Why Is the Rook so Short?

@chessspy1:  Very good. Thanks.

Yes we will.🙂

You're darned right we will, SuperGirl! As Mark Twain might have said, "The reports of this thread's death are greatly exaggerated." 

Some people have suggested that taking this thread seriously is something that is somehow rather peculiar. I respond to such comments by either ignoring them or redirecting them to some of my research into the design of chess pieces as I did with Bala above where I think he (or she) would benefit from some deeper insights into chess design.

Whilst I have zero problems with a little light-hearted banter and even straying off topic on occasion I do like to post what I regard as interesting articles and sometimes idea.

Here is one thing I have been thinking about recently.

I have proven that without any possibility of doubt that the Staunton chess design came from the already established chess position iconography extant in chess books of the early 19th c and that this design dates from 1818, which is long before any possible idea of the Staunton men were thought of

Decorative sets like the design below were being made at least until 1900 or even later.  

John Jaques himself is reputed to have designed the set for the Grand Cigar Divan in London. Remember that at this time, early 19th c. That most chess clubs had their own set designs to use and presumably were well aware that this gave the home club a considerable advantage.

The Grand Cigar Divan (AKA Simpsons in the Strand set was designed by Jaques in about 1828 and the 'notorious' Regence chess club set (Paris) so disliked by Howard Staunton that he insisted in taking his St George set to play with for the putative and first world chess championship in 1841.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, if the (so-called) Staunton pattern set was designed prior to about 1840 then surely and without doubt, Howard would not have missed the opportunity to show his copy of the Staunton pattern set in this vastly popular arena. (Remembering that HS was a founder member and frequent player at the St George club in London) But, no, he took his St George set.

Image courtesy of Mr. Jon Crumiller, whose collection is well worth a long look. 

The question I wish to pose then, after this long preamble is this:-

Who designed the (now) standard worldwide chess diagram icons? And, why are the pawns in these diagrams not like the Staunton pawns, when all the other pieces are?

So, to continue with some further information to guide anyone interested in following or researching this (I think), fascinating question, here is a little more background.

First, the Simpsons set, designed (by repute) by John Jaques in about 1828

Note the shape of the queen's top with what looks very similar to the crenelations on modern sets. This begs the question whether or not JJ did have something to do with designing the Staunton pattern set or at least converting the book symbols to 3d.

The Regence set also shown here above is the one HS would have none of in his world championship games with St Amant in Paris in 1840-41. One can see why, as although this design was tremendously popular on the continent and in America due in part to Benjamin Franklin giving a set to his friend  John Bartram the botanist.

See our article here:-

http://www.chessspy.com/pages/Franklin.htm

 The pawn design now in universal use in all chess diagrams (in serious chess books at least) look very similar to these so-called 'Maltese' pieces.

This design is not 'Maltese' however, it is far more likely to be of English manufacture. The other pieces are not any more Staunton like than many other 'club' sets of the day (19thc) Ecept do note that these sets do follow the very common use of a simple ball for the queen symbol which was used in almost all sets from about 1800 onward.

How's that Fred? Good enough?

...and I believe we see further evolution of the Simpson chess set here, with even more deviation from Staunton:

Sigh, pearls before piggies I see

I thought you liked banter !!!

 Hi Charlie D

I guess you have heard all the 'porridge' jokes so I won't even bother with that.

I believe I said, "Whilst I have zero problems with a little light-hearted banter"

Doesn't mean I like it or approve. However, I do accept that as the right hon. Mr. Bloggs started this forum as something of a joke I cannot in all good conscience object too strongly to light-hearted, albeit somewhat facile remarks by some of the less mature co-respondents.

I actually enjoyed some of your descriptions. Don't take to heart

 Oops, obviously didn't mean you Mr. Dorridge. 

However, do let me ask a question, please.

Has it blighted your life having a last name which rhymes with porridge?

Not really, it's just a pen name

I read that the Staunton chess set was first released in 1849. Do some believe it was designed before 1840?

I took a look at a couple of my old chess books. The pawns don't look like Maltese design. They look more like the Staunton design. 

Interesting. Very good.