Forums

Best Chess Set Design Ever?

Sort:
Eyechess

As promised in the thread about the worst chess set design, I am starting this one about what people think is the best designed set.

Here are a few of my favorites and candidates for the best.  And please remember that I play with my chess sets so how the set looks and works during a game is very important to me:

1. Noj Dubrovnik II

null

This one is still my favorite.

2.  Official Staunton Leuchars set, which I just received a few days ago:

nullThis is indeed my newest set but I have to say the design is probably the best of the Jaques designs, in my opinion.  Look at how wide the bases are.  Notice how nicely the heights of the pieces are at perfect dimensions to each other.  Look at how classy the bishop miter is.

Don't get me wrong.  I like all the sets I own, otherwise I would either sell or give them away which I have done with the ones I don't like.  However I think these 2 are pretty much the best in their class.

What sets do you think are the best?

SilverProdigy
2.
cghori

Is that a 4" NOJ?

Ronbo710

My all time favorite design and World Championship proven wink.png Chavet Ref. B-210 null

RussBell

I'm partial to the classic Staunton designs, exhibited here in the elegant grace of the "Exclusive Staunton" set (here in Rosewood & Boxwood) sold by The Chess Store.  The pieces are perfectly proportioned.  I particularly like the Bishop.  This set is available in several different woods and up to 4 inch king.

https://thechessstore.com/staunton-wood-chess-pieces/

  

null

RussBell

The "Fierce Knight" set from The Chess Store is similar - note the "raised" ears of the fierce Knight..

 

null

Eyechess

I must agree, RussBell, those are very well designed sets.

Yes, the ears on the Knight that is fierce are perked up as he is ready to attack.  And the look on his face is fierce indeed, especially compared to his calmer brother above him.

A well designed chess set is a true pleasure.  The Chavet set Ronbo has picture is also a very good one.

Wind
BoggleMeBrains wrote:

I'm super fussy about the designs of certain pieces, especially bishops.  For example, in the fierce knight set, I like the knight and rook, but the bishop is too pointy.    I like most of the pieces in the FIscher-Spassky 1972 set, except the rook which is hideous.  I like the timeless set except for the knight, which is just wrong... and so on.

 

Why don't you mix the pieces you like and design a set of your own? I mean pick up the characteristics you like and put them together, if you can't find a set of your own, and try to design it.

Eyechess
What do you think of the Official Staunton Leuchars set above?
Wind

Yea, the best way would be to find someone to make a set, but that might be expensive..

Wind

I liked the "Fierce Knight" set listed by @RussBell.

Wind

Strange.

I find this wide slit kinda wild and attractive.

Maybe you're more of a classic person. happy.png

Eyechess

I also am kind of fussy.  My likes and dislikes are truly mine and I don't expect anyone else to like the things I like.

To date there is no perfect set for me in existence.

So, what I have come to is to keep and use sets that I like as a complete set when looking at it from afar as a whole, or I just will keep a set because one or some of the pieces I really like.  I just have to suffer and not look so much at the details I don't like about a particular set.

For instance, I do like the Fierce Knight set that RussBell pictures above.  I don't care for the Bishop top in that set or the very top of the Queen.  But I do like the other pieces, especially the Knight.

I like pretty much all the pieces in the Official Staunton Leuchars set that I pictured above.  I think the Knight could be a little more animated like the Fierce Knight set and I feel the Rook crenelations could be taller.  But I like everything else about the set, a lot.

My favorite set, the Dubrovnik II, is the closest to perfect for me of all.  The only thing I think could be different or better would be the Knights.  I feel that somehow the cheeks should be fuller looking or perhaps more rounded.

And yes, cghori, that is the Dubrovnik II in the 3.6" size which was the original Noj produced size.  I bought that set back in 2010 before they made the 4.0" sizes or the original design making them add the "II" to the name of this one.

The original 3.6" size is just about perfect to play games and analyze. 

But heck, this is about our opinions.  What one person thinks is kind of ugly another might think is very good looking.  And in this "game" there is nothing wrong with that.

IpswichMatt

Here's my set:

null

Also has wide Bishop mitre thing (ok with me) and short Rook crenelations. Only change I would make to this design would be taller Rook crenelations, maybe double what they are here.

Wind

I don't like short crenelation too, neither short rooks..

They could be as tall as the king, or taller.

Short rooks don't impose power as tall ones do. happy.png

cghori
Eyechess wrote:

I also am kind of fussy.  My likes and dislikes are truly mine and I don't expect anyone else to like the things I like.

To date there is no perfect set for me in existence.

So, what I have come to is to keep and use sets that I like as a complete set when looking at it from afar as a whole, or I just will keep a set because one or some of the pieces I really like.  I just have to suffer and not look so much at the details I don't like about a particular set.

For instance, I do like the Fierce Knight set that RussBell pictures above.  I don't care for the Bishop top in that set or the very top of the Queen.  But I do like the other pieces, especially the Knight.

I like pretty much all the pieces in the Official Staunton Leuchars set that I pictured above.  I think the Knight could be a little more animated like the Fierce Knight set and I feel the Rook crenelations could be taller.  But I like everything else about the set, a lot.

My favorite set, the Dubrovnik II, is the closest to perfect for me of all.  The only thing I think could be different or better would be the Knights.  I feel that somehow the cheeks should be fuller looking or perhaps more rounded.

And yes, cghori, that is the Dubrovnik II in the 3.6" size which was the original Noj produced size.  I bought that set back in 2010 before they made the 4.0" sizes or the original design making them add the "II" to the name of this one.

The original 3.6" size is just about perfect to play games and analyze. 

But heck, this is about our opinions.  What one person thinks is kind of ugly another might think is very good looking.  And in this "game" there is nothing wrong with that.

 

What size board goes with the 3.6" NOJ set?  Are 2.25" squares too big?

Eyechess

The 2.25" squares work fine with the Dubrovnik II sets.  The King base diameter is 39mm or 1.54".  So the percentage of King base to square size is just a bit above 68%.

I do use the BCE boards with my Dubrovnik II sets.  And the square size on those is 55mm or 2.17".  And that is about perfect at 71%.

I have also used a 2.0" square size which comes in at 77%.  And that works also.

RussBell

A good rule of thumb for square size vs King base diameter is...

King base diameter = 0.75 * square size

or equivalently....

Square size  = 1.33 * King base diameter

cghori

I figure if I get the 4" King size, then I can use the set on a 2.25" and 2.375" board.  Maybe even a 2.5" one.  That's why I like 4" King sets-very versatile!

RussBell
Eyechess wrote:

I must agree, RussBell, those are very well designed sets.

Yes, the ears on the Knight that is fierce are perked up as he is ready to attack.  And the look on his face is fierce indeed, especially compared to his calmer brother above him.

A well designed chess set is a true pleasure.  The Chavet set Ronbo has picture is also a very good one.

Yes Eychess.  I agree with your comments.  In fact, I think I do prefer the "Fierce Knight" set slightly more than the "Exclusive Staunton" set - based primarily on the design of the knight and rook.  Although both sets are elegant, classic designs in my view.