What's your "goldilocks" size chess set?

I can't say I have a Goldilocks set. My tastes are pretty eclectic with playing sets as well as collected ones. I especially enjoy playing with my NOJ Dubrovnik II, HOS Mechanics, and OS 1851 and 1870 sets, all for different reasons. I do have a Holy Grail set--what I call the Tal Set.

The NOJ Dubrovnik...

The HOS Mechanics Institute...

The OS 1851...

The OS 1870

The Tal Set...

I want that Tal set...

I like the design of the fifth knight (marked) that you pictured, Ganz-Unten. What's the name of that design? I usually can find an image or example on Wikipedia or similar resource but I wasn't able to find this one.

That's from a Soviet set from the sixties.

Very brutalist Soviet Art. Reminds me of the big Stalin-on-the-Hill statues. Can't stand the Bishop in that set, though ...

I don't see it. I see grace, elegance, and proportion. And by the time this set was designed, Stalin was long disgraced within the USSR. If you want brutality, I think you find it in the Nazi Bundesform set, or in binder clips posing as chess pieces. 

What a strange looking set. Leave it to the Nazis to make the bishops look like a bullet and, of course, the king has lost his crown and the queen her coronet (no need for royalty in the world of national socialism). Oddly enough, it looks like a multi-purpose set that can be used for torture and pleasure, among other things. Wait, torture and pleasure, isn't that the definition of sadism? But of course!

Agreed, Lou. I elsewhere described the bishops as collared Mauser rounds. The pawns remind me of a squad of Wehrmacht infantry in their Stahlhelme. Burn Amos called it a Panzer Set.

And they must not have thought too highly of their cavalry, those horses are truly butt-ugly, and that's the kindest thing I can say about them!

Ahahaha, touche friend, touche! That should shut me up!

But it didn't ...

On reconsideration, in light of the wisdom and circumspection displayed by my learned and more experienced colleagues here on the forums, I must admit, still, that I disagree. I simply do not identify much that is pleasing in the Bishop design of the first set recently brought into question, the 1960s Soviet set. In that set I see one kind of Knight and another kind of Bishop. I see stocky, stumpy, brightly angular Knights which visually compete against delicate Bishops bearing extremely narrow collars and therefore also bearing (due to the comparison with the collars) rather bulbuous-appearing roundels. In that set, to me, visually, the Bishop, King, Queen, and Pawn seem relatively akin, the Knight hails from a different century, and the Rook remains non-committal.

Maybe something's missing from Rook and Knight? Imagine, if you will, taking the Knights and Rooks of the Soviet set and changing their design ever so slightly, to narrow out their collars just above their bases. Each would retain 99% the same shape, but a few millimeters off the board, each would be MUCH skinnier, to a proportion identical to what is happening halfway up the Bishop or Queen. Then the pieces would go together better, I am guessing (though such change might cause other visual imparities; but it's an interesting thought-exercise in design despite some weaknesses). I had hoped (and perhaps it's my mistake, to have this expectation), when you showed the rest of the set to go with the Knights after I had initially asked, that I'd be shown more angular, stumpy, stocky figures. Bishop turned out to be entirely the opposite of stumpy angular stocky. Hence my disappointment.

Regarding the second set in question, the Nazi set, I see much greater visual unity. I instinctively approve of the visual appeal of the Nazi design more than that of the Soviet design, this despite any otherwise implied messages in the Nazi design of violence or hatred. Playing with Bullets as Bishops might be distasteful in a wider consideration, but at least visually they match the rest of their army in proportion and style, in my opinion.

Maybe that's the point? Perhaps the whole point of the Soviet disjunction between Knight and the Rest was variation? A Nazi style in all things tended, as we know, toward the controlled, conformist, and unified, so it's no surprise the designer chose similar proportions for all his Nazi pieces. To the contrary, might the Soviets have been giving a hint toward the "democracy of mankind" and other pan-cosmopolitan Marxist ideals by incorporating disparate elements?

Or did I go too far with that one? Heh ...

As to the use of the term "Brutalist," yes, you're entirely correct. I used the wrong specific word. I think I was looking for "Marxist" or maybe "monumentalist" as the proper descriptive word. I was seeking Art History ... in which I have no background at all ... except from Wikipedia ...

Anyway, no worries, I do enjoy the whole of the Soviet set and the Nazi set recently depicted, and let it lie, that I had wanted a different Bishop to match the angular Soviet Knight when first I requested. I got a delightful conversation instead!

Clifton_Prince, I see your points about the Soviet and Nazi sets. To my eye, the one piece that seems out of place in the Soviet set is the knight -- the only piece with a differently styled base that doesn't fit the rest of the set.

Yes, the Knight in the Nazi set does have a bit of an off-kilter base relative to all its compatriots. I see what you're referring to, as well.

I know it's a patch job, but this will help you visualize what the Soviet set would look like if the knights had a similar styled base. If I was redoing this set, I'd make the knights about 1/4" taller.

Yup ... :)