I like the design but would prefer all of the pieces have round bases
Chess set design — playability question
Sort:
I agree, I think it would look best if all the pieces shared the same geometric design. That doesn't mean you can't make two sets, one with round bases and the other square.
Oh, OK — thanks for the feedback, all!
Looks like I should just go with the traditional rounded bases for both sides. I was looking to make the black pieces the opposite of the white pieces in every way possible, ie both color AND form. But I guess the idea doesn’t really fly with people. And I do prefer the look of the rounded pieces myself (tho so far I’ve only 3D printed a few white pieces, none of the black).
Anyway, thanks again for the feedback.
Will you be putting weights into the base cavitiy of the pieces and if so can I further ask you if you're going to sell any of these 3D printed sets?
At least you’ve addressed the sharp points and edges in your rounded design.
If you look through a separate post on pieces people have made themselves, you’ll find a 3D printed design that has been revised after play-testing specifically because of these two design choices. Perfect for the screen and online play, Uncomfortable for actual, physical games.
ChessLosrz wrote:
the square bases make them unique, in my opinion. i like it.
Another consideration, if you make the side of the square base equal to the diameter of the round base the square pieces would occupy a 27% more space on the board, making the board appear more crowded. For a square piece to occupy the same area as the round piece with a 2" diameter, the square piece would have to be scaled down to about 1.75", which might make the board look overly spacious. It's kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' If you go on Etsy and look at chess sets with square bases they all look terribly crowded. But if all you're interested in is an 'all show, no go' chess set, that's fine too. As they say, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
Sep 25, 2020
0
#10
loubalch wrote:
ChessLosrz wrote:
the square bases make them unique, in my opinion. i like it.
Another consideration, if you make the side of the square base equal to the diameter of the round base the square pieces would occupy a 27% more space on the board, making the board appear more crowded. For a square piece to occupy the same area as the round piece with a 2" diameter, the square piece would have to be scaled down to about 1.75", which might make the board look overly spacious. It's kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' If you go on Etsy and look at chess sets with square bases they all look terribly crowded. But if all you're interested in is an 'all show, no go' chess set, that's fine too. As they say, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
I really dont think being able to see the tile under the piece is important, as long as uk where it is.
Be careful what you wish for!
chesshouse.com
So much for social distancing! They couldn't find a larger piece of wood?
They're probably family or live together.
chessroboto wrote:
They're probably family or live together.
Looks like a lot of inbreeding in those two clans!
QtoQlevel3 wrote:
Will you be putting weights into the base cavitiy of the pieces and if so can I further ask you if you're going to sell any of these 3D printed sets?
My plan (though not definite) is to get these made in metal, probably aluminum, in as matte a finish as possible. If so, they’ll have plenty of weight already. I’m still scoping out costs and options for this route. Alternatively, if that isn’t viable, then I might check out getting a custom set made in wood by CB or other chess set makers. Does anyone know if Noj still make custom sets...?
I got a few pieces 3D-printed in ASA by a third party, but the costs proved a lot more than I previously assumed, at A$23 for the Pawn and A$54 for the Queen (about US$17 and US$39 respectively). This included sanding, which made the pieces much better than I was expecting. But at that price, it’s hard to see it being viable to offer these pieces 3D-printed. Makes me wonder how expensive it would be to do these in aluminum (even via CNC manufacturing, which I assume is the lowest cost route for a small / one-off order)... Hence my thinking of going with a custom wood set as an alternative. If so, then I’d definitely weight them.
chessroboto wrote:
At least you’ve addressed the sharp points and edges in your rounded design.
If you look through a separate post on pieces people have made themselves, you’ll find a 3D printed design that has been revised after play-testing specifically because of these two design choices. Perfect for the screen and online play, Uncomfortable for actual, physical games.
Indeed - even for the square pieces, I rounded off the corners (probably hard to see in the pictures I posted). I wanted the pieces to feel good to touch and hold, so made sure there were no sharp corners (where three planes intersected), and as few sharp edges as possible (where 2 planes intersected). The latter was unavoidable in couple of instances, say a the bottom of the Knight’s head, where it would affect the connection with the rest of the body (or at least, based on my limited CAD skills).
loubalch wrote:
ChessLosrz wrote:
the square bases make them unique, in my opinion. i like it.
Another consideration, if you make the side of the square base equal to the diameter of the round base the square pieces would occupy a 27% more space on the board, making the board appear more crowded. For a square piece to occupy the same area as the round piece with a 2" diameter, the square piece would have to be scaled down to about 1.75", which might make the board look overly spacious. It's kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' If you go on Etsy and look at chess sets with square bases they all look terribly crowded. But if all you're interested in is an 'all show, no go' chess set, that's fine too. As they say, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
Actually, I based(!) the squares on the area of the circular bases, which meant narrower square sides vs circular diameters. But these looked fine on the chess squares, as they were essentially identical in area, and the diagonals of the squares are obviously larger than the circular diameter. They didn’t look any more spacious than the white counterparts, which is logical as we’re just perceiving the same size / area in a different shape.
The only time I noticed a significant difference / problem was around the Queen’s crown, where there was a design on the perimeter towards the top. The issue is that the perimeter of a square is materially greater than the circumference of a circle of the same area, and this is noticeable when there is a design based on the perimeter / circumference.
Greetings.
Just wondering if I could get some feedback on a chess set design I’ve been thinking about for a long time, but have only just drawn up with a recent app I found for CAD on my iPad.
I want the set to be highly playable, rather than ornamental, but also modern and minimalistic. Also, my idea for a while has been to design black pieces that are designed the same as white pieces, but square rather than round. I’m reconsidering this, though, as I’m worried it might affect playability.
A couple of CAD pictures are below; the square, black pieces are designed so that their bases and overall volumes are essentially the same as the white pieces (within +/- 0.5%). But this means that front on, the black pieces appear narrower than their white counterparts, while at 45° they look wider, just due to the geometry of squares vs circles. So I’ve shown pictures at a slight angle, to hopefully give a better impression of how the pieces might compare in real life.
Any thoughts?