A New Original Staunton Design?!

I know this is going to sound sacrilegious to all the fans of Jaques repro sets out there, so please, AVERT YOUR EYES NOW. I cannot be responsible for the ire, pain and disgust that the next few paragraphs may cause you.

***************

If Nathaniel Cook (or whoever designed the original Staunton set) were still alive today, I suspect he would have made a few modifications to his original design over the past 166 years.

In recognition of the emancipation of those homo sapiens among us of the female persuasion, the queen's stature would most definitely increase to a height which more accurately portrays the power that she truly wields.

And once her stature is increased, well, we have to proportionally enlarge the remaining pieces as well.

In the romantic era of chess, when the Staunton design first appeared, attacking, tactical chess was in its heyday -- damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! And contests seldom lasted beyond the middle game (check and mate). It was rare in those times even to reach the end game (end game, what's that?). So it's no surprise that the romantics didn't hold the lowly pawn in very high esteem. I mean, why would they? They only got in the way, and games never lasted long enough for them to get to the other side of the board!

So naturally, their stature in 1849 reflected their perceived value, which wasn't a whole lot. But all that's changed in the modern era where 8 pawns are no longer an impediment, but 8 potential QUEENS! So isn't it about time the pawn got the respect he deserves! I think so. Instead of a diminutive "4 pawns to a square," the modern pawn has grown in stature to more closely reflect his true potential.

Nathaniel Cook's 1849 Staunton Design

Nathaniel Cooks 2015 Staunton Design?

loubalch, you bring up an issue that should be seriously considered.

An earlier thread mentioned chess fifty years from now. I then asked (to the effect), that when those fifty years from now look back at our "era", what chess set would reflect this present age?

As you mentioned, the pawn has grown in size. Also discussed in recent threads was how the pawns grew in stature in Soviet sets to reflect the importance of the common worker, the proletariat. We also know why the Soviets also produced sets with bishops missing their mitres and kings, their crosses.

And so, the question loubalch poses is a perfect one. As "moderns" who know how the various "players" have changed since the time of Staunton, should our pieces reflect that change? Anyone can understand our clinging to the golden era of chess and our romanticising that era, but what legacy will we leave to our chess descendants that represents our own time?

Of course, one could argue that Staunton (or Cook) was simply romanticizing what he considered their "golden era".

Is the title of "King" still relevant?

You bet it is!

Great points and questions, Lou and Up.

Sure, history is always relevant. But as you both suggest, it's also always being made.

It's pure speculation, but if we could use Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine to bring Nate back from those woebegone days, and he had a chance to see chess as it's played in the 21st Century, he might be eager to knock off a new classic for us. And wouldn't that be interesting.

Jonas, also known as Izmet, has created a new design in chess set within the last very few years.

Looking at his Best Chessmen Ever shows a modern approach to the design.

His Stage 1 sets have no collars and are a smooth glide up each piece, excepting the knight of course.

The Stage 2 has collars and an edge on the rook for, in his words, a professional grip.

He also wrote that he designed the knight newly for character and characteristics.

I have the BCE Stage 2 with stainless steel bases and whenever I use it at club for a rated game I always, always, receive 1 - 3 compliments on the set.  And this is from guys that have seen the set now, on and off, for over 1 1/2 years.

Maybe the old "Staunton" designs are truly outdated for today's play as Lou suggests.

Eye, maybe not the overall design so much as the scale and proportions of the pieces. Like in clothing, certain classics never go out of style, they just get updated from time to time.

In chess, there's room enough for the classics, the neo classics, and new future-classic designs like the BCE sets. They are gorgeous!

I'm surprised you didn't comment on the fact that the rook is more valuable than either bishop/knight, yet is smaller than either in Cooke's design. 

William Moffatt tried to address that in one of the BCC designs, but I suppose the failure of that design sort of shows how ingrained the previously established proportions had become by then:

The value of the rook is also represented in a wider base diameter, no?

Hey you made us think of something, wouldn't it be cool if one could buy various colored matching pieces sold separately in the future for a make your own staunton chess set of your own design. 

Thats a real dumb idea IMO. You going to sell them to kids in your age group.?

I was just thinking about the Eastern BCE and saving my pennies for a set in red.

What the hell is your problem ! You're making a fool of yourself and looking like a troll freaking idiot. We have 41 folks in our local family here of "all ages" and most of us play and are interested in chess. Anyone posting for our family is well over 21 sonny boy, so get lost and stop following our comments around even though you're blocked. Further, that comment you made about our deceased grandmother in another post didn't sit well with our family here in the casino capitol of Nevada, and further has got around to others in the chess community. Trust me it didn't sit well with many. Get lost-Capisce ?   Frankly it's (deleted) like you that take away and stir up folks on the equipment section that ruin it for others. Many are sick and fed up with this kinda crap pal ! Nuff said and done! 

Sorry fellas, just had enough of him-back to chess   

When I posted the "have your Grandmother show you how to use scissors", I had no clue she had passed on. I am sorry she passed away. Now your making it sound like I knew about it beforehand.? I blocked you as well. Have a great life posting your dribble.

Exactly, in my ideal set, the rook's diameter would be larger than that of the knight or the bishop. You don't have to be tall to be fearsome, look at the American Pit Bull! The rook would also be heavier as well.

Ignored and back to chess. Sorry to the OP Lou as well for any disruption to this thread.

D2,

I've had the same thought, and mentioned it to one of the vendors.

You'd begin by establishing a common base design for the entire series. That way, you could design shorter, taller, or wider versions of the various pieces, including different knight designs, that would be interchangeable because they share common design elements. Don't like that knight design, buy a replacement. Tired of those diminutive pawns, get some larger ones.