What is the best chess set weighting
Sort:
Unweighted - less chance of cracking, more portable, and a pleasant sound when clinking together!
Oh plastic - my comment was about wood
Aug 6, 2023
0
#4
Not long ago, I'd have said triple-weighted is the sweet spot - certainly for large sets with kings over (say) 5 inches, and even down to 4.5 inches. For some (almost certainly mistaken) reason, I generally associate "heft" with higher quality...
But I recently bought an open-box/new King Arthur Staunton set by Chess'n'Crafts. It has a 4.5 inch king but is only double weighted. Surprisingly, it feels "just right" in use. My other big set, with 5.5 inch king is triple weighted and feels "just right" too (and was the source of my original bias toward triple-weighting).
It may just be me, and I'm only basing this on two large weighted sets I've used, but it looks like ideal weighting may depend on piece size as much as it does on personal preference.
“That is because the terms single, double, triple, and quad weighted are meaningless terms in the chess industry.
It tells you nothing about the weighting of the chess set,”
It’s true there is no standards or even consistency for these terms in the market. Maybe to be a bit more transparent with the reason for my question. I’m interested to know from a marketing perspective which terms are more sought after, or considered more favourably by someone looking for a new set.
It tells you nothing about the weighting of the chess set,”
It’s true there is no standards or even consistency for these terms in the market. Maybe to be a bit more transparent with the reason for my question. I’m interested to know from a marketing perspective which terms are more sought after, or considered more favourably by someone looking for a new set.
Aug 7, 2023
0
#6
I’m following this thread with interest because I make chess sets and always embed weight into my pieces. Although I saw the statement that single, double, etc. is meaningless, is it possible to attempt a ’meaningful’ elaboration? I also know FIDE specifications only stipulate that the weight be comfortable… but, as has been pointed out here, that’s rather subjective. Thank you for the insightful comments.
I can concur that the Ultimate V3 is “nice and heavy.” Other players that have used it when I’ve brought it to the club have also remarked affirmatively.
If you are interested, Shelby Lohrman has done a few, short YouTube videos on this particular set. It helped me make a good decision; that along with tons of positive reviews.
(A criticism spoke of a sharp Knights’ mane, which was accurate, but not a serious issue—file or buff it smooth.)
If you are interested, Shelby Lohrman has done a few, short YouTube videos on this particular set. It helped me make a good decision; that along with tons of positive reviews.
(A criticism spoke of a sharp Knights’ mane, which was accurate, but not a serious issue—file or buff it smooth.)
Hi @PWalker1 & @DesperateKingWalk
I'm designing a chess set, and I'm considering how I should market it. Looking at the different weighting, I only see slight correlation between the actual measured weight and the way the weight is described.
Taking the ultimate V3 set as an example. Take one of each of the 6 piece, and you will get a weight of 374g, the full 34 pieces weights 1.716 kg. this is being sold as a triple weighted set.
In contrast, the best chess set ever, which is sold as a quad weighted set, only weighs 330 (6 pieces) or 1.614 (34 pieces).
My question really is more about what weightings do buyers have a better association with. Would the ultimate set sell better if it was categorised as quad weighted. Or would the best chess set ever sell better if it was categorised as triple.
Speaking about tournament compliant plastic sets here, with a 3.75 to 4.25 inch king. What weighting do you look for in a set, and why.
do you look for one of the weight categorisations?
- Unweighted
- Single weighted
- Double weighted
- Triple weighted
- Quad weighted
or do you only assess the set on Kg or lbs weight?