Cheap Wood vs. Nice Plastic

goldendog

The bishop reminds me of this guy

but I am a fan of the set insofar as it is soft and rounded and un-detailed. Cure the bishop and maybe beef up the rook a little, in matte finish, and you've got a winner of a set to play and study on.

edit: They need to make more matte finish sets. Shine shows off the wood and is attractive but is a detriment for actual play and study. Long ago I had a little French wood set and it was so-called antique finish--very matte. The sides were plain boxwood (with some invisible finish) and dark maroon stained boxwood. I'd seen full size sets the same too. Not what I'd call quality sets but they had the finishes correct. (I guess they could do brown as easily as maroon.)

d4e4

I wouldn't mind getting this set as a birthday gift, along with a box of Rocky Patel's The Edge, toro maduro:

http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess/chess_pieces/premier_chess_pieces/morphy_series_genuine_ebony_and_boxwood_luxury_chess_set_to_4.4_king_by_house_of_staunton_new

goldendog

That set is close to perfect for me in the category of fine old style pieces--even if the knight is a departure from the old tradition. Make the eye more convincing, and the king 4" instead of 4.4" and I'd probably stay satisfied fo'evah.

An eye like this HOS knight has (also a superb knight)

d4e4

Very, very nice!

Here, check this out: http://chessantiques.com/antiquejaques.html

goldendog

Yup. HOS's old site. Some great, informative stuff.

The Harrwitz knight is a favorite of mine, though scaled smaller than I prefer.

Joseph-S

  Knight

banners/worlds_finest_chess_sets_homepage_banner_634

Not a bad looking knight by any means, IMO.

Edit: (The knight on the far left.)    From the Chessstore

wishiwonthatone

whew! for minute there I thought you meant the red one or the elephant. :)

Yes, the black one is perfect.

clms_chess
wishiwonthatone wrote:

whew! for minute there I thought you meant the red one or the elephant. :)

Yes, the black one is perfect.


 lol.... the red one is your clasic Dr. Jekyle turned Mr. Hyde Kight.  I can almost hear his insane laugh.

goldendog

Damn. When I looked through the USCF catalog in 1971 for a 3.75" wood set there was just one option. A set made in France that was really piss-poor when I received it.

I think we've been in the golden age for at least 15 years now. You really can get a great set and not need to pay a whole lot for it.

goldendog
BuddyT wrote:

http://www.chesssets.com/chess-pieces/wood-pieces/blackandnaturalboxwoodfrenchknightchesspieceslarge.cfm

It is the wooden version of the basic plastic sets that most major tournaments use. The pieces are very rugged and also well weighted.


Looks just like what I have. Very good, practical wooden set. Better than what the pros use, imo.

TheOldReb
goldendog wrote:
BuddyT wrote:

http://www.chesssets.com/chess-pieces/wood-pieces/blackandnaturalboxwoodfrenchknightchesspieceslarge.cfm

It is the wooden version of the basic plastic sets that most major tournaments use. The pieces are very rugged and also well weighted.


Looks just like what I have. Very good, practical wooden set. Better than what the pros use, imo.

 

 

Speaking of what the pros use it always irritated me that in the Fischer/Larsen candidates match they played on cheap plastic crap , did this not bother anyone else ? If I recall correctly so did Mecking/Korchnoi. Disgraceful imo and a testament to what low esteem chess is held in the USA. 

goldendog

Yes,  Fischer-Larsen used the adequate plastic Dreuke on one of those simple Italian boards (an Anri).

Add the BHB clock and the equipment cost the organizers maybe $50 lol!

It just didn't lend any prestige to the event, which was in fact historic.

Good enough for me but good enough for such an event?

In the previous Taimanov match they used one of those very nice Havana Olympiad tables and pieces, and for Petrosian they had a good-looking table and likewise apparently high quality pieces.

While the players seem to be fine with mediocre equipment, can you imagine chess fans looking upon the Fischer-Larsen equipment and being proud?

Petrosian looking at what Capablanca and Lasker used:

Gomer_Pyle
goldendog wrote:

Yes,  Fischer-Larsen used the adequate plastic Dreuke...


Well then, I feel pretty good knowing my cheapest set was used by such illustrious players.

That black knight above looks pretty good. I would also like the red one if it wasn't red. My favorite knight is probably the Golden Collector from HOS, followed by the Parthenon and Capablanca knights.

For some odd reason I also like this knight:

WhereDoesTheHorseGo
Call_me_Ishmael wrote:

Hey -

Totally hypothetical, but wondering whether you'd rather have a cheap wood set or a nice plastic set for a budget chess set. First pic is the wood set, second is the plastic set.  15 bucks more for wood.

Thoughts?

 


I actually own that bottom (plastic) set, and I love it. Nicely weighted, quality pieces.

Archaic71

If I am not mistaken, hasn't FIDE gone over to this set:

http://tinyurl.com/3d6s5xr

for pretty much all of their professional games?  It looks like they have chosen utility over beauty.  That knight looks like it was carved in a highschool shop class.  Im not opposed to a set like this if its going to get played with a lot, but I would love to see great looking classic sets in big tourneys/matches.

For the record, I teach chess to kids during a summer program at the city library and we have them bring in their own sets.  Man, if I had a dollar for every time I tried to evaluate an 'Autobots vs Deceptagons' endgame, I'd be rich.  "Is that a bishop?"
The teeny weeny glass sets are even worse.

d4e4

Handmade Recycled Auto Parts Metal CHESS SET Novica NEW

d4e4

Better, yet:

Metal-Gerd
Archaic71 wrote:

If I am not mistaken, hasn't FIDE gone over to this set:

http://tinyurl.com/3d6s5xr

for pretty much all of their professional games?  It looks like they have chosen utility over beauty.  That knight looks like it was carved in a highschool shop class.  Im not opposed to a set like this if its going to get played with a lot, but I would love to see great looking classic sets in big tourneys/matches.

For the record, I teach chess to kids during a summer program at the city library and we have them bring in their own sets.  Man, if I had a dollar for every time I tried to evaluate an 'Autobots vs Deceptagons' endgame, I'd be rich.  "Is that a bishop?"
The teeny weeny glass sets are even worse.


Not quite, it this set: http://digitalgametechnology.com/site/index.php/Chess-Sets/dgt-timeless-set.html

I think for matches utility really should be more important than beauty. During a game I don't spend a thought about the pieces.

At home, when i replay famous games or studies I love to have beautiful pieces.

WhereDoesTheHorseGo
Metal-Gerd wrote:
Archaic71 wrote:

If I am not mistaken, hasn't FIDE gone over to this set:

http://tinyurl.com/3d6s5xr

for pretty much all of their professional games...


Not quite, it this set: http://digitalgametechnology.com/site/index.php/Chess-Sets/dgt-timeless-set.html...


shouldn't the rook be taller and thicker in that set? and shouldn't the bishop and knight be a bit closer in height? my preference.

Bur_Oak

Those sets are so distractingly utt-bugly, I'd hate to have to play on them. I'm sure they're more durable, and I appreciate the idea of standardization, but what a miserable choice!

Fortunately, I'm not a big tournament player (there aren't many around here), and the occasional recreational game I can scrape up can be played on a nicer set from my collection, or that of a friend.