STYLE: Modern chess sets

[knight_knight_zzz]

Hi, Ty, Alan, (since the last set of postings on Oct 1st 2007). Regarding 160163907538, looks like the seller still has a zero feedback even though someone supposedly had a winning bid. (Unless I am mistaken, a check of the winning bidder's history of items purchased since the beginning of Oct 2007 shows no such item). Hmmm. I wonder... To all, Regarding another ivory chess set recently listed by another seller and won by another buyer (250184791292), I found that set to be interesting and relatively unique. Nice geometric design. Reminds me of a few other modern sets. Seller indicates 1930's. I would estimate closer to the 1950's. Maybe a mute (moot?) point. But I am surprised at how high that set went for! Nice set that I would not have minded in my collection... but not at that price! Any comments about any aspect of this set? John, Vermont.

[dancing_with_volves]

This topic was branched from Ivory set auction questions

[dancing_with_volves]

Yes, 250184791292 is truly interesting. I rather like it although I would never ever pay such a price. But many other Modernist sets as Man Ray's for example make good prices, too. It would be interesting to hear what people not attached to antique sets think about this one.

[chesspurr]

hi kristjan i took a look at the set you mention and what ever price they are worth has no real interest to me . as a collector this business of what its worth is worthless as we all have differing opinions anyway. as a set itself i do quite like it because of the material ...and with a nice board could make a good display in a modernist setting ,and feel nice to handle. but ... i question the sellers wording regarding the case ..its post ww2 not 1930s ... so thats a problem , then i question why he offered no pieces in the case,in his photos , which he claims to be probably origonal ???? the tea staining of the ivory suggests its post ww2 and the set is possibly a copy of a man ray set, i think and one was sold at the cholet sale . that set was made of metal with a different style of board,and was sought after because of the provinance. as soon as i read that listing ...alarm bells started ringing.

[noybear]

A subject near and dear to my heart, finally. I think a great many of us watched 250184791292. Guy is being far more diplomatic about the final price than I am. All things considered, I know that any medium would cost less to reproduce this save possibly a few precious metals. This is a more than diminuitive set of pieces. On the other hand, it did not borrow anything from the Man Ray designs, maybe Hartwig's Hauhaus concept somewhat but even that seems something of a stretch? Unlike these couple designs and a host of other contemporaries, I found it disconcerting that a cube is a knight, short cylinder a rook although I could go with a pyramid as a bishop but wonder why a larger cone was not used for the bishop and smaller cones as pawns? Grasping such small cones as are the pawns would be a challenge. It could be cute for something different to display but is impractical for use in my opinion. Clay (NoyBear)

[rascasso]

Also thought this looked like a nice set - and intriguing that the Heiwa Ivory Manufacture in Hongkong went to the trouble of copying a modern artists design - that is, if the sticker on front is not a fake. Let me just note that a set with a pyramid rook is unplayable - You´d need a little forklift to castle for example. I have a wood set with a pyramid rook - slippery little bugger - no, not modern, it is, believe it or not, a Romans against Egyptians set with mummy pawns, a ghoulish Cleopatra queen in shoeblack....

[chesspurr]

racasso hi nicolas ... ah haaaa you miss the point .... the board is too small but with the right size of squares its very playable . a huge problem many set makers fail to realise... the board is very important to a chess player. look at 19th century boards in old books and the penny drops. ]:)

[rascasso]

.. yoohoo, but here I go one better ... bought the pyramids with a taracea inlaid chess table with 50 mm (2 inch)squares... the table is far better than the pieces.. and large enough to chase the dropping pyramids around the taracea margins.... one nice thing about some older boards is the elevated rim around the squares... the holding frame so to pseak... that keeps runaway pieces in check....and swindling a new piece onto the board is not that easy, hehe... ...nowadays run of the mill boards are generally made by offshoots of the furntirue industry - plenty of veneering experience! - while pieces are made in separate turning enterprises. From what I know and see, it is all veneer boards today - very rarely massively made joinery boards, never deep inlaid boards with severl mm thick squares. A top set of course shd be matched with a board that fits colourwise, and sizewise,that almost goes without saying...I find that many very large sets are hopelessly undermatched re square size, because large square boards are difficult to find - old or new. On the other hand, a large board poses the problem of reach - can You mate on the 8th row if it is 1 1/2 m away?

[chesspurr]

racasso hi nicolas i have about 30 boards as collectables of varied age and quality. i have yet to buy one i cannot use to make philidors mate . ]:)

[dancing_with_volves]

We have a special thread for chess boards: http://groups.ebay.com/topic/Chess-Collectors/Chat-Room/Chess-Boards/1600438944

[chesspurr]

hi kristjan i agree we do ... however the modernist sets are often sold with boards .... so in this instance its correct to discuss the board and set together . ]:)

[rascasso]

Dear Guy ,.... I shd like to see you delivering fools mate on one of these threedimensional space - age boards - shd be great for body tone...... Dear Kristian, the question here if I understand it is boards matched to sets or sets married to boards, or compound chess sets. I recall in one club the little devils glued all the pieces to the boards, thereby cementing the board/pieces relation.....the chess board string is dead - perhaps only Guy and me are interested in this subject. I recently saw an excellent video on Youtube by a master cabinetmaker on how to make a solid wood chessboard - will try to dig it out. One spanish manufacturer I know of used to make a cube composed of 8 chessboards, all glued together with great precision - kind of a chess board dice....

[ioritana]

Interesting discussion. As a player i prefer boards with squares 5 - 5.5cm. Tournament boards are about that size because standard playing sets have the 3 3/4 inch Kings. Which is why I prefer collecting/playing with the 3.5 inch King Jaques sets because the larger club size sets played on the 23 inch boards seem too large. One almost has to be standing at the table to get the right view...

[rascasso]

... the general rule - or one of them, as many cooks that many recipes - shd be whether 4 pawns fit comfortably onto a square. Of course , You will have the odd game with thin major pieces and awfully fat pawns, so its a matter of taste as well. Some like their treasures close to home, some like them well aired! Acc. to one wit there are chess players with wide-spaced eyes - they will concentrate on the sides of the boards - and chessplayers with eyers close together who only see the center of the boards - acc. to disconcert them You have to play over the sides or via the centre....back to the main theme, You get compound chess sets, where the pieces are far too large for the squares - 'cause the maker had to economize. Much rarer the opposite failure...the right ergonomic size of pieces and boards wd be dependent on the chess players height and arm reach, I suppose ... 50 - 55 mm and 87 mm (3 3.4") chessmen (Stautnon 5) is a good median which is why FIDE adopted it as official touranment size, allowing Staunton 6 ...club size with 100 mm (4 1/2 ") or more is really a game for large men...

[ioritana]

Yes, I'm aware of that rule of thumb which must have an interesting origin although I find it a little impractical when playing with the older pieces which had the wide bases because then the pawns look too small for the squares... Of course playing with clubsize sets on 65mm squares is perfectly fine...it's just a different 'feel'. I like to sit with a slightly more aerial view of the board, so that pieces aren't obscured. And as I am only of medim height with an average torso, a slightly smaller than club size Jaques helps me to see where the next nasty attack on my King is coming from...(maybe that's why Generals sat on their horses? Or watched through binoculars from the security of their bunkers?) What I find really annoying is playing on tables that are too high. At a tournament earlier this year one of the ladies had to stack several chairs just to be able to see over the table. To make matters worse, some of the best players were kids who had to kneel on the chairs or stand. Apparently, none of the organisers had bothered to sit at the tables when setting up the sets. Fortunately, they managed to change it before the second round.