Chess Set Recommendations (First Wooden Tournament OTB Set)

Hello all,

I am posting to see if there are maybe some experienced chess set collectors who might have some insight into this potential chess set purchase I am considering.

My largest concern is matching the board to pieces.

For some information on this set's purpose, I am seeking my first wooden set for tournament play (USCF).

Firstly, the pieces that are my top choice are "The Classic Series Chess Pieces 4.0" King" with ebonized boxwood and natural boxwood.
https://www.houseofstaunton.com/the-classic-series-chess-pieces-4-0-king.html

Now, these pieces have a 4.0" (10.16 cm) king height and a 1.6" (4.064 cm) king base diameter.

As such, I am considering a chess board with 2.25" (5.715 cm) squares; if I recall correctly, this is within USCF tournament guidelines. This set comes also in a 3.75" (9.525 cm) king version.

Honestly, the only reason I want the 4" (10.16 cm) version as opposed to the 3.75" (9.525 cm) version is the fact that the crenellations on the rooks are taller and narrower, which is aesthetically pleasing to me. To my tastes, the ranking of piece preference in this set is: Rook, Queen, King, Pawn, Knight, Bishop. Though I certainly like every piece, the bishop is certainly the weak spot of the set to me. Good thing I prefer knights on the board anyway.

As for the board choice, I simply asked ChatGPT to tell me a type of wood for chessmen with natural boxwood and ebonized boxwood. Its top two choices were Walnut and Maple. After searching, I found a board on the House of Staunton Website that advertised Walnut AND Maple. Below is the board.
https://www.houseofstaunton.com/walnut-and-maple-wooden-tournament-chessboard.html

The options I have selected in the page are "Without All - No Notation or Logo-2.25 in. (5.7cm) +$20.00" and "Deluxe Chess Board Bag - 24" x 24" +$59.95"

I suppose my overall query is to the experienced collector: Would you recommend this combination of chessmen + board, or are there any changes that you would make regarding piece selection, piece size, board selection, or board size? I will say that I am pretty set on ebonized boxwood/ebony for the black pieces, I love the dark color.

I appreciate your time,

Tristan Cruz

A tournament board needs to have algebraic notation. Other than that the woods for the board are very classic and won't be a problem. The pieces are also perfectly fine in both design and size.

I would say that wood boards and pieces are not the norm for tournaments simply due to the weight and would be perfectly fine bringing a mousepad chessboard and plastic pieces. Be mindful that if you're playing in a rapid or blitz tournament your there is a decent chance that a piece or 2 falls off the table during a time scramble.

However, I would be very happy if I saw that my opponent brought that setup to a game.

Is it a requirement to have algebraic notation? I have people who bring wooden boards in my club all the time, and they do not have algebraic notation on it. Also, definitely not using a wooden set for rapid or blitz, I wouldn't want to get stuck replacing a rook! I have a few plastic sets I currently use, but for classical I somehow focus better with a wooden set.

I believe that what @KineticPawn meant is that a board must include notation if it is to be used in an official, rated USCF or FIDE tournament. You might check with the Tournament Director to confirm this.

Otherwise your wooden pieces and board are an acceptable set, in terms of sizing, for club play.

The FIDE Manual, Sections 2 & 3, also specifies board and pieces sizes (i.e., for official FIDE events)...

https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Standards_of_Chess_Equipment_and_tournament_venue.pdf

Chess Board Dimensions | Basics and Guidelines...

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-board-dimensions

Right, but I assumed it was not required. One of the players who frequents the tournaments in my area uses a board which was used in one of the US Championships and that board has no file or rank indicators on it, and neither do the world championship boards so my assumption is that is not required. In the rulebook, I simply found that file and rank indicators are allowed, which seems to imply that they are not required.

@1

"these pieces have a 4.0" (10.16 cm) king height and a 1.6" (4.064 cm) king base diameter."
++ That is really tall. You should need a large board.

"I am considering a chess board with 2.25" (5.715 cm) squares"
That may be too small for your 10.16 cm tall king. Measure the pawn diameters.
'3.3 The side of the square should measure 5-6 cm. Four pawns should fit on one square.'

"This set comes also in a 3.75" (9.525 cm) king version."
'2.3 The height of the pieces, in descending height order, is as follows: King – 9.5 cm, Queen – 8.5 cm, Bishop – 7 cm, Knight – 6 cm, Rook – 5.5 cm and Pawn – 5 cm. These dimensions may differ by up to 10%, but the pieces must remain in descending height order.'
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/StandardsOfChessEquipment2022 
So the 9.525 cm king is preferred.

Metric Conversions:

• 1.6" = 4.064 cm
• 1.4" = 3.556 cm
• 2" = 5.08 cm
• 2.25" = 5.715 cm
• 2.5" = 6.35 cm
• 3.375" = 8.5725 cm
• 3.75" = 9.525 cm, or 9.5 as is referred to by FIDE
• 4" = 10.16 cm
• 4.5" = 11.43"

Well, with regards to the height of the king, that is not necessarily the issue. USCF typically goes by a "75% guideline," that is to say, the ratio of a king's diameter to the board is ideal at 75%. Of all the combinations of piece size and board size that can be created with the 1.4" diameter pieces, the 1.6" diameter pieces, the 2" square board, the 2.25" square board, and the 2.5" square board, the closest that you can get the ratio to be is with the 1.6" diameter pieces, and the 2.25" board, i.e., the 4" chessmen and the 2.25" chessboard. Additionally, the board option of 2.5" squares is disallowed by FIDE, as it is greater than 6 cm. The ratio for the ideal chessmen and board (given the constraints of piece choice and board choice) is 1.6/2.25, which is 32/45, or a little over 71%. Second closest would be the 1.4" diameter pieces and the 2" board, creating a ratio of 0.7, or, 70%. From what I have read in the FIDE handbook, it is within the 10% differential allowed, as 1.1x9.5cm=10.45cm, which allows for some room with the 4" (10.16 cm) king height. USCF guidelines simply state that the king's height should be 3.375" to 4.5", and the board squares should be 2" to 2.5", which is followed in any combination I pick. Additionally, rather simply, I am a decently tall man with decently large hands, so as far as I am concerned, if I can have a piece size that is slightly larger than "ideal" while still maintaining FIDE and USCF standards, that is better for me.

Hey Tristan, I stand corrected. It appears that there is no official USCF or FIDE rule about algebraic notation for the board itself. I think I errored because a) Algebraic notation has been in every tournament board I've played on and b) I distinctly remember CCA having a rule about algebraic notation precovid. CCA also had an odd rule where opponent could decline to play with your pieces if they had opposite color finials like the Zagreb design.

Ah! I see, that makes sense. It is definitely the norm for club level play, but I definitely aesthetically prefer a board with no markings. Also, that is a shame for the Zagreb design! It is beautiful!

Chess Set Sizing - Pieces vs Board...

The primary sizing criteria for the set and board is that of square size vs King base diameter...

A good rule of thumb is...

King base diameter = 0.75 * square size

or equivalently....

Square size = 1.33 * King base diameter

For example, for a board with 2.25 inch squares, King base = 2.25*0.75 = 1.6875 inches

For 50 mm squares boards, King base = 50*0.75 = 37.5mm = 1.4764 inches (1 inch = 25.4mm)

Any variation from these ratios, or the size/height of individual pieces and pawns becomes a matter of personal preference...

http://blog.chesshouse.com/how-to-select-the-right-size-chessboard-for-pieces/

CCA events now just use USCF/FIDE rules. I distinctly remembered the finial rule because it was such an oddity.