Adding weight to pieces

Now children...

Actually I have played with Chess pieces, mostly plastic but at least one made of wood, that were too bottom heavy for the design of the pieces.  The pieces played like, hmmm, stumps of wood that wanted to slip from the grip when holding.

I bought a Dreuke Rosewood set in 1990 that had it's Knight act this way.  It was common for both my opponent and me to have at least one knight slip and drop from our grip during an evening or afternoon of play.

The aforementiioned Dreuke Players Plastic set also were far less than perfect, especially the heaviest weighted of those sets.  Our not for profit chess foundation received a number of these sets from a deceased Master and Chess book author's widow, along with many other sets and a whole lot of books.  Anyway, of the four Dreuke sets we have, all but one have the weights rattling loose in at least 4 pieces per set.  Also the heaviest, I believe they had 3 different weight options, is noticeably bottom heavy and not fun to play with because of this lack of balance.

I have seen and played with some triple weighted sets, both plastic and wood, whose bases were also very wide.  Those sets were noticeably bottom heavy and definitely not preferred for play, even slow games.

So, I'm sorry Max, but Chess pieces can be and some often are poorly balanced for play.  Also, no one other than you mentioned anything about the pieces being correctly balanced by having the piece have its center of gravity at the geometric center of the piece.  Correct balance in a piece is more an ergonomic concept with the center of gravity being below the halfway point on the height of the piece and not be too low either.

You state that all Chess pieces are weighted the same way and that might be as far as the location of the weights in the piece.  However you fail to acknowledge the shape and weight of the piece taken in combination with the weighting system to result in a piece with a balance point, or center of gravity, that is ergonomically correct for play.

You also fail to acknowledge that the weights can and do have areas in the weights that are not in contact with the wood resulting in the ability of the wood expanding and contracting without being cramped by the weight and having stress on it to develop cracks.  The evidence of the above is in the photograph of that Black pawn you yourself have provided.  Note the weight has grooves in it, not threads.  Those grooves can very well provide expansion and compression room.

Please note that I am not making a blanket statement that this is how all chess sets and weights are.  I know that some are poured in, screwed in, glued in and so forth and so on.  One of my 2 favorite chess sets, Izmet's Best Chessmen Ever (also please note that earlier I said Stage 2 which designates it has collars on the pieces for grabbing help) have smooth, cylindrical weights that are simply placed in smooth holes in the bottom of the pieces with glue.  There are some videos at the Noj site and by Izmet on YouTube showing this.

All this talk is fine and well, but the applicability is that the pieces we buy have weighting systems that give the piece an ergonomically correct balance, stay in and don't become loose, and don't cause problems with the structure of the pieces.  We also want to applicably talk with the original poster and others in this thread of how they might best modify a set of pieces that are insufficiently or otherwise poorly weighted so the weighting can be a correct and integral part of a well balanced, for play, Chess set.

To that end, from what I have read, seen and experienced with my own plastic sets, I would suggest the smallest shot possible to increase the weight of the piece.  I would also suggest having the hole or more appropriately the shape of the weight be tapered from the bottom up, mostly in plastic sets.  A lot of those sets are really light even though they might be solid.  If the piece is solid plastic, then a tapered hole could be made working a drill in a torational manner with the end of the bit not moving while the end at the drill moving the most.  Yes, I would look at gluing or perhaps using epoxy to secure the shot or other weights inside the piece.  My best Chess playing friend frames pictures and other things for a living and he and I haved tried this before.  Without the taper we found the piece was either too light or too bottom heavy.  Good luck and have fun.

twenty pound pieces so I can do curls with a pawn

You guys must have some weak fingers. Personally, I can pick up objects weighing far more than ~2 oz. without them slipping from my grip. By the way, with a knight, held in its normal vertical position between the thumb and forefinger, "balance" has nothing to do with its propensity to slip out of one's grip. The only weight-related factor that is relevant is the total weight of the piece. Weight distribution (balance) doesn't matter, because the force pulling on it is vertical. Balance would only come into play if the piece were held significantly off-axis while you were moving it. Were you guys doing little spinning and flipping tricks with the knights while trying to move them?

Hold a vertically-oriented ruler at the top with your thumb and forefinger, and tape a weight to the bottom of it. Note how it feels. Now remove the weight and move it up to just below where you are gripping the ruler. Note that it feels exactly the same as it did before, even though the balance has been drastically altered. You'll only notice a difference in feel if you rotate the ruler so that it is off-axis relative to the force of gravity.

Also, no one other than you mentioned anything about the pieces being correctly balanced by having the piece have its center of gravity at the geometric center of the piece.  Correct balance in a piece is more an ergonomic concept with the center of gravity being below the halfway point on the height of the piece and not be too low either.

The person I replied to complained of pieces feeling "unbalanced". The opposite of "unbalanced" is "balanced", which means an even distribution of weight. "Balance" has nothing to do with ergonomics, nor with the total weight of an object. An object that only weighs 1 oz. can be more "bottom heavy" than an object that weighs 1 ton, since "bottom heavy" is merely a description of a particular type of weight distribution. You seem to be confusing your [bizarre] personal chess piece preferences with the concept of "balance". Balance only has one significant function in chess pieces, which is to increase their stability by making them as bottom heavy as possible. Since most people won't be spinning and flipping or otherwise doing odd maneuvers with their pieces as they move them, but rather, merely holding them upright (on-axis) as they move them to a different square, balance doesn't matter for that.

The evidence of the above is in the photograph of that Black pawn you yourself have provided.  Note the weight has grooves in it, not threads.  Those grooves can very well provide expansion and compression room.

Say what? Threads are grooves, specifically, a spiral groove, and the grooves on that weight are in fact threads. They even have slots in the top which allow you to insert a tool and unscrew them from the chess piece. Whether or not the threads allow for "breathing room" between the lead and the wood depends on how the weight was made. If they simply threaded the hole in the base of the piece and then poured in lead, there would be no breathing room. If the weight was cast separately, then whether or not there is breathing room depends on the dimensions/tolerances used.

Also note that that piece is as bottom heavy as practically possible given the use of lead as a weighting material, which is the only type of balance that makes sense for a chess piece.

No they don’t. As I told you before, that picture is not of a Jaques pawn. There are no slots in the top to insert a tool and unscrew them.

Is that your chess piece? Either way, it is threaded; you can see that clearly from the picture (you can even see where the spiral starts); i.e., it has a continuous spiral groove rather than a series of rings. Something which is threaded is designed to unscrew, so it follows that it would have a slot or slots on one side to allow you to [un]screw it with a tool, just like screws have. If it doesn't, a slot could easily be made, given how soft lead is.

In talking about ergonomic balance shape characteristics of the piece, espicially the Knight, are integral.

The Dreuke Rosewood set Knight I spoke of had no grooved out areas as most better ones do.  Those gently grooved out areas are good finger grip areas.

If the piece has too much weight in its bottom it also will not be desirable.  Remember that the amount of weight is combined with the other characteristics of the piece to make the final product.

No, that specific pawn isn't mine, but it is from an "Ayres" set and I have four or five of those exact sets and they don't have tool slots in the base of the lead weights.

Have you ever taken the weight out any of the ones you have? If not, then you wouldn't know if the ones you have are threaded. If there is no tool slot for a threaded weight, how did they get it in there and tighten it up? Twisting with thumb pressure? That wouldn't get it very tight.

No, I haven’t taken a weight out because I haven’t needed to. It’s possible that the makers created just one set with threaded weights and then that one set happened to survive 100 years and come up for auction on Ebay, but considering everything else about the sets that I have seen is remarkably consistent from one set to the next, I doubt that. As to how they got the weights in there, I presume they poured the molten lead in.

How about you answer some questions now. Do you have an image of the set in the photo I posted showing tool slots in the base? Do you have an ‘Ayres’ set showing tool slots in the base of the weights?

Or dozens, or hundreds. Companies making changes in manufacturing procedures is not even remotely uncommon. I've worked in three different factories, and changes in manufacturing procedures happened all the time, in all three of them. My circa 1993 Dexter Shoe Acadia boots (Dexter Shoe being one of the factories I worked in) have numerous differences compared to my circa 2000 Dexter Shoe Acadia boots; all of the changes being for the worse I might add. They basically look the same from the outside, but they were formed on a different style of last, they put the foam insole above the leather lining rather than below it, they added a half sock-liner which wasn't properly cemented in place, they changed the type of leather for the lining, and they changed the finish on the upper three steel eyelets, making them far less rust-resistant. It wouldn't be even remotely surprising if the "probably Ayres" company decided that tapping the holes in the wood and molding or buying preformed threaded lead discs was no longer worth the expense, and started just pouring molten lead into a plain hole instead. Which raises another point: you don't even know for certain that your pieces were even made by the same company as the broken pawn in the picture; you just believe them to both be "probably Ayres".

Alan Dewey believes that the weights in Jaques pieces were preformed and screwed in. If another company is going to copy the threaded weight part, why wouldn't they also copy the "screwing them in" part, especially considering that the main point of having threads in the first place, on anything, is to be able to screw something in.

As to how they got the weights in there, I presume they poured the molten lead in.

It doesn't look like it. The threads look too good to have been made in a makeshift mold like a threaded hole in a piece of wood. The weight looks like it was cast in a dedicated steel mold.

How about you answer some questions now. Do you have an image of the set in the photo I posted showing tool slots in the base? Do you have an ‘Ayres’ set showing tool slots in the base of the weights?

No, but it stands to reason that if you are going to use a threaded weight, you're going to need a way to screw it in tightly. Not that it actually matters; the point of contention was whether the weight was threaded or not, and it is clearly threaded.

You clearly like writing, but your long posts get very tiring to read; perhaps you could leave the non-chess stuff for your autobiography. As regards the maker, the chess collecting fraternity may not be sure who made the sets, but I’ve not before seen anybody suggest that two (or more) companies were making exactly the same sets at the same time, and I find the idea unlikely, to say the least. The bottom line is that I have not seen any tool marks on the base of the weights of ‘Ayres’ sets and neither have you.

Then don't read them, obviously.

perhaps you could leave the non-chess stuff for your autobiography.

Your suggestion is noted, and dismissed.

As regards the maker, the chess collecting fraternity may not be sure who made the sets, but I’ve not before seen anybody suggest that two (or more) companies were making exactly the same sets at the same time, and I find the idea unlikely, to say the least.

You don't have any evidence that your sets are exactly the same as the broken pawn set, which you've only seen pictures of. Pawns have the simplest design of any of the pieces in a Staunton pattern set, thus they are the easiest to copy, and the most likely to have the most similarity to other sets. I have a set from Chopra and a set from ChessBazaar, and the pawns in both sets are practically identical in terms of shape and proportions; though the overall size is different (the former is a 3.75" set and the latter is a 4" set, so all the pieces are bigger in the 4" set).

The bottom line is that I have not seen any tool marks on the base of the weights of ‘Ayres’ sets and neither have you.

No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that threaded weights imply a method of screwing them in tightly. In other words, the idea that they have a slot or slots for a tool to screw them in comes from reason, just like when you see any screw you can safely assume it has a method for screwing it in, even if you can't see the head of the screw. On the other hand, your idea that it has no method for screwing it in doesn't come from reason, but rather, from your assumption that your pieces are identical in every way to the broken pawn pieces in the picture. Your assumption would have a lot more merit had you bothered to confirm that your pieces at least have threaded weights before making it.

There were more pictures of the set that the broken pawn came from and the design of the pieces was the same as the other ‘Ayres’ sets I’ve seen. The antique chess retailers and the members of CCI class these sets, which don’t vary in design as Jaques sets do, as being from the same manufacturer.

No, I'm not going to try to remove a weight from a piece and possibly damage a 100-year old piece just to show you that it has a thread. And, yes, the bottom line remains that you have no proof that there are slots on the bottom of weights from ‘Ayres’ sets or that the manufacturer changed its weights.

Your claim about the "bottom line" has already been refuted (see above). It can't possibly be the bottom line if there is more to it, and there is. Neither of us can prove anything about this, but I have reason on my side, and not only do you not have reason on your side, by your position is contrary to reason. Your position does not have equal merit with mine. That's the bottom line.

I bet this screw has a slot or slots for a tool to screw it in:

https://evinhughes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/screw-01.jpeg

What do you think? Would that be a safe bet?

You don’t have reason on your side. 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. I don’t find that a reasonable argument. 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).

I hate weighted pieces.. Too heavy to carry around.. But i did my fair share of using pennies and a hot glue gun to add weight .. It works pretty well

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.

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 :)