I am very pleased with. I reccomend it.

I do so enjoy looking at all the variety of sets there are out there. I wonder at all the nicely (and sometimes bizarrely) carved knights, but when playing, I feel that the functionality is all that counts.... one is not thinking about the pieces, but the game. I of course acknowledge those who collect sets or pieces for their style alone; It is a very interesting pursuit.

Nice looking set! I think a 2" board is a perfect match. Personally, I find the "4-pawns-per-square" rule is a bit outdated. The FIDE approved set (used during the recent world championship match) used a board with 50 mm squares -- a 39 mm diameter king, for  a scaling factor of 78%; and a 30 mm diameter pawn, for a scaling factor of 60%.

Here's an interesting rule of thumb. Using the York set on a 2" board, gives you a scaling factor of 75% for the king (1.5" diameter). Now, to find a complimentary sized pawn, simply take 75% of the king's diameter.

1.5" x .75 = 1.125" (for a scaling factor of 56.25%)

So the king is 75% of the square, and the pawn is 75% of the king. Easy to remember.

If you prefer a slightly larger or smaller king, you can substitute any percentage within the acceptable range of 73-78%.

Looking at the official FIDE set:

Board size (50 mm) x 78% = 39 mm (king's diameter)

King's diameter (39 mm) x 78% = 30 mm (pawn's diameter)

Ifekali pointed out that they actually used a board with 55mm squares for the match. As for your rule of thumb, how does that work in practice? It reads as though you’re suggesting that you put your York set on the board, then throw away the pawns and find some new pawns that fit the scaling factor of the king!

That's not what he's suggesting at all. Those pawns in the York set have a 1.125" diameter base (1-1/8"), which is 75% of the 1.5" king's base. The king's base is in turn 75% of a 2" square. So according to his rule of thumb, the York set is perfect in all respects for a board with 2" squares. Read his post again.

And regardless of what was actually used in the WCC match, the official FIDE chess set which is being sold on the FIDE's official website includes a board with 50 mm squares (~2"):

http://fidechessset.com/shop/chess-set

I've had the Lancaster set from the same HOS collection for a few months.  I bought it to sit on my computer desk and use for just me.  It requires a 1.875" square, even though they 'told me' it would fit on my 1.75" board.  The set just felt too crowded though, so, keep in mind, you're gonna want to use the board HOS recommends on their webpage(which is 1.875" for the York).  IMO this set is gonna feel a bit 'small' on a 2" board.   I would take a look at this set   http://www.chessbazaar.com/the-bridle-series-wooden-chess-pieces-in-bud-rose-box-wood-3-58-king.html

MUCH better wood(golden rosewood is the cheapest), and not much more money, plus the set fits a 2 inch board(it would be a bit bigger).  They make this exact set in 3 different colors. Real Ebony, Bud Rosewood, and boxwood.

But, also, I never 'play' with my HOS pieces(Lancaster), in other words, there are NO 'passionate captures' or however you wanna say it.  I just use it for reference and stuff.  The pieces don't get smacked together, I've never dropped a piece, and here in the last week or so, I noticed this crack in my king's base(and it looks worse in person).

You'd be surprised, you can take a set that feels 'big' on a board, and then, just 'swap out' the pawns for smaller pawns, and the set will feel the right size.  It's not just the king's base that determines a set's required square size, sometimes you just have to take the carver's/designer's word.  They usually test the sets on a few different sizes, it doesn't take long to figure out which square size is the proper fit.

Andy, I think Ifekali is mistaken. Here are the official specs for the board from FIDEchessset.com listing the square size as 50 mm:

Here's a picture of the set and board. Scaling factors are 78% for the king, and 60% for the pawns. Like it or not, this is the Official FIDE set and board.

Whether it meets with your approval is entirely a matter of personal choice. As the old saying goes, "One man's ceiling is another man's floor."

I personally like these proportions. What looks a bit crowded from the starting position looks less so as the pieces spread out across the board.

Oh, there's no doubt that the set that FIDE is selling to the public has 50mm squares, but Ifekali said that for the championship match they actually used a DGT board with 55mm squares. They also had DGT coils in the FIDE chess set. You can see the cables plugged into the side of the board in the pictures of the match, and the FIDE board you cited certainly doesn’t have any electronics in it. Makes sense, when you think about it, because why would they give up the abilities of a DGT board?

I'm still interested in how you see your scaling advice work in practice. I can see it being useful if you like those proportions and are designing a set but otherwise you’re stuck with the size of pawns a set comes with. I’ve not measured my ideal pawn diameters but like you I prefer a wider pawn. I certainly think many pawns these days have bases that are too narrow.

BigKing, I see your dilemma. On your 1.75" board, your Lancaster king has a scaling factor of 78.6%, just slightly outside of the 73-78% guidelines. On a 1.875" board, the king has a 73.3% scaling factor. One board has you at one extreme of the range, and the other board has you at the other extreme, so your forced to go with what looks best.

I have a few sets with a king diameter of 1-5/8", like the CB set referenced in your link, and use them on a 2-1/8" board, which provides a scaling factor of:

1.625"/2.125" = 76.5%

Based on my rule of thumb, the complimentary pawn would have a diameter of:

King diameter (1.625) x 76.5% = 1.24" or 1-1/4"

FWIW, this combination is right in line with the old rule of thumb that says, "the chess square should be 1/2" wider than the king."

Yes, but how does this help in practice? Either your set has pawns of that size or it doesn’t, so I don’t see what you are saying we should do with this theoretical pawn diameter.

Andy, you're right. I checked some photos online and they did use the DGT eboard for the WCC.

Regardless of the proportions one prefers, the point I'm trying to make is that the diameter of the pawns is just as important as the diameter of the king. For a proportionally balanced chess set, these two parameters should compliment one another. Yet too few vendors are providing the consumer with this important information! Had I been aware of all this a year ago, I would not have purchased one of the sets I now own, as the pawns at "4 pawns to the square" are undersized for the size of the king. And if you don't know the size of the pawn, then how will you know beforehand how half of the pieces on the board are going to look?

As to the practicality, I worked all of this out earlier this year and used these calculations to help select my last 8 or so chess sets. Wanting to see how my sets measured up I created the following Excel spreadsheet. As you can see from the results, my preference is for a slightly larger pawn, one where two pawns fit diagonally within the square (58.6%), instead of fours pawns fitting rectagularly within the square (50%).

Board,

This is what drives me crazy! The USCF sets up specific guidelines for sizing chess boards and pieces, then turns around matches up chess pieces and boards that don't adhere to those standards!?

First, let's look at the standard:

"USCF Rulings on Chess Piece Sizing

The USCF standard on matching chess pieces to chess boards is based wholly on the king’s base diameter and its ratio to the square size. The essential ruling is the king’s base diameter should fall into this range:

0.78 x [SS – 0.125] <= KBD <= 0.78 x [SS]

Where: SS = square size
KBD = king base diameter
Units are in inches

Therefore: for

• 2” chessboards, the king’s base diameter should fall into the range of 1.46” to 1.56” (3.71-3.96cm)

• 2.25” chessboards, the king’s base diameter should fall into the range of 1.66” to 1.75” (4.22-4.46cm)

• 2.50” chessboards, the king’s base diameter should fall into the range of 1.85” to 1.95” (4.70-4.95cm)"

Doing the math, this works out to a scaling factor for the king of between 73 and 78%.

In the first link you referenced, the USCF is recommending a 1.875" diameter king on a 2.25" board (1.875"/2.25"), for a scaling factor of 83.3%!

In the second link, they're providing a 1.5" diameter king with a 2.25" board, for a scaling factor of 66.6%!

Neither combination is anywhere near their own standards. No wonder people get confused!

A SIMPLE RULE OF THUMB

If you already have a chess set and would like to find the a complimentary sized chess board, simply divide the king's diameter by .75. [or any scaling factor of your choosing between .73 and .78]

So, for the examples above, the 1.875" diameter king would fit perfectly on a (1.875"/.75) = 2.5" chess board.

And the 1.5" diameter king would fit perfectly on a (1.5"/.75) = 2" chess board.

So why the USCF is recommending a 2.25" board for both of these sets is beyond me?!

The rule of thumb is, a little more room/space, is better than a little less.  A slightly crowded board is VERY distracting, and can be a headache.  Whereas a slightly roomier board is not distracting at all.

Also, some sets taper more than others, for example there are 4" sets that would fit on a 2" board, but then there are 4" sets that would only fit on a 2.5" board.  It's all about the girth of the taper, and the pawn sizes, not always 'just' the base width, height and pawn size. I've seen taller skinnier sets feel crowded on a board where a fatter, shorter set fits perfect.  

Sometimes the math doesn't really matter, you just have to set the pieces on the boards, and see which square size 'feels right'.  Usually if a reputable company 'suggests' a size, it's because they've tried it out.

Andy, you're right. If you already own a set where the king and pawns aren't well matched, there's little you can do except to find the best fitting board through trial and error.

But if you're in the market for a new (or used) set, being aware of these relationships (king to the square and pawn to the king) can help you choose a set that's both aesthetically pleasing and properly proportioned.

BigKing, I agree, that's why I consider them "rules of thumb," as opposed to immutable laws of the universe :)

I use these calculations as a starting point, making adjustments for height, girth, volumetric space, the size of the other back row pieces in relation to that of the king, etc.

For example, where the king is substantially larger than the queen and other major pieces, and the pawns are somewhat undersized, I would choose a slightly smaller board that might crowd the king a bit, in favor of properly scaling the pawns. Here it's a choice to oversize one piece instead of undersizing eight pieces. But this scenario might not work where the queen has an equal, or nearly equal diameter, and the other back row pieces are large by comparison.

The bottom line is finding a set and board that, as you said, "feels right" based on our personal preferences. But in establishing those criteria, we should be considering the diameter of the pawn as well as the king, among other variables. Since this rule of thumb is mathematically based and many of the other considerations are those of aesthetics, it seems simplier to begin with the equations as a starting point, and make the necessary adjustments based on other preferential factors.

How much will it be to replace the Kn through the same seller HOS? You would think they would charge $0 for the piece and just charge the freight.  Makes for good customer relations.