Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
I thought you liked banter !!!
I'm the one who likes banter. 
Why Is the Rook so Short?
Sort:
chessspy1 wrote:
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.
This thread is a parody of stupid forum topics. So it is first and foremost a lighthearted thread. However, since it concerns a chess piece, I like the idea of including some history of chess pieces. There's no reason a lighthearted thread can't also be informative.
Hi Fred,
Q1, Yes, some researchers think the Staunton design pre-dates it's 1849 release. They are wrong of course.
Q2, We checked several old chess books for the (now) standard chess iconography published from 1818 please post the icons from your books and give publication dates, please.
Q3, The Simpsons in the Strand (AKA Grand Cigar Divan) was quite playable and has been copied by several of the Indian manufacturers if you decide to try them out. Interestingly contrary to what is said on some drop shop chess sellers sites there is no extant complete SitS set known, Even Simpsons do not have a complete set, (the one on display in the lobby of the club now has at least mismatched rooks and the closest to complete which was in the collection (and book Masterpieces) of Gareth Williams has mismatched knights.
Fred, this is me being light-hearted. See, smiley faces 
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
chessspy1 wrote:
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 googled and found that Charlie Dorridge is the author of Return from Xenda. Are you that Charlie Dorridge?
I'm not an author but I've been using the pseudonym Fred Bloggs for such things as screen names for many years. I came across the name in a book as a teen. I liked it because it was the epitome of a dull name. One can imagine a garbage man with the name but not a neurosurgeon. As a college student, I preferred to have an unlisted number but the telephone company informed me that there was an extra monthly charge for it. I asked if I could choose any name to list the number under. Informed that I could, I chose Fred Bloggs. Of course listing the number under a pseudonym doesn't keep solicitors from calling. It took my wife some time to get used to being addressed as Mrs. Bloggs.
chessspy1 wrote:
Hi Fred,
Q1, Yes, some researchers think the Staunton design pre-dates it's 1849 release. They are wrong of course.
Q2, We checked several old chess books for the (now) standard chess iconography published from 1818 please post the icons from your books and give publication dates, please.
Q3, The Simpsons in the Strand (AKA Grand Cigar Divan) was quite playable and has been copied by several of the Indian manufacturers if you decide to try them out. Interestingly contrary to what is said on some drop shop chess sellers sites there is no extant complete SitS set known, Even Simpsons do not have a complete set, (the one on display in the lobby of the club now has at least mismatched rooks and the closest to complete which was in the collection (and book Masterpieces) of Gareth Williams has mismatched knights.
The two I looked at were Bobby Fischer's Chess Games, edited by Wade & O'Connell, 1972 and Spassky's 100 Best Games, by Bernard Cafferty, 1972. I checked a couple of others from that period too and the pawns were the same as in the above two.
chessspy1 wrote:
Fred, this is me being light-hearted. See, smiley faces
Oh okay. Those smiley faces serve a useful purpose.
ilovesmetuna wrote:
why do giraffes have long necks ? because their heads are quite far from their bodies, god bless evolution for thinking that one through.
Hey, wait a minute! You're the guy who claimed this thread had died. Two days and more than 50 posts later, it seems to be alive and well.
FBloggs wrote:
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
chessspy1 wrote:
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 googled and found that Charlie Dorridge is the author of Return from Xenda. Are you that Charlie Dorridge?
Indeed I am
Feb 25, 2018
0
#671
How many times to say this?
It's not how short it is, it's what you do with it.*
Just relax.
*A figure of 8 does it for me.
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:
chessspy1 wrote:
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 googled and found that Charlie Dorridge is the author of Return from Xenda. Are you that Charlie Dorridge?
Indeed I am
Very good. Google is a powerful tool.
Heather_Stephens wrote:
How many times to say this?
It's not how short it is, it's what you do with it.*
Just relax.
*A figure of 8 does it for me.
It might do it for you but I think the guy would find it uncomfortable.
Morning Fred,
We were looking at early 19c chess books for our research.
This pic from BF teaches chess, however, shows the type of pawn I meant.
No doubt the iconography has changed over the years.
ilovesmetuna wrote:
about the thread dying ...... i stand corrected.
No problem. We're just getting started.
chessspy1 wrote:
Morning Fred,
We were looking at early 19c chess books for our research.
This pic from BF teaches chess, however, shows the type of pawn I meant.
No doubt the iconography has changed over the years.
Okay. That's stockier than the pawns in my books but it's similar to the ones on this site.
I see a ball atop a ball atop a half ball. How is that 'similar' to the Staunton pattern pawn?
The, what we now call 'Staunton' pawn icon was used in a chess book published in 1818. However, from about 1820 the 3 ball style or 'Maltese' style of pawn has been used ( in diagrams) in most chess books from then until now.
The original question was, why?
chessspy1 wrote:
I see a ball atop a ball atop a half ball. How is that 'similar' to the Staunton pattern pawn?
The, what we now call 'Staunton' pawn icon was used in a chess book published in 1818. However, from about 1820 the 3 ball style or 'Maltese' style of pawn has been used ( in diagrams) in most chess books from then until now.
The original question was, why?
I didn't say it was similar to the Staunton design. I said the pawns in my books look more like the Staunton design than the Maltese design you originally posted (#690). I said the image you posted today (#718) is stockier than the pawns in my books but is similar to the ones on this site.
I have no idea why the Maltese design is used in diagrams. Do you?
Feb 26, 2018
0
#679
I quite often walk past Simpsons in the Strand and around the doorway are tiles with all the chess pieces on them. I've never particularly noticed the pawns but I'm curious now to go back there and see what they look like.
This is a great 'pointless thread'.
Heather_Stephens wrote:
I quite often walk past Simpsons in the Strand and around the doorway are tiles with all the chess pieces on them. I've never particularly noticed the pawns but I'm curious now to go back there and see what they look like.
This is a great 'pointless thread'.
Thanks, Heather. Nothing more boring than a thread with a point.
...and I believe we see further evolution of the Simpson chess set here, with even more deviation from Staunton:
If the original Simpsons in the Strand set looked anything like that, one can understand why Staunton insisted on using his St. George set.