It is more like Staunton Style pieces. Easily recognizable to anyone that plays chess.
Curious Question.....
Sort:
I know, one thing, many staunton designs seem to have a religious or political thing going on with the top off of their kings and of course the pieces actual names as we know them. The Dubrovnik with its simple ball heads for top offs seem to be neutral in that regard.....
The Staunton set originated in the UK hence, they have a King & his Queen & a Bishop from the Church of England. Rooks resemble Castles & the Knight is an armored aristocrat. It seems logical they named the pieces thus due to their culture. In Slavic the Bishop is called a Shooter/Archer. I prefer the name Sniper myself.
Apr 9, 2015
0
#5
My opinion is that what we call a Staunton design, that has become the standard for tournament play, is the basic design of the pieces. It is easy to distinguish what piece is what in this design because of the basic consistencies.
The King and Queen have similar designs with their long and slender bodies and a collar with top part of each. Whether there is a cross or some other type of finial in the King appears to be only a design detail that does not detract from the complete piece design. The Queen usually has that crown with crenelations. Once again those crenelations vary in design and even placement on the top part of the piece.
The Rooks are also very consistent in design looking like a castle or at least the tower of a castle with its top being consistent.
The Bishop also has the mitre top that can vary in detail but once again has the same morphic look amongst different sets.
The Knight also consistently has the top of a horse style that usually incudes the neck and mane.
The Pawn also has its particular look in the Staunton design and you can see it being similar across different designs.
All the pieces have bases that look a bit ionic or something.
I agree that the Dubrovnik sets are in the Staunton styling that would have them in the "legal" category for FIDE, USCF and other national federations that control rated, tournament chess.
I think that some of the pre-Staunton designs are difficult to distinguish what the pieces are. There are other stylized sets such as the Lewis and the Roman "character" sets that would not come under the tournament regulations.
I know that when I talk of chess sets with people that do not play or understand rated chess they wonder what's wrong with some of these different, non-Staunton designs. They tell me that they have a set their uncle or cousin brought from some foriegn land where the pieces are little statues of certain historical characters or creatures or something, as if that somehow qualifies them as doing something in Chess. Of course I am always nice and courteous with them, telling them that we play tournament chess with sets of this design for easy recognition of the pieces.
They also wonder why one Staunton design set would cost $70 while another, looking the same to them, would cost $600.
For instance Robb, the sets you collect are all pretty much the same design. Sure we know the differences of the details, but the non-chess player wonders why we waste our time and money on so many different sets that all look the same. Why don't we at least get some sets that look like Roman Gladiators, or Homer Simpson and his gang or something?
I look at the Jacques designs, the Dubrovniks, the Lardys and the others we see, play with and collect. They are all of the staunton heritage as you put it. Obviously Staunton had his name associated with a set of that design back in the mid 1800's and detail variations have shown and continue to come from this basic, recognizable design.
9kick9 wrote:
In Slavic the Bishop is called a Shooter/Archer. I prefer the name Sniper myself.
In German, the knight is called JUMPER ("Springer") and the bishop is called RUNNER ("Läufer")...
Eyechess wrote:
My opinion is that what we call a Staunton design, that has become the standard for tournament play, is the basic design of the pieces. It is easy to distinguish what piece is what in this design because of the basic consistencies.
The King and Queen have similar designs with their long and slender bodies and a collar with top part of each. Whether there is a cross or some other type of finial in the King appears to be only a design detail that does not detract from the complete piece design. The Queen usually has that crown with crenelations. Once again those crenelations vary in design and even placement on the top part of the piece.
The Rooks are also very consistent in design looking like a castle or at least the tower of a castle with its top being consistent.
The Bishop also has the mitre top that can vary in detail but once again has the same morphic look amongst different sets.
The Knight also consistently has the top of a horse style that usually incudes the neck and mane.
The Pawn also has its particular look in the Staunton design and you can see it being similar across different designs.
All the pieces have bases that look a bit ionic or something.
I agree that the Dubrovnik sets are in the Staunton styling that would have them in the "legal" category for FIDE, USCF and other national federations that control rated, tournament chess.
I think that some of the pre-Staunton designs are difficult to distinguish what the pieces are. There are other stylized sets such as the Lewis and the Roman "character" sets that would not come under the tournament regulations.
I know that when I talk of chess sets with people that do not play or understand rated chess they wonder what's wrong with some of these different, non-Staunton designs. They tell me that they have a set their uncle or cousin brought from some foriegn land where the pieces are little statues of certain historical characters or creatures or something, as if that somehow qualifies them as doing something in Chess. Of course I am always nice and courteous with them, telling them that we play tournament chess with sets of this design for easy recognition of the pieces.
They also wonder why one Staunton design set would cost $70 while another, looking the same to them, would cost $600.
For instance Robb, the sets you collect are all pretty much the same design. Sure we know the differences of the details, but the non-chess player wonders why we waste our time and money on so many different sets that all look the same. Why don't we at least get some sets that look like Roman Gladiators, or Homer Simpson and his gang or something?
I look at the Jacques designs, the Dubrovniks, the Lardys and the others we see, play with and collect. They are all of the staunton heritage as you put it. Obviously Staunton had his name associated with a set of that design back in the mid 1800's and detail variations have shown and continue to come from this basic, recognizable design.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wow Doc... That was great ! Thank God for Toric lenses so I was able to read
such a great answer :)
The more I look at my Dubrovnik the more I see a Staunton heritage to it. I mean... Isn't it a staunton type, has the word staunton been over used in general, is the Cooke design the only true staunton, and has Jaques set the standard and bar for that name tag, etc, or what's your thoughts ?