Does anyone else play with non staunton or pre-staunton chessmen?

Many designs seem better than the strange ornate victorian-esque design that is our standard Staunton set.

I have several old Vienna chess sets and I would like to play with them with friends, but is is funny how some people are used only to Staunton.

It's rather sad that these different cultural heritages are so rapidly disappearing in the face of the steamroller that is the 'Staunton' models.

I'd consider the Subozan set (the second one in #2) to be Staunton. Not an English Staunton, but a Staunton nonetheless.

The Staunton design is a development of other designs.  It will be historically incorrect to describe designs that existed already before the Staunton as "Staunton" because they have similarities with Staunton. 

The issue is rather complicated, as some sets in early 20th century were indeed conceived as cheaper versions of Staunton,  but with features of pre-staunton sets. Only chess historians can perhaps tell us which sets which sets are simplified versions of Staunton and which are historically related to pre-staunton designs.  Probably it is difficult to make a clearly distinction between both alternatives.

The Subozan set I referred to was made in the nineties, long after the first Staunton sets, and doesn't have the hybrid coffeehouse design elements of the other set shown. I don't think the issue is so complicated that you have to be a chess historian to discern the design elements in those sets.

When a set was produced is IMO not relevant. We have Regency sets still produced and played in several countries, although this pattern is already known from the 18th century. What I want to say is that even a pattern produced in the 1990s can have roots in pre–Staunton sets. In such cases is would be historically incorrect to call such sets Staunton. This would be especially the case if it could be demonstrated that some key features of such sets had a long tradition in pre–Staunton chess.

Just to be sure: I am not telling that you are wrong. I am just pointing out to alternative hypotheses. Collectors of pre–Staunton European sets or historians of chess could tell us more about the issue. I know that most people today are very interested in Staunton patterns because this is the pattern adopted in official tournaments and because the „beginning“ of this pattern is clearly identified.

But the really beginning of the Staunton is much more complex.

I have myself a large collection of pre–Staunton sets, but I can not give you a conclusive evaluation of the here discussed set.

To posts #7 and #8, the Subozan set looks like a Vienna coffee house set -- updated for the 1990s. It's not just that the Subozan bishops have opposite coloured spheres on top. Compare the kings of the two sets -- and the pawns. Chuck (if I may), you have so much experience with all sorts of sets, could you tell us what design elements of the Subozan set stand out as Staunton to you? I'd be grateful: as a matter of curiosity. 

Grüss Dich, Alison

Here is my thinking. First, I start from the excellent article that Alan and Milissa Dewey authored, which I commend to everyone. http://www.chessspy.com/articles/Staunton%20Chess%20Set%20Design.pdf 

They write:

Perhaps it was Nathaniel Cooke who realized that, as printed chessbook symbols were virtually
standardized already (and thus were widely recognized), these symbols for game play in books simply
could be used for the shapes of the pieces in the new chess set. As some evidence of the link between
symbol and shape, we see that most game diagrams prior to 1820 had employed as symbol for the
Queen a closed crown. Roughly thirty years before the development of the Staunton design, chess books increasingly began to use a coronet for the Queen: this is a signal difference marking the Staunton design of chess sets for play apart from all other chess sets.

I basically accept their thought, and as a first principle, look to the extent to which pieces resemble the symbols found in chess diagrams of the period, which have remained pretty standard now for almost 200 years.

I would expand this into piece related elements as follows:

• King--base, vertical stem, collar (1-3 levels), crown, finial.
• Queen--base, vertical stem, collar (1-3 levels), coronet, finial.
• Bishop--base, vertical stem, collar (1-3 levels) , miter, finial.
• Knight--base, horsehead.
• Rook--base, vertical tower, turret.
• Pawn--base, vertical stem, single collar, ball.

When categorizing a set as Staunton or non-Staunton, I ask whether these design elements predominate. 

Applying these to the Subozan set, all the pieces exhibit all of these elements, except the pawn, which has multiple collars, an element of coffeehouse design. To my eye, the Staunton elements predominate. I don't care what the individual designer subjectively intended. I can see what he did.

When you say the Subozan set "looks updated," I agree. The way I'd say it, though, is that the design incorporates multiple "modern" Stautnton design elements, which predominate over pre- or non-Staunton elements.

I distinguish between the colored "balls" on the coffeehouse set from the colored finials on the Subozan set, though they serve the same purpose--to distinguish the bishops from the queens. The opposite colored ball on the coffeehouse set corresponds to the miter on the Subozan set, which is not colored (unlike ubiquituous Czech and Hungarian bishops). I cannot tell you the historical genesis of the opposite colored finials, though it is a standard design element of Eastern European and Russian sets. Is it a vestige of pre-Staunton design? Perhaps. But to me, and many others, it's not one sufficient by itself to deprive a set of the Staunton label.

To #11, that is really helpful, Chuck: ich bedanke mich ganz herzlich! 

Why "lol"? Before 1849 there were a huge variety of set designs. Staunton design did not emerge in a vacuum , but took over some features of known designs. The rooks, pawns, knights and even bishops of Staunton had great similarities with several European chess sets which were very popular until 1850. 

Have a look for example at this picture of a Victorian chess set http://www.crumiller.com/chess/chess_pages/english/HalbetHolbornSet.htm

It would be historically highly biased to describe some of these pieces as  "Staunton" - the opposite is true, as such pieces were used before 1849.

Have a look at the Russian and Soviet sets. Which one of these sets would you describe as "Staunton" and  why? http://www.chess-museum.com/russian--soviet-chess-sets.html

And then compare these sets with the set depicted on picture 2 of post 2: can you see any similarity? And differences?  It is exactly this aspect of similarities / differences which I was talking about. 

 

Nice set. I find the King and Queen very (too?) similar, but the Bishop have a cool design.

I thought you were talking about pieces on Chess.com.

Bitte sehr!

I think nobody is saying something else here! 

Here is the Austrian coffeehouse set in my collection. I agree about the confusion between king and queen. In fact, the black queen actually appears to be a shorter king from another set! Hence the need for designs that more clearly distinguished amongst the pieces.

Here are Soviet sets in my collection. I'd consider all of them Staunton designs because the Staunton design elements I laid out above predominate over any other influences or variations.

A reproduction of the highest level of Grandmaster set, used in first level tournaments for decades.

An early version of the Grandmaster set from the fifties or sixties.

The Flohr Botvinnik I set, of the type used in the 1933 match between those great players...

The Botvinnik Flohr II set, used in many first rate tournaments from the thirties to the seventies, including the famous Second International Tournament in Moscow, 1935, where Flohr and Botvinnik tied for first, just ahead of Capablanca and Lasker...

Other finial models tend to have other features which distinguish the king and queen more clearly than the Austrian Coffeehouse set. That said, it didn't stop the Austrian Coffeehouse from being in regular use well into the 1930s at world class tournaments.