What aspects of a chess set matter most to you?

Hey all 

I'm designing a moulded plastic chess set, focusing on pieces design atm. I'm trying to identify which elements are important to people, and what points are sometimes not implement well in existing sets on the market. The points I've identified to focus on are: 

• Piece stability. It should take a lot to tip a piece over. 
• Qualitative non-slip grip. Heads and collars should have appropriate overhang to ensure a good grip can be achieved.
• Qualitative feel. The geometry and the weight of the piece should make holding the piece comfortable and qualitative.  
• Robust. Typical weak points should be reinforced to make sure nothing breaks when pieces are inevitably dropped. 
• Aesthetic. Obviously a subjective point, but the set should look amazing. 
• Quality. The materials and finishes should appear quality and look nice

I'd appreciate any input on what other points are important to you. Thanks

Above all else, I'd say the ability to distinguish the pieces. I've seen a number of sets where the bishops are too similar to the pawns or where the "White" pieces are too similar in color to the "Black" pieces. The shapes should be distinct enough that one can quickly identify the piece by both look and by touch. The colors should be distinct even to players who are colorblind (this can be checked with various online tools).

What is most important to me is aesthetics and quality. I also agree with @goodspellr’s point about being able to distinguish pieces. I played chess OTB against a friend with a themed set while at a poker game. My opponent and I had to constantly confirm with each other what the pieces were. It was fun to play chess but not fun to spend extra time and energy trying to figure what was what.

+1 to all of above. I played OTB recently with my brother with a Lord of the Rings set he purchased for his some many years ago.

It was an absolute circus - always having to ask which piece is what … and the point about colours is spot on - I have numerous sets with colours that are similar in both sides - they may look great if display but playing with them is poo tickets.

One of the best modern designs I’ve seen recently is @Kohpablanca ‘s modern Australian set - did he end up calling it ‘Australis’. (From memory the set is available from one of the Ukrainian manufacturers.) You could take cues from that set I reckon - simple, stylish and functional. Or you could seek him out and get his thoughts on manufacturing that set in weighted plastic.

Powderdigit’s description using the word “circus" is an excellent way to describe my OTB game at my friend's poker game.

Stability and aesthetics. Stability does not necessarily mean weighted. Unweighted pieces can also have nice stability with good design. Also agree the pieces need to be clearly identifiable. The sizing between the pieces needs to be right. The King size down to pawn size needs to work well together and reflect the game strength of the pieces. I have seen beautiful sets where for example the pawn size is way too small or too large.

Very interesting project. I think many of us who like holding physical chess pieces (chessmen as often known in UK I think) have thought whether we’d do anything different from the Staunton design which is why to us chess appeals as an object that combines a subjectively created utility and design. 

For me what is important is that the chess pieces do not deviate too much from the established form of Staunton Cooke design simply because this is the aspect of chess which has become standardized over decades.

My Preferences for chess figure design based on the chess sets I have seen in photos from different parts of the world as well as from online stores:

-Keeping the essential Staunton form. This is important so that anybody can look at the board and not have to worry about getting used to different looking pieces.

-Knights that are not too minimalistic. The current official FIDE knight looks strange. Does not have eyes. I actually often look at the knights eyes because it’s like it gives a “soul” of sorts to the set. Maybe just a connection with whomever designed the knight. 

-The pieces all should resemble a Roman column as was used in Roman architecture after the Greeks. It means having a round base with a separator line, either concave or convex, between the base and the column. You should look up diagrams and specific parts of the Roman column. Personally I am not a fan of pieces which lack a separator line between the base and the shaft.

-rooks that resemble a tower of a castle in its shape. Coincidentally its base and main body also should look like a Roman column. There was, or is, a trend to stylize rooks to resemble some kind of flower which has a much thinner shaft in relation to its width and other pieces. Personally I think that is the style you can see on cheap wooden mass produced pieces. I think the room also should have the smallest angle of incline/slope. Not cylindrical but still it’s wall incline should be more upright compared to other pieces.

-I prefer that the kings have at least something on top which is a cross or resembles a cross. This may be a Eurocentric Christian symbolism, but then again the whole Staunton design is Eurocentric and no one IMO would want to use another design at this point in history. Don’t give the king that stupid round “top hat” that looks almost like a hat from the Moai 🗿 statues on the Easter island. I have a cheap and ugly chess set someone got me from India and it’s king also has this kind of stack on top that looks like 💩

-queen should have pointy crown similar to Queen Isabella of Castille’s historic crown. I am aware that in a number of languages the “Queen” is the male top advisor Firz/firzan/ferz but as far as I know the depiction still has a crown.

-I think the king’s crowns look better in chess sets when they are slightly rounded as opposed to angular. This is minor preference.

-small details like the the embrasures on the parapet of the rook (I am using terms used in architecture), points of the crown of the queen, small sphere on top of the Bishop mitre are all nice BUT too much is detail can also be distracting.

Oh, you mention a lot of things I take for granted.

Sure that stuff is important, but usually not an issue.

So first thing I look for is if the knight's eyes are dumb looking, and then at the height of the rook's, uh, whatever they're called... parapet maybe (I like it to be short).

Aesthetics and stability. I have a thing for Staunton sets (classic & fancy), and I need pieces that are weighted properly.

I dislike knight eyes that are a full circle, stuff like this: ⦿

A chess set should have stable movement and should be easy to hold and play with( in case the chess set is meant for regular play). Wood is preferred material but plastic is also Ok for budget purchase

I like sturdy sets without brittle parts and I love opposite coloured bishop finials.

The design concept. Make it look nice, make it interesting. There is a base-level of functional design needed: pieces can be picked up, aren't silly unstable, the light and dark sides can be told apart, but frankly thats not the hard or the interesting part of the problem. We are drowining in mostly terrible variations on the Staunton pattern (that market is saturated), the mass produced Soviet set designs are popular for the moment (one can obsess over Staunton design variants only so much I suppose and they are reassuringly similar to the Staunton pattern), figural designs are pretty much out of fashion and expensive to make well (I am generally not keen on them because their usability is often poor). It would be nice to see some actually interesting and original design. Sadly the nice modern designs are a fairly short list, in no particular order: Austin Cox, Herman Ohme, Max Ernst, Man Ray, Josef Hartwig, whoiever designed the ACF chess set, NOJ have some interesting designs other than the one that people here obsess over, there are more but you get the picture.

For the best tactile qualities look at soviet sets. Nothing feels quite as nice in the hand. Dubrovnik comes close, but no cigar. Stauntons I'm not a fan of at all.

The biggest problem that you'll have making a plastic set (apart from it being plastic... no offense intended, but imho wood belongs on the chessboard. Plastic belongs in the oceans) is that you won't be able to tweak the design on the go. Especially if it's injection moulded rather than 3d printed, where you can at least run off a prototype after a prototype after a prototype until you get something acceptable.

If you're turning prototypes by hand, you'll be stopping dozens of times to tweak the piece design on the fly. It might look good on paper, but once you're holding the real life version in your hands, everything's different. Small tweaks, a +/-0.5mm here and there, really make a difference.

I have a mixed reaction to stuff like bauhaus. On the one hand, I just want to start rofling when I see one (jeez, learn some woodworking skills. Even my kids can do better). On the other, these sets look so bad and are so pathetically unplayable, I just want to cry.

If this is a commercial venture, I think you need to consider price. If price is no object look at what NOJ is doing... premium look and feel (and they have a 3 year wait list or more).

I think price, look and feel are going to drive most decisions.

If you think "performance", perhaps Best Chessmen Ever (BCE) is the design to look at. It remans very Staunton, unique minimalist design unlike any other and was engineered for piece stability. I'm not saying this is my favourite, however, I have 3 BCE sets (stage 1, stage 1 w/ stainless steal base and 3D printed).

Things I consider (as a collector and enthusiast)

• Design... is it unique or copied/stolen from someone else? I dislike themed pieces.
• Manufacturer... is the manufacturer reputable and honest? I do not like manufacturers that have a history of stealing designs from others and claiming it as their own without crediting the original designs.
• History... perhaps the set has a certain history or sentimental meaning. Perhaps this is why I have 3 BCE. I have the Tal set from NOJ because of all the research Chuck from this forum did to revive the design. I have another Tal set from EraRetro to contrast with the NOJ version (and think this uses a very different manufacturing process that makes it interesting as well).
• Build quality, finish and materials...how do the pieces look and feel? Natural materials are nice. I'm not against plastic. Some sets are shiny and others matte. I don't have any silicon sets. I've returned chess boards because of quality.

Some competitive rubik's cube players like a cube for performance. I'm not that picky when it comes to chess pieces... I like a slow deliberate game. Thought, I've heard silicone pieces don't slide nicely and thats important to some people.

You don't need to buy from NOJ to get a really first class chess set.

Nor is the Dubrovnik NOJ's own design in the first place.

If you felt the silicone pieces, they will slide well, and should, in theory, be quite nice to touch.

Just take your time with silicone or you'll make a tit of a job out of it.

"Lift your feet!" my mother used to say.

@chessmaster_diamond

I don't mean to suggest NOJ is the only or best example of quality chess pieces. This is an example based on my personal collection.

NOJ manufacturers more than Dubrovnik pieces. Nor does NOJ claim any of the Dubrovnik's they manufacture are their designs. In fact, NOJ go out of their way to provide the history of the designs and remain as true to them as possible (more so than other manufacturers, IMHO). For example:

• Pero Pocek designed the original set used in the IX Chess Olympiad that became known as the Dubrovnik. Only 50 of these were produced.
• An original set owned by Nikola Karaklajič was used in a 1991 Fischer-Spaasky rematch. This exact set was acquired by collector Matic Novica (and again by an unknown Brazilian collector). It is this set that NOJ had physical access to when reproducing. What set did others use when making reproductions?
• Andrija Maurovič designed another set. These sets were crafted by Vjekoslav Jakopovič.
• A company called Šahovska Naklada, owns Maurovič's original blueprints and drawings (along with its copyrights). NOJ was given access to the blueprints and permission from the copyright owner to use this design. Do others manufacturing this set have permission from the copyright owner?

Noj sets are great . But they are out of budget for atleast 95% of chess players/ buyers who are casual gamers and dont wish to spend a bomb on their equipment.