Australis Chess Set. Custom Made From Ukraine (Oldset)

So, this little guy managed to escape Ukraine, and arrived at my doorstep today. It was close.

I’ll try to do an in-depth post with heaps of photos, but it may take a while, so apologies in advance.

I haven’t opened the parcel yet; I’m still just marveling at it - where it’s come from. I feel I should somehow save the stamps as a reminder of all that’s happening right now.

Congrats! Can you at least let us know what you bought?

[edit] Oops you said it in your subject line... haha! Well I can’t wait to see photos.

I am excited by this thread being a ‘custom design’ …. I think it might be related to kohpa’s own design he discussed some time ago. If not … still an exciting mystery to be unveiled. 👍👍… and a timely reminder of the awful situation occurring in the country of origin. 

Knowing what's inside, I'm shocked you haven't opened the box yet! 

@Kohpablanca I'd try and preserve that box. Maybe open it from the bottom side to keep the label and stamps all intact. Who knows what the future holds. Without being political here, those Ukraine stamps and postage date may make it an interesting keepsake to keep together with the set. 

Can't wait for the photos. It's been a long journey! Congrats!

More Powerful King?! ??

WARNING: This is a long read, and more about the design ideas and development rather than a chess set review.

Well, where to start…? I suppose maybe many, many years ago, with the idea for a modern chess set carved in clean, simple lines. But one that also inherited enough of the Staunton design to be easily recognisable and entirely playable.

That was long ago, and not being a woodworker or even a designer with access to (let alone knowledge of) CAD software, I figured it was just one of those idle childhood musings. I never did find the chess set of my dreams in shop windows or (later) websites. Modern chess sets I saw were either too removed from Staunton standards, or impractical, or (to my eye) not aesthetically pleasing. (The ones that come perhaps closest to my preferences are the Berliner and Herman Ohme designs.)

Then about two years ago I stumbled on a CAD app for the iPad. I found it fascinating to be able to design objects — actual, legit, 3D objects — which could also, thanks to the marvels of technology, be 3D-printed. It was like discovering magic was real, and it began an obsession of sorts. Time spent going out, which was no longer possible due to Covid, was replaced by time spent fiddling around with the CAD app. And researching historic chess set designs.

This led me to Chess.com, which has been particularly helpful to me in learning about various chess sets that have graced boards over the past decades and centuries. Having some context of major historical (and contemporary) designs has greatly helped shape my designs and piece dimensions. My Knight and Rook draw inspiration from the Chavet design, my Bishop from certain Soviet designs (such as the Mordovian/Latvian).

One, more surprising, source of inspiration for my designs has been the 2D renditions of pieces used in online chess. I suppose this is appropriate for a chess set that aims to be modern. The influence is particularly apparent in my Queen, but also subtly in how I approached the Pawn.

On the issue of chess piece dimensions, @Loubalch has been particularly helpful in providing me with measurements of some of his sets, as well as his thoughts on appropriate dimensions for chess pieces. This was supplemented with other detailed chess set reviews on chess.com, ad hoc posts, and Chess Bazaar measurements of their various chess set replicas.

Digressing a bit on chess piece dimensions — specifically, on the size of the bases — some observations and conclusions I’ve made are as follows:

• While historically the recommended size for the King’s base has been a diameter in the rough vicinity of 76.5% the width of a chess board square (as estimated by @Loubalch), modern chess sets have trended smaller. In particular, the DGT Timeless set has a King base diameter of 37mm, while the FIDE official chess set has a King base of 39mm. These are often played on 55mm-square boards (made by DGT), yielding King base / square ratios of 67% and 71% respectively. These two common set-and-board combos are used in many top level chess competitions which are widely broadcast, and no doubt influence modern aesthetic sensibilities — or at the very least, mine.
• A helpful rule of thumb for the sizing of Rooks, Bishops and Knights is that when all three pieces are placed in a straight line, they are approximately the length of 2 squares on the chess board.
• Hardly any chess set and board combo adheres to the now antiquated 4-pawns-to-a-square rule for pawn bases. The modern 2-pawns-to-a-square guide seems more acceptable, but I believe it is towards the upper limit for the size of the pawn base. The FIDE official chess set has a pawn base roughly in the middle of these two guidelines.

With a 55mm-square board in mind, I decided on the following:

• The Rook, Bishop and Knight followed the 2-square rule of thumb, with base diameters of 38mm, 36mm and 36mm respectively.
• While I initially designed the King with a 42mm base (76.4% ratio to the square size), and the Queen with a 40mm base, I ended up adjusting the sizes down a bit, in recognition of modern trends and my own aesthetic preferences. I landed on 40mm for the King (72.7%) and 39mm for the Queen.
• The Pawn was given a base of 31mm, which follows another rule of thumb I came up with (namely, that the Rook, Bishop, Kinght and Pawn lined up diagonally would just fit inside a 2x2 square area on the chess board). This was a tad smaller than what would be recommended by the 2-pawns-to-a-square guideline, at 32mm.

So my base progression for the chess pieces is: P-31, N-36, B-36, R-38, Q-39 and K-40mm. Essentially the progression in size was attenuated for the King and Queen.

My height progression broadly followed the FIDE guidelines but was similarly attenuated towards the end, rather than following a strict linear pattern. So here I ended up with K-95, Q-85, B-75, N-65, R-57 and P-50mm. The only slight hitch I had was that I didn’t take into account the thickness of the baize cloth used to line the bottom of the pieces… So much for precision!

Finally, I also ensured that, like the base sizes, the volume of the pieces echoed their relative values in the game. So the King > Queen > Rook > Knight, Bishop > Pawn. Technically, the Knight is bigger than the Bishop, but I couldn’t get them to equal without making the Bishop obese.

Leaving aside size and height, some specific design choices I made were:

• Elimination of collars for the King, Queen and Bishop (and Pawn, but I’ll address that later). I never quite understood the function of collars in the Staunton design. I don’t think they make pieces easier to pick up — don’t people grip pieces above the collar…? Collars are also often thin protrusions, prone to chipping. Certainly more fragile than the head of each piece, which the collar might otherwise protect. And without a collar, I think the pieces enjoy more graceful, uninterrupted lines.
• Slightly bigger finials / piece signifiers, which aid in piece recognition and emphasise the piece’s character. This was particularly so for the King, Queen, Rook and, to some extent, Bishop.
• Simplicity — but not by any means minimalistic. I included details I thought were characteristic of a piece, and tried to eliminate the superfluous, particularly in the Knight.

The pieces are made of maple, with a white stain applied for the light pieces and a dark grey stain for the dark pieces. I got this idea from the grey-stained chess board sold by Purling of London, and I thought it gave a modern, understated look.

Anyway… that’s probably enough preamble. Below are some photo of the chess pieces. Unfortunately I don’t currently have a tournament-sized board, so apologies for not being able to post an ‘action shot’ of the pieces partway through a game.

Some thoughts on the individual pieces:

King

This guy was always going to be understated. But I did end up giving him a slightly more elaborate finial / cross, in recognition of his royal status. This has caused somewhat more issues than I had expected, and Oldset had to eventually use a router to separately carve the cross. But I’m glad it worked out in the end; a plain cross might have been just a little too pedestrian for His Majesty.

Queen

Oh, this Queen has stolen my heart! As mentioned, her design was inspired by common 2D representations, which feature the spiked crown:

♕

I thought such a crown exuded power and majesty, which was appropriate to the Queen’s place in chess. It may come at the cost of some simplicity, but if any piece were to be a little ostentatious, surely it should be the Queen.

I did ensure that her crown’s spikes were rounded off rather than sharp, to help ergonomics. (She may be fearsome, but she doesn’t harm needlessly…!) As to the number of spikes, I figured form should follow function, and so 8 spikes were appropriate, referencing the Queen’s movement on the board.

The work required to shape the Queen’s crown added significantly to the cost of the set — an extra US$100 (for 4 Queens), compared to a simpler version I first submitted and had made. But I think the difference was worth it. Here’s a comparison (and yes, that means I now have 8 Queens in total; or perhaps, 4 Queens and 4 concubines):

The Queens happen to have a distant cousin — a Polish Queen, who bears some family resemblance.

Bishop

I struggled for a while to figure out how to give this piece its own style . Then it occurred to me to consider the basic shapes that comprise a Bishop’s head, namely the two parts that are normally separated by a mitre cut. I figured I should try bringing them together. And I was thrilled to see that when I did, the shadow cast by the larger shape against the smaller one implied the typical cut seen in other Bishops. It made the Bishop in one sense even simpler while keeping the same familiar form. It gave the Bishop its own groove. Hah!

Unfortunately, simpler did not make carving the Bishop easier — quite the opposite. Instead of just cutting a slit, it involved manually shaping a curved surface with a gentle taper to the bottom of the Bishop’s head, while keeping a straight line between the two sections. An Indian manufacturer I approached early on said they couldn’t figure out how to do it, which led me to Oldset.

As to the overall shape of the Bishop head, I kept it neutral; some bishops curve inwards towards the top — like onions, or the tops of mosques or the Kremlin — while others bulge outward like a helmet. Mine are in the middle: straight. It somehow seemed like a good balance.

Similar to some Soviet sets like the Mordovian/Latvian, I ditched the ball on top, which I felt was unnecessary and infringed upon the unique Queen’s style. Why should she share her crown’s ball with the Bishop? She’s jealous, that way!

Knight

I suppose just about every chess set’s Knight is unique in its own way. For me, the first decision was around which features of a horse I wanted to include, and which I wanted to omit. I decided to include the mane, the ears and the eyes, and to skip the finer details around the nostrils, teeth and mouth. While the Knight needed to resemble a horse, I still wanted it to be somewhat symbolic — figurative, rather than literal, like all the other chess pieces. And without a snarling mouth, I thought I would go for a calmer, more contemplative Knight; hence forward-facing ears, rather than backward.

I didn’t want to place the Knight on a pedestal and break the harmony with the other pieces, so ended up with a single-piece design with a slimmer, more elongated body. I went for a slender silhouette, rather than stout. Tapering the mane towards the bottom was in keeping with this, and also avoided any sharp protrusion at the end that might chip or scratch.

I should say that the Knight has a secret power… It comes from Down Under, so naturally it can stand upside down. That, I suspect, is unique among Knights.

Rook

This, along with the Pawn, is perhaps my most ‘normal’ piece, though its solid, sturdy nature has grown on me over time. I’ve slightly exaggerated the top and bottom of the Rook — the battlement and talus (researching historic castle designs, I learned about this feature seen in late medieval castles). These are, to me, the key signifiers for the piece. And I flared the  battlement, like in some Chavet Rooks, in counterpoint to the sloping talus.

I made the Rook’s body curved, to keep it in line with the rest of the pieces. And, of course, I gave the Rook four crenels, to reference the movement of the Rook on the board. Because form should follow function.

Pawn

The simplest of pieces! And yet, I think I made the most prototypes for this piece, trying all sorts of body shapes, and head shapes, and neck widths and base sizes.

The Pawn is easily reduced to basic, geometric shapes or organic forms. And that is what I tried, at first. But something didn’t seem right. And then I realised: in almost all 2D representations of the Pawn, there is a collar. None for the King, Queen or Bishop, but (almost) always one for the Pawn. It’s not just the bulbous head that makes the Pawn a Pawn, but the collar too. Otherwise, it can look like just a token used in other board games.

Of course, I’d already decided against collars for all the other pieces, which left me in a conundrum. My solution: to imply a collar, without actually having one. And so that’s what my Pawn does. If you look at it closely, you’ll see it no more has a collar than the King: both pieces comprise an hourglass-shaped body topped by either a ball or a cross. It’s perhaps the relative size of the Pawn’s head that gives the illusion of a collar — or just our expectations.

So, that’s how I ended up with the design for these chess pieces. I should probably stop here. Apologies for not actually reviewing the set, and Oldset’s craftsmanship — perhaps I’ll do that in a separate post. This is somewhat too long as it is!

Some additional photos of the chess pieces:

And in case you were wondering, this is a picture of the various prototypes I had 3D-printed, as well as some test Rooks that were CNC’d in aluminium. Suffice to say, I’ve spent way too much time (and money) getting to the final design.

Very nice! If I may make a remark, either all pieces have a collar or none has it. Now your pawn has a collar, it seems a bit off when the bishop and the monarchs none imo.

@Kohpablanca  BRAVO! What a unique, beautifully conceptualized and designed set. Thank you for taking us along the thought process of your creative journey.

The Queen is the show-stopper. Comparing the final Queen carving, to the first carving and CAD drawing is subtle, but totally worth it. A more natural angled blending taper. So so difficult to repeatedly hand carve that "simple" angled cut to match on the 8 points across the 4 queens on a one-off chess set. Great idea! And great skill on Oldset's part. 

The matching spherical Queen finial and spherical pawn head did not go unnoticed! It's the little things that, when all added together as you've described, makes a set really come together cohesively. 

The last photo of all the prototype pieces is a fitting end to the presentation. It perfectly conveys a creator's work, time, stress, frustration and money involved in creative research and development of an original design. 

Congrats! The set has a BCE type of design. I love the finish for the dark pieces.

I think this is a masterwork.

Class. Pure and simple.

Design skills applied with grace and humility.

The pieces are wonderfully elegant; understated and yet, strong. They look eminently functional too.

Close inspection of the photos shows unique details whether it be the shaping of the bishop’s mitre or the illusion of the collar on a pawn.

Each piece is well conceived and beautifully carved, resulting in a grand and majestic line up.

Modern yet classical.

Powerfully elegant.

Stunning.

I am proud that it was conceived on the island continent that I call home.

A marker in time that it was produced in the Ukraine in such troubled times with such skilled artisans.

Well done Khopa and Oldset.

Thanks, Michael.

And yes, I tried many variations of the Pawn without a collar (implied or otherwise)! But without at least a pseudo ‘collar’, the Pawn head look less defined and distinct from the body. The Pawn looked less like a Pawn, IMO — and actually less harmonious with the other pieces. As mentioned, the (two) elements of the Pawn are actually very similar to that of the King — a body, and a head / finial.

Also, in 2D chess boards, the Pawn is the only piece with a collar. There’s none for the other pieces. Maybe I’ve been playing too much chess online, as it now seems perfectly normal to me, whether using 2D or 3D pieces!

@Pawnerai — thanks for your kind words!

Yes, I went with your suggestion of a round Pawn head, though not after trying many, many alternatives!

And indeed, the Queen must be diabolical to carve… and repeat three more times. But if it were made in plastic, it wouldn’t be an issue at all. Same with the Bishop — easy to print and make a mold, and then duplicate exactly. Carving, not so much.

I think after the Pawn, the Queen was the most prototyped piece. I had the basic design idea really early on, but getting to the final version took forever, and I only got there right at the end, literally while Oldset was making the set. 

@Powderdigit — You’re too kind! Glad you like the design. ‘Modern yet classical’ was exactly what I was aiming for when developing the design. And while influenced by lots of other sets, I’m going to call it an Australian design. Just in case those Kiwis claim otherwise…

Thanks MCH!
It was a bit of a gamble with the charcoal grey finish for the dark pieces, but I think I like it. I was actually going for a light grey/white colour for the light pieces, but I don’t mind how they turned out either. 

Beautifully designed set! My own design talents pale in relation to yours. More pictures please.

What wood did Oldset use to turn your pieces?

We must pray for the safety of Oldset and all of our friends in Ukraine. Their talents are so needed for the continuation of quality chess sets.

The knights are so totally unique without a turned base.

Now I have to search out the other threads of the design discussion.

Bravo!

Whew! I just finished reading "War And Peace" when I stumbled upon this short post.-

Seriously,it's a gorgeous piece of Ukrainian craftsmanship from a superior supplier,the likes of which I hope is safe and well.

I bought Oldset's 19TH Century Soviet Alekhine set about 9 months ago and it is definitely my favorite,in a collection of 19 Tourney sets.

Just eeks out my Noj Tal set,in the "what I like best" dept.

I hope he and Kate,from EraRetro are safe.....Wonderful vendors and I am sure overall great folks.

Enjoy your gem.

Thanks F1! Would love to see your design(s).

FYI, the pieces are made from maple, and stained.

And yes, I just realised there was one photo I forgot to post — a more relaxed, family portrait showing some of the baize lining the bottom of the pieces:

Yeh, I was going for subtle and understated, rather than bold and stark — for the look as a whole, as well as the finish. So thanks!