| |
Main
Date: 05 Aug 2008 23:42:54
From: John Salerno
Subject: Choosing a chess set
|
I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.french_lardy_staunton_rosewood/
The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
Thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 21:50:29
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
Nice looking ....
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 22:22:27
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
John Salerno wrote:
> I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
> really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
>
> http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.french_lardy_staunton_rosewood/
>
>
> The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
> the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
> What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
>
> Thanks.
Well, I'm glad I asked about this. After thinking about your comments,
I've decided spending $150+ on a chess set is a little ridiculous for me
right now. I've opted to go the cheaper route and get a plastic set and
a vinyl roll-up board. I like the idea of portability anyway. This one
seems pretty nice, too bad it's not in stock right now!
http://www.thechessstore.com/product/PCSNCBC/New_ClubTourney_Plastic_Chess_Set_in_Black_Camel__3_34_King.html
For the board I figure I'll get brown. Black seems like it would lose
the black pieces, and I don't really care much for blue or red. I like
green, but as a chess board it looks a little strange. I think the brown
is most similar to a wooden board.
http://www.thechessstore.com/product/VR400BN/The_Chess_Store_Vinyl_Rollup_Chess_Board__Brown.html
And geez, the price of those two combined is about 1/17th the price of
the wooden set I was looking at! Not to mention this store replaces
plastic pieces for free for life. I'm getting excited! Of course, they
need to get the pieces in stock first! :)
|
| | |
On Aug 7, 4:43=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >>http://www.thechessstore.com/product/PCSNCBC/New_ClubTourney_Plastic_..=
.
>
> > I would suggest spending a little more (maybe another $10, and it's
> > still cheap) and get triple-weighted pieces.
>
> Interesting advice. I see another set for $20 that is a total of 2.5
> lbs. All it says it "very heavily weighted". Too bad the white pieces
> are actually white though. I think I like a color that's closer to boxwoo=
d.
Try the discounters such as wholesalechess.com and cajunchess.com.
Their prices are less than half of what you are looking at.
|
| | |
> http://www.thechessstore.com/product/PCSNCBC/New_ClubTourney_Plastic_...
I would suggest spending a little more (maybe another $10, and it's
still cheap) and get triple-weighted pieces.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 18:20:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:02:10 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>
>> http://www.thechessstore.com/product/PCSNCBC/New_ClubTourney_Plastic_...
>
>I would suggest spending a little more (maybe another $10, and it's
>still cheap) and get triple-weighted pieces.
I agree.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 18:43:09
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
[email protected] wrote:
>> http://www.thechessstore.com/product/PCSNCBC/New_ClubTourney_Plastic_...
>
> I would suggest spending a little more (maybe another $10, and it's
> still cheap) and get triple-weighted pieces.
Interesting advice. I see another set for $20 that is a total of 2.5
lbs. All it says it "very heavily weighted". Too bad the white pieces
are actually white though. I think I like a color that's closer to boxwood.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2008 12:41:21
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
John Salerno wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> >> http://www.thechessstore.com/product/PCSNCBC/New_ClubTourney_Plastic_...
> >
> > I would suggest spending a little more (maybe another $10, and it's
> > still cheap) and get triple-weighted pieces.
>
> Interesting advice. I see another set for $20 that is a total of 2.5
> lbs. All it says it "very heavily weighted". Too bad the white pieces
> are actually white though. I think I like a color that's closer to boxwood.
Yes John. I know what you mean. I have (2) two sets of Staunton pattern
plastic pieces bought decades apart & in wildly different parts of the
Globe. In both instances the white pieces may properly be described as
cream in hue. Both sets represent excellent value for money outlayed,
which coming from me is a huge rap. I would say that the all & sundry of
my pieces are weighted in the singular. Pls. keep all of us up to date
when & if you actually purchase & good luck in your future chess
endeavours..
t.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 08:09:58
From:
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Aug 5, 11:42=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
> really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
>
> http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.fr...
>
> The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
> the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
> What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
>
> Thanks.
I strongly recommend the larger set.
I had a Lardy set. It's a good design, and it served well for many
years, though eventually the wood started to warp, making some of the
pieces look bent.
You might want to check out the sets here:
http://www.uscfsales.com/
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2008 03:47:40
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
[email protected] wrote:
.
> I had a Lardy set. It's a good design, and it served well for many
> years, though eventually the wood started to warp, making some of the
> pieces look bent.
Wooden pieces really get up my nose. I don't know why, maybe it's the
concentration. I have this problem with people's carpets too. Heavy
weighted plastic pieces are anodyne & don't warp & bend or anything..
t.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 04:01:17
From:
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
As far as plastic sets go, any yes for tournament
play they are what I would suggest, this is one I
am rather partial to.
http://houseofstaunton.com/Store/product_name=The+Collector+Series+Plastic+Chess+Set+-+3.75+inch+King/exact_match=exact
Very well made with solid, heavily weighted
pieces that stand up to abuse.
|
| | |
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> If you have a little time, browse e-bay. Some great bargains there.
>
> Even for home use, a green and buff board is easier on the eyes than
> wood (no reflective glare, for one thing). Following some Reinfeld
> advice many years ago, I've gone for red and cream colored pieces, and
> never regretted it.
I like my HOS red/cream collector in plastic but I think the USCF
rules state that the dark pieces should approximate in color wood. No
candy apple red woods as I recall. On the other hand red has been a
traditional color for dyed ivory for a long, long time. I say change
the USCF rules to specifically allow red along with black, brown, and
brownish. One advantage is that red will show up on green or brown or
black squares.
The HOS wooden club set is a decent buy at $30. Full size and ok
weighted. Nicely felted and the pieces look nice (boxwood and ebonized
boxwood). Can be had from USCF and HOS and at least one other large
online seller.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 16:49:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Aug 6, 3:11=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have a wood set for tournament play nowadays. =A0The die weakened the
> "black" pieces on my old red and cream Windsor Castle set -- they're
> all cracked and glued together and fragile -- and its replacement is
> too expensive to bring to tournaments.
That reminds me-- don't buy one of those
stone sets they sell down in Mexico. You
can't tell the pieces apart, and something
always breaks, sooner or later. If you're
lucky, you'll end up with a pretty "marble"
chess board and a good supply of paper
weights.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 16:46:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Aug 6, 3:00=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > =A0You might want to check out the sets here:
>
> > > =A0http://www.uscfsales.com/
The prices are ridiculous.
> > If you have a little time, browse e-bay. =A0Some great bargains there.
Used? Hmmph! (What sort of bot
do you think I am?)
> > Even for home use, a green and buff board is easier on the eyes than
> > wood (no reflective glare, =A0for one thing).
Good point-- no glare.
> > =A0Following some Reinfeld advice many years ago,
> > I've gone for red and cream colored pieces, and
> > never regretted it.
>
> I always hated red pieces.
Then take White -- and play to win.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 12:00:50
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Aug 6, 1:38 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 5, 11:42 pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
> >> really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
>
> >>http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.fr...
>
> >> The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
> >> the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
> >> What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> > I strongly recommend the larger set.
> > I had a Lardy set. It's a good design, and it served well for many
> >years, though eventually the wood started to warp, making some of the
> >pieces look bent.
> > You might want to check out the sets here:
>
> > http://www.uscfsales.com/
>
> If you have a little time, browse e-bay. Some great bargains there.
>
> Even for home use, a green and buff board is easier on the eyes than
> wood (no reflective glare, for one thing). Following some Reinfeld
> advice many years ago, I've gone for red and cream colored pieces, and
> never regretted it.
I always hated red pieces.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 12:11:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:00:50 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Even for home use, a green and buff board is easier on the eyes than
>> wood (no reflective glare, for one thing). Following some Reinfeld
>> advice many years ago, I've gone for red and cream colored pieces, and
>> never regretted it.
>I always hated red pieces.
You're evidently not alone -- I often got resistance when I brought
them to tournaments. However, it's an authorized color, or at least
years ago it was.
I have a wood set for tournament play nowadays. The die weakened the
"black" pieces on my old red and cream Windsor Castle set -- they're
all cracked and glued together and fragile -- and its replacement is
too expensive to bring to tournaments.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 11:38:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:09:58 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:
>On Aug 5, 11:42�pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
>> really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
>>
>> http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.fr...
>>
>> The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
>> the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
>> What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I strongly recommend the larger set.
> I had a Lardy set. It's a good design, and it served well for many
>years, though eventually the wood started to warp, making some of the
>pieces look bent.
> You might want to check out the sets here:
>
> http://www.uscfsales.com/
If you have a little time, browse e-bay. Some great bargains there.
Even for home use, a green and buff board is easier on the eyes than
wood (no reflective glare, for one thing). Following some Reinfeld
advice many years ago, I've gone for red and cream colored pieces, and
never regretted it.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 01:45:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Aug 5, 11:42=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
> really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
>
> http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.fr...
>
> The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
> the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
> What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
Once you begin playing on tournament-
sized sets, it can feel a bit odd to go
back to smaller ones for casual play or
analysis. But if you haven't already
become accustomed to the big sets, it
may not matter; in fact, such sets may
feel odd in that they are so large relative
to many sets sold in regular stores.
The particular set you like seems to be
a copy of the old French wood set. My
nit-pick is that the beautiful, dark wood
of the Black pieces tends to blend in with
the similarly-colored dark squares,
making them a tad harder to see. Of
course, sharply contrasting colors would
not look so nice as this, but one viable
alternative is to use ebony (i.e. black)
pieces on, say, walnut, mahogany or
cherry wood squares-- which provides
contrast while still looking handsome.
I believe you are right, that 3.75 is more
or less the standard tournament height
of the Kings. Some handy advice: if you
intend to play in chess tournaments,
perhaps it is not a good idea to take
such an expensive board/set, but rather,
go with a less expensive set and a vinyl
roll-up board. I still recall a game I had
in which we were using the organizer's
thousand-dollar Jaques set, and as the
first time control approached the poor
chap began sweating bullets, fearing
that a chessman might be damaged in
a time scramble. When I resigned he
immediately resumed breathing, while
my opponent showed me how very
close I had come to drawing the game
via massive simplification into an
ending that even I could have held.
Anyway, if you use this set at home
you should be able to adjust the lighting
such that there are no problems, no
angles from which, say, Black's King's
Bishop becomes nearly invisible on its
beautiful, dark wood square. The board
and men need to match such that the
pieces do not appear to be crowded on
their squares.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 16:42:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
On Aug 6, 9:43=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yeah, the price is definitely a factor as well. I don't intend to play in
> tournaments or anything (at least not for a while if I ever do!). This wa=
s
> more for just a home set, but probably it's a very valid point to not spe=
nd
> so much money on it!
>
> I didn't realize even the most basic sets were so expensive. I had guesse=
d I
> could buy a decent wooden set and board for around $30 or $40, but I've
> never seen that yet. Maybe I'm just looking at stuff that is too fancy.
The new "standard" seems to be plastic.
Wood -- especially the more exotic kinds
-- is becoming more and more expensive,
or at least so it /seems/ (dollars are not
what they once were).
I can remember when the strongest
chess programs seemed to always be
crafted into some thousand-dollar wood
set-and-board or other, practically forcing
mere mortals to opt for something else.
Today, the top-ranked chess program is
an "engine", which can be purchased on
the internet and downloaded anytime,
night or day. "Things change" -- a huge
understatement.
You need to ask yourself this question:
how likely is it that the board and pieces
may get scratched or otherwise
damaged? Wood looks best, but plastic
(or a vinyl board) is tougher or at least is
not quite so valuable. Oh, what the heck:
just buy a stainless steel and titanium
set, which your great-great-great-great
grandchildren can play on, long after
you're gone. Think of it as an investment.
; >D
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 09:43:26
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8ba7663a-2fe2-42a9-9bd7-0d4b682ffe93@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 11:42 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
---
The particular set you like seems to be
a copy of the old French wood set. My
nit-pick is that the beautiful, dark wood
of the Black pieces tends to blend in with
the similarly-colored dark squares,
making them a tad harder to see. Of
course, sharply contrasting colors would
not look so nice as this, but one viable
alternative is to use ebony (i.e. black)
pieces on, say, walnut, mahogany or
cherry wood squares-- which provides
contrast while still looking handsome.
---
That's a good point, and I actually thought about that last night. The
colors do seem to match a little *too* well in that regard. :)
---
I believe you are right, that 3.75 is more
or less the standard tournament height
of the Kings. Some handy advice: if you
intend to play in chess tournaments,
perhaps it is not a good idea to take
such an expensive board/set
---
Yeah, the price is definitely a factor as well. I don't intend to play in
tournaments or anything (at least not for a while if I ever do!). This was
more for just a home set, but probably it's a very valid point to not spend
so much money on it!
I didn't realize even the most basic sets were so expensive. I had guessed I
could buy a decent wooden set and board for around $30 or $40, but I've
never seen that yet. Maybe I'm just looking at stuff that is too fancy.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 21:58:41
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
It is a very nice set and one you can be proud to show off in your home
.If you buy a table you can set it in your living room ..
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 08:42:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Choosing a chess set
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8ba7663a-2fe2-42a9-9bd7-0d4b682ffe93@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 11:42 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> I've been doing a little shopping and I think I've found what I want. I
> really like the French Lardy Staunton Rosewood design:
>
> http://www.thechessstore.com/category/chess_sets_with_chess_boards.fr...
>
> The only decision left is 3.25" or 3.75" king. I think I might prefer
> the slightly smaller pieces, but isn't 3.75" standard for tournaments?
> What does everyone think about what size to get for casual/home use?
Once you begin playing on tournament-
sized sets, it can feel a bit odd to go
back to smaller ones for casual play or
analysis. But if you haven't already
become accustomed to the big sets, it
may not matter; in fact, such sets may
feel odd in that they are so large relative
to many sets sold in regular stores.
**The only thing to add to this otherwise good advice is buy 2 sets and
boards. A solid plastic set and roll up canvas board is a good second set,
and something you might prefer to travel with to tournaments - but is also
useful at home if you want to set up a couple of positions at once. I think
people don't usually take expensive wooden sets to tournaments, but the $7
plastic versions instead, so that you won't fear losing a piece, and can
play 'blitz' when the pieces get banged around a lot. Cordially, Phil.
The particular set you like seems to be
a copy of the old French wood set. My
nit-pick is that the beautiful, dark wood
of the Black pieces tends to blend in with
the similarly-colored dark squares,
making them a tad harder to see. Of
course, sharply contrasting colors would
not look so nice as this, but one viable
alternative is to use ebony (i.e. black)
pieces on, say, walnut, mahogany or
cherry wood squares-- which provides
contrast while still looking handsome.
I believe you are right, that 3.75 is more
or less the standard tournament height
of the Kings. Some handy advice: if you
intend to play in chess tournaments,
perhaps it is not a good idea to take
such an expensive board/set, but rather,
go with a less expensive set and a vinyl
roll-up board. I still recall a game I had
in which we were using the organizer's
thousand-dollar Jaques set, and as the
first time control approached the poor
chap began sweating bullets, fearing
that a chessman might be damaged in
a time scramble. When I resigned he
immediately resumed breathing, while
my opponent showed me how very
close I had come to drawing the game
via massive simplification into an
ending that even I could have held.
Anyway, if you use this set at home
you should be able to adjust the lighting
such that there are no problems, no
angles from which, say, Black's King's
Bishop becomes nearly invisible on its
beautiful, dark wood square. The board
and men need to match such that the
pieces do not appear to be crowded on
their squares.
-- help bot
|
|
