Should I put my chess set into production?

The set looks nice for me.

I do not like that tiny hands on pieces, I doubt about that tiny balls on top of the pawns, I do not like bishop head texture, but overal shape and look are really cute. Could you consider more strict variant also?

But the knight... The knight is AWESOME !!! I believe it is the best chess knight I have ever seen.

Unfortunately it can not be 3D printed, AFAIK. Can not find prooflink, but I believe no overhung elements are allowed

SMesq you are not wrong. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the Staunton set. I'm just making a different one.

When I search on line to see what chess sets there are, I find the Staunton sets, which are beautiful, classic, and a little boring. If you try to find something that is a bit different, because... well... I guess some people want to signal a bit of individuality through the objects they keep in their homes, then there are basically three ways to go:

There are ultra minimalistic sets, which cuts out all "unnecessary" details. I find it hard to play with those, because it is hard to tell the pieces apart.

There are overly decorated sets. They tend to drown the distinguishing features of the individual pieces, making it hard to tell them apart. Same as above, just with an inverse sign.

Then there are themed sets, where the pieces are very concrete, like little Star Wars figures or Roman armies and such. Again often very hard to recognize the pieces, and even worse, I think I would get tired of looking at them after a while. If I was a collector of many sets, then I would definitely take an interest in these sets, but not if I'm looking for just one set that will work both as a display piece, and as a functional chess game.

So what I'm trying to do here is to find a level of abstraction that is just one click away from the Staunton set and is a few steps down the ladder from the themed sets.

Yes, that is a hard one to pull off as you say, but I don't think it is impossible. If it was easy, I wouldn't want to do it.

Would an education help? Yes definitely, but I don't have that luxury, so I will have to spend much more time on it than a professional would, and also seek help from others.

I guess it is part of my belief system that I think that if you have an image in your mind, and you put in the work it takes, then you can realize your vision. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am, then I still think I need to learn that lesson for myself, rather than listening to naysayers who tell me that I should just quit.

I don't think you should quit, just 'step back from the canvas' a touch. :-)

Have a fine weekend.

“...It would hardly be a waste of time if sometimes even the most advanced students in the cognitive sciences were to pay a visit to their ancestors. It is frequently claimed in American philosophy departments that, in order to be a philosopher, it is not necessary to revisit the history of philosophy. It is like the claim that one can become a painter without having ever seen a single work by Raphael, or a writer without having ever read the classics. Such things are theoretically possible; but the 'primitive' artist, condemned to an ignorance of the past, is always recognizable as such and rightly labeled as naive. It is only when we consider past projects revealed as utopian or as failures that we are apprised of the dangers and possibilities for failure for our allegedly new projects. The study of the deeds of our ancestors is thus more than an antiquarian pastime, it is an immunological precaution.”

Umberto Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language

I don't think it will be a problem with getting the knights out of a 3D printer. Just look at these other models from shapeways: http://www.shapeways.com/miniatures/figurines?li=nav

If you were to print it in a ceramic material, you might have a problem, because there is a stage in the process where the model is soft. They talk about thinking about if the model could be built as a sand castle. Of course the size of the thing matters as well. The bigger and heavier, the more strain on the material.

To tell you the truth I'm not 100% sure why I had the idea of putting that harlequin pattern on the bishops. I think the image of it was just there in my head one morning when I woke up. I suppose it is a simplification of the patterns you typically see on the hats on popes and bishops. I can see that there is a bit of discontinuity with the other pieces that have no textures. Whether the fix is to remove it or tone it down on the bishop, or to add some textures to the other pieces, like stone works on the rook, I'm still undecided about.

As for the arms, they need a lot of work still for sure. Right now they pretty much look like pieces of play dough that have been rolled into strings. At some point I have to join them with the bodies, because the shapeways servers may reject overlapping geometries. For now I keep the things separate, because I'm not done tweaking the shapes of the bodies, and it is a lot easier to modify what is still a simple rotational extrusion than a complex geometry. But when it comes time to join things together, I will also take a much closer look at the arms and turn them into stricter and more controlled shapes. They need to be thicker for sure, and I have to think about how to blend them into the bodies, like should there be shoulders for example?

LoveMag, at risk of saying "I like it"...I think what you wrote about the compromise between abstraction and realism, and the typologies of different sets...was bang on. I find the minimalist sets stupid and confusing. I find the themed sets overly busy. I think your set is coming along nicely. And at first I actually didn't like it, but I now do.

About the texture on the bishop, yes, I see what you're saying. Maybe tone down the texture, and/or make the hat a bit smaller, to make it less of a 'hat piece'. If you make the hat a bit smaller you'll be able to make the bishop\s body a bit longer, and make him a bit more elegant and less top heavy. I think that all could be an improvement.

Yes, I see what you mean about the king possibly being top heavy, but nowhere so as the original king, and if currently top heavy, just a wee bit. And yes, widening the base will work.

About the objection about square size, 2.5" squares is very large and unusual, most people do not have 2.5" squares. Common is 2" and 2.25". Fide pro boards have 2.25" squares and kings under 4". Most home luxury sets are larger than FIDe tournament boards. But again, we're not making a tournament set here, but a personal novelty set, and a gift set, I think. And a good one at that!

LoveMag, what your wrote about the arms looking like bits of plastilene rolled and stuck on. Well, sculptors roll and stick on all the time. Your arms, tho I was an initial objector, now have me convinced. I will have a hard time with changes to the arms, but we'll see!

About the dot on the pawns, I was an initial objector to the dot; in fact I was an initial objector to the entire pawn; but I think you have now created a nice compormise between classical, dignified, and fun. 

what Smesq wrote about stepping back from it is a fine piece of advice. Every time I step back from it and then look at it again I like it. haha, a complimenter.

Radio

Well, I can be wrong about 3D printing easily. If examples you gave are printed as is and not assembled from separately printed parts then I am wrong for sure :)

About arms and shoulders: as I see, you have told about it with SMesq already. To say the truth, I share his point, I do not think arms are needed at all. So I believe no shoulders needed either. You want to keep arms where and it is author's right. If you want it you can keep it :)

Nevertheless, I believe you should not attract player's attention to the arms. Do not make it anatomically realistic, as an example.

I first clicked on this thread when it was new. Chess sets are a passion of mine so obviously it was interesting. I was abroad and I followed the rule "when you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all," and maybe I still should but now I'm home, I haven't read all 12 pages of posts in between, but the last few posts have given me some new information.

In general my issue with the design is it's too close to the Staunton design. If I had this in my collection I would not call it an original design; I'd catogorize it as a Staunton set. What you have are Staunton rooks, Staunton Pawns, and Staunton knights completely unchanged. That's most of the set.

Beyond that the Bishops have arms and older style finials. The older tops actually look Indian

(like this set from the Crumiller Collection

or one of these sets of mine

)

and just look a bit weird next to the British style Staunton pieces. It's muddled, like when I see a French style set that shouldn't have Bishop mitres and someone has cut Bishop mitres into it to make it more recognizable.

Next to that you have the Queens, Staunton Queens with little arms... or older Queens with little crowns, depending how you want to look at it. I think in general next to your other pieces people will just see Staunton Queens. The arms are cute. If the pawns had arms maybe I'd like the set a bit better, but I'd still feel it was a Staunton set, not a new design.

The Kings are now Staunton Kings with arms holding orbs. The old crown was more original on a Staunton set, though not at all a new idea for a King finial, just less Staunton like. The new one is a bit more ornamented than original Staunton sets, but not even new as far as Stauntons are conerned. Certainly there have been many versions of the Staunton set already made with that crown. The arms I still feel are cute, and I like the orbs although the level of detail there seems a bit inconsistant with the rest of the set.

(I'm reminded of Lisa Snelling's Poppet chess set, a design which I do like a bit better, though her knights look like Bishops:

Her set with little arms is adorable, though obviously she's gone a great deal farther into that stylized world than you're trying to go.)

So I see a Staunton set with two changes. Antique Anglo Indian or Anglo Chinise-looking Bishops tops, and cute little arms. These two changes a sublte. At first glance it just resembles a Staunton set. And they don't seem to go together in my mind. I don't see what the Bishops tops have to do with the arms. I would probably like the set better if it had normal Staunton Bishop tops and the pawns had adorable little arms, or if none of the pieces had little arms and more of them had different nods to forgotten antique styles. ... or even if there were more little differences, if the rooks had something unique, if the pawns had something unique, if the knights had something unique, and the whole set was an eclectic  hodgepodge of different novel details added to the common Staunton design. I wouldn't be bothered at all if the Antique Anglo Indian Bishop tops made no sense with the cutesy little arms if there were ten other things in the set that didn't match either. The way it is now with only 2 unique things that don't "jive" highlights the fact that don't match.

What I look for in a new chess set design is asthetic beauty and the usual stuff (which this set has, but mostly because it looks like a Staunton,) but mostly that the design is new and functional. By functional I mean that the pieces are easy to recogize. (For example Themed sets where the names of the pieces have to be written on the base so you can tell which piece is which are not functional in my mind.)

Your pieces are beautiful and functional, but I don't feel the design is original and as a version of the Staunton set I don't feel the two changes are enough or make any sense with each other. That is my opinion.

Now reading a later post of yours what most enlightening.

You're not trying to make a chess set for me at all. You're trying to make the design functional (the pieces recognizable) by making it look like a Staunton set. If that's your starting point people like me are always going to complain, but you've absolutely succeed in your goal. It looks like a Stauton, and probably this feature is good one for appealing to a wider crowd. Most chess players hate new designs, or old designs, or anything that doesn't look like a Staunton. They will like your set... or at least it won't bother them like probably most of my collection does.

There you've succeeded. I guess the question is, though, why should someone who loves Stautons and doesn't want anything too crazy to distract him from the game want *your* Staunton-like set instead of a regular Staunton or some modern Indian Staunton that seems unique because it has interesting Knights. And I don't know, maybe you have an answer in the 12 pages of posts discussing your set. I don't like it and I'm sure that's clear but not everyone has to like your design for it to be a good one. Heck I bet you hate this original design of mine:

Which piece is which? Arg! My set is not functional! Also I really don't like the way the Bishops turned out and the rooks look like Bishops. Both of those designs were better in my head than when I assembled the sea shells and looked at them but I couldn't figure out better ones with the sea shells I had.

My critique aside a book I recommend for you is Mike Darlow's "turned chessmen" an easy read, rich with pictures, which has many pages on chess set design aside from the stuff on actually turning them on a lathe. It appears to be about $15 used on Amazon right now or $25 new. It's possible you can a better price somewhere else.

I hope my attempt at creative critcism wasn't too harsh and anyway if it was it's because I don't like your design and perhaps shouldn't have said anything at all; you can't please everyone. I do like the little arms especially the praying Bishop arms.

Ty Kroll
http://www.tykroll.com/chess/

hmmm. tmkroll's post. hmmm...rambling, but honest, and sincere and accurate.

tmkroll wrote:  <Most chess players hate new designs, or old designs, or anything that doesn't look like a Staunton. They will like your set... or at least it won't bother them like probably most of my collection does.>

He's absolutely correct. I'm a very traditional Staunton man. I like this set. Its staunton enough, and its cute and lovely and fun and practical, and it will be stable and well balanced when we're finished with the base widths. I hated the arms. I love them now. I hate those Indian sets, and those mongol sets, and those heavily themed sets.  

tmkroll's astute comments help to identify the target market, if we're interested in that. He's bang on.  

LoveMagnet, I think you've done a really nice job here. I am impressed and I like the design of your pieces. Very nice, indeed.

tmkroll, how can I be offended when you state your opinion so politely and so eloquently? ;-)

I do see what you mean by there not being enough deviation from the Staunton pattern. Most of the other objections have been that there was too much deviation, like "I don't like the little ball on the pawns, because pawns don't have that" and such.

As I said in an earlier post, I think that there will be a natural tendency to converge towards the Staunton set, because that is after all perfectly balanced, and, as you put it, functional. For example I felt compelled to change the pawn, because someone made a very good argument about weight distribution, and so it became more functional, but also more Staunton-like. Anyway I agree that I need to come up with some more ideas for ways I can make the design unusual and exiting, without compromising the functionality too much.

I also discussed adding arms or shields to the pawns earlier, and I don't think it really works that well, because the details become too small and "noisy". I've been thinking about changing the shape so that the tops look like pointy helmets. I could do that without introducing too much "noise".

@shockinn: I don't know what you're talking about. No it wasn't a dig at you or anybody. It was referring to pics that tmkroll posted, and the Indian and mongol set is a particular style of chess pieces, very tall and narrow and filigreed. 

Mongol is from Mongolia. 

shockinn, no! It wasn't wrong at all for you to post in here! And I just read over your post and you meant that that weird chess set with the shells looked like Jurassic Park! I thought that was funny and astute! 

About this pompons on top of the pawns: maybe you should place a small ball on top of the queen either? You know, every pawn has something in common with the queen?

I am so sorry LoveMagnet, but I've got one word for your new king's head: legos. Please, please, give him a new head, or at least change it substantially.

firebrand writes horse head is too big.

I respectfully disagree, But I think the bishop hat is too big, and the bishop torso is equivalently too short. 

Printing gives the option of customization, but is not the low cost way to mass produce. You have designed a beautiful set, but people have different tastes so the set will appeal to some percentage of chess set buyers.   Perhaps your goal is to express this design that came out of your soul - you have done that beautifully.  The fact that you have sought comment may mean that you have another goal besides self expression.

If you can offer to print to different materials (there are even techniques to print to metal) perhaps people can chose their color, material, etc.  Printing is cool - well it is not so new anymore but it still seems very cool! 

You might also have a range of tops, middles, and bottoms, and people could mix and match to arrive at the shape they want for each piece, and also get their choice of material and color.  You would need a fancy website to help people select their piece designs.  Hmmm, folks could choose to have one knight be different from the other one, etc. etc. They might also select the size of the set - mini, medium, large, etc.   Mass customization is where the printing could come in.

Just take the little balls OFF the pawns heads.....only bishops have them.

Funny how people suggest things about the same time as I think of it. Right now I'm away from my work station, so no updates this weekend. Anyway, I've been thinking of making a range of different designs, like square pieces, octagonal pieces, different bases, no bases, human body shaped... Well... Bodies, and so on. Some will be rejected. Some will be selected to be further refined. In the end I'll have a range of different sets that people can choose from. There will even be a standard Staunton set so that FirebrandX and others like him may be happy too ;-)

Thanks for your kind response to my longwinded comment.

About the pips on the pawns... they don't distract from the piece signature at all. Little ornaments like that have been on and off all pieces for hundreds of years and they have absolutely nothing to do with the Bishop piece signature which I believe is one of the ones that's even written into the rules.

Pawns have been marked with an ball on top since way before Staunton and many of them have an additional spike or pip like this set of mine from 19th century Germany:

The pawns have pips and not the Bishops (which have mitres that are actually a-sysmetrical and Staunton-like which is odd for this kind of set; it's a bit hard to see in this picture.)

If you go outside my collection you can find about a million examples of this before Staunton; the earliest picture I'm seeing of a pawn with a little ball on top of the normal ball was published in Caxton "The Game and the Play of the Chesse" in the 15th century, so you've got a lot of history behind the idea. That is an ornament you've created that doesn't make them look unpawn-like, and to me doesn't make them look like some specific kind of old pawn that doesn't belong either. It's just a good-looking ornament.

After Staunton there have obviously been many more ornamental pips on pawns and other pieces. Here are a few of mine from after Staunton with little pips and yet you can still tell which piece is the pawn.

Soviet, 20th century, everybody has a little pip. The pawns don't even have balls on top but it's extremely obvous which is the pawn; it's the shortest piece.

Russian again, the same thing.

Polish, but Russian-looking, 20th century... ok on this one the ornament on the Bishop does look more like your ornament than the one on the pawn, but anyway in all these cases the piece signature is not confused. It's very easy to see which piece is which. On your set I think it's probably even easier.

If I could find some Staunton sets with a little ornament on the pawn I'd post one. I know I've seen them, and sets which are not quite Staunton but aren't as figural as my Russian sets that have them as well especially sets from Poland or the Czech Rupublic if I'm remembering right.

I think it still says in the rules that a tournament set must have the Bishops marked either with a mitre cut or with an opposite color top.

Yes, it does:

"2.3

Form, style of pieces

Recommended for use in FIDE competitions are pieces of new Staunton style. The pieces should be shaped so as to be clearly distinguishable from one another. In particular the top of the King should distinctly differ from that of the Queen. The top of the Bishop may bear a notch or be of a special colour clearly distinguishing it from that of the Pawn." - FIDE Handbook

(though this rule is back from when the Staunton style was still "new" lol, and this appears to be the 1975 version of the rules. I can't find a newer one online. Also it's only "recommended." Also you're very close to the kind of mitre which has no "notch," though I think you do have a small one down the middle of your Bishops and anyway I see confusion over which of your pieces is the Bishop and I don't think even many Stauntonophiles here do either. I imagine today if one of the players has a problem with the set it's the arbiter's descression.)

Historically Bishops have also often been marked with hats, feathers, and flowers mostly in countries where they are "runners" or simply "men" and not related to the church, or in France where they "jesters" they had fool's caps or cuts in their collar. Tricorn hats were popular Bishop tops in many countries. The opposite color "hat" is the only non-mitre one still excplicitly FIDE legal and not much used outside I guess Austria/Germany? (or is that all Staunton now?) and some Slavic countries. I know they're still making brand new sets with Bishops only marked by the opposite color tops in like Romania, for example.

Bishops aside, little pips have also been used as functional marks that have nothing to do with piece signatures. Here is a set of mine, 19th century, probably post-1849, contempry with the early Staunton sets, where pips are used to mark the Kingside pieces:

I think this idea actually comes from some of the original Staunton sets. On the early sets by Jaques a crown was used to mark the Kingside pieces. I'm sure I've seen some other early Staunton sets by other manufacturers where a little pip was used. This became less-popular with the use of algebraic notation and was eventually phased out.

And this one is a hard to see but here's a set from the Crumiller collection where pips are used entirely on one side and not the other:

If you look closely you can see all of the white pieces are marked with a little pip very similar to the ornaments on your pawns. This is a set for the blind, so a player can tell the colors apart by feel. Obviously the "touch and move" rule wouldn't apply in this case. The set of Jon's is 19th century, pre-Staunton, but I don't believe this sort of marking for sets for the blind is uncommon even on Staunton sets today. And yet you can still tell the pawns from the bishops.

So yeah, you could take away from the Stauntonophile's complaints about the pips that it might be possible for you to make a set in the future marking the Bishops only with a little pip or spike and modern players might think that's all it takes to mark the Bishop... maybe, though then I don't think the set would be tournament legal if that's an issue for you. Beyond that I didn't think your pips were worth mentioning before. I think they're an ornament which is not non-functional. You could put them on any piece or all pieces of one side without confusing which piece is which. I like them on the pawns. They're one of the few things I like about your set. (Which may be another reason for you to consider taking them off, lol.)

I actually like Kahzeemin's idea of adding them to the Queens as well. Making the pawns "little queens" has been done long before and after Staunton. By adding the head to the Queen it does look a little like an older-style "big pawn" Queen with an additional crown. You could make the Queen and pawn more similar to pay homige to all that history.

I oppologize for my apparent inability to write a short comment on this subject.

Good news about the custom idea you're coming up with.