[HN Gopher] A Visual History of Chessmen
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A Visual History of Chessmen
        
       Author : alberto-m
       Score  : 99 points
       Date   : 2025-05-25 14:00 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (chesshistory.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (chesshistory.github.io)
        
       | iamwil wrote:
       | Neat. This would be fun to model for 3D printing. I once did a
       | chess set in OpenSCAD. https://github.com/iamwilhelm/kings_gambit
        
       | rubit_xxx16 wrote:
       | This is very nice. The full list however would be much too large,
       | however, e.g.
       | 
       | - Louis Vuitton is included and Super Mario was not, even though
       | it has been very popular.
       | 
       | - Wartime travel set pieces are included which are arguably
       | tokens representing chess pieces and not formal chess pieces, and
       | that is well and good, but even more cheap stone sets were sold
       | to tourists in Mexico that had a distinctive look which are not
       | mentioned here.
       | 
       | - No mention of other variations of chess and how those pieces
       | evolved.
       | 
       | - Many online stores sell chess pieces in variations unmentioned.
        
         | growlNark wrote:
         | Equally, I would argue the Louis Vuitton set is not worth
         | mentioning. One of the benefits of living in modern society is
         | not having to look to the rich for signals of taste.
        
         | mock-possum wrote:
         | The iconography used on the wartime tokens seem like they merit
         | their own article even - are piece glyphs always 'just' a 2D
         | translation of the 3D piece, or is there more you can do with a
         | 2D printed or illustrated mark, that would be prohibitive to
         | sculpt/mold/turn/3D print?
        
       | zabzonk wrote:
       | My ex-wife (long ago) made me a set of chess pieces in resin as a
       | birthday present, in a kind of Norse style, which were quite
       | nice. And my dad had a set of plastic ones in a sort of Gothic
       | style. Bothe were good, but I still think Staunton is the best.
        
       | arh68 wrote:
       | What do I picture? 2D pieces, to be honest. Computer chess is
       | just so prevalent. I picture what I'd call "USCF style" [1]
       | because that's what they'd use in the Chess Life magazine to
       | annotate games. I also picture the "old style" pieces [2], used
       | in other periodicals & some books (especially puzzles).
       | 
       | I bet a lot of people picture the default set on Chess dot com. I
       | find it very hard to adjust to new sets, for whatever reason.
       | 
       | As far as real pieces, I picture plastic pieces & vinyl board.
       | Either what I'd call the "triple-weighted set" [3] (my favorite),
       | the plastic "Dreuke set" [4], or the "basic USCF set" [5].
       | 
       | I had no idea there were so many variations, especially in the
       | last 100 years. Most I've never seen before. I still dislike the
       | real abstract/bauhaus style but there's a lot of artistry in the
       | sets.
       | 
       | [1] on lichess, it's called "companion"
       | 
       | [2] on lichess, it's called "leipzig"
       | 
       | [3] https://www.chessset.com/collections/weighted-chess-
       | pieces-h...
       | 
       | [4] Player's Choice, like
       | https://www.wholesalechess.com/reproduction-of-the-drueke-pl...
       | 
       | [5] https://www.uscfsales.com/single-weighted-regulation-
       | plastic...
        
         | helloplanets wrote:
         | A spinoff piece on the visual evolution of illustrated and
         | digital chess pieces would be interesting. How they relate to
         | specific physical designs, and the limitations of the format
         | they're bound to.
        
       | abetaha wrote:
       | An amazing page with a lot of chess designs, definitely did not
       | expect that many, and was surprised that the beloved Staunton
       | chess set was designed by someone else.
        
       | mdaniel wrote:
       | relevant? _GenChess_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42248630 - Nov, 2024 (238
       | comments)
        
       | jsmo wrote:
       | Thanks for sharing!
        
       | keyle wrote:
       | Very impressive work. It must have taken ages to get this page
       | together and be so factually full. Love the evolution of the
       | pieces design over time.
        
       | ggm wrote:
       | Re: the Norse Chessmen,
       | 
       | My mother told me the gnawing-the-shield image is said to be how
       | the norsemen were said to psych themselves up before battle. She
       | said the hemp rope around the shield was meant to be impregnated
       | by drugs, or be psychoactive otherwise. This was said back in the
       | 70s mind you..
       | 
       | The description of the bishops as other roles is very confusing
       | given the crozier. The article surely must mean that taking the
       | norse chessmen as holotypes, the variants found in russia, baltic
       | states.. &c made similar changes?
       | 
       | The set is split between The BM in London, and the Royal Scottish
       | Museum, and sometimes a piece or two is on display elsewhere. the
       | Museum shop sells really exceptionally well made casts, we also
       | had the resin kit with rubber moulds which made significantly
       | less well made, bubble ridden, smelly versions.
       | 
       | They are said to be the property of a trader in Walrus Ivory,
       | being mixed parts of more than one set when found.
        
       | Daisywh wrote:
       | Yeah, I always think of the old beat up plastic set at the park
       | near my house. Some of the pieces were scratched up, a few were
       | kinda melted probably left in the sun too long. But that's what I
       | learned on, so it still feels like "real" chess to me.
       | 
       | It's weird how no matter how fancy the sets get, that scruffy one
       | is still the one I picture first.
        
         | FinnLobsien wrote:
         | I think that's the beauty of chess as well. You can play in the
         | street with a molten plastic set and a missing pawn replaced
         | with a coin or in a mansion with ivory-carved pieces.
         | 
         | And it's still the same game, nobody can buy an advantage or
         | get a lucky win.
        
       | somishere wrote:
       | Lanier Graham is my pick of the bunch. Finally a set that doesn't
       | require a lathe or a chisel!
        
         | mock-possum wrote:
         | Yeah that was the one I was delighted by too! I'm not always
         | into the more cubist takes on pieces, but this one feels right.
        
       | paulddraper wrote:
       | > As shatranj, new rules are introduced that cause the game to
       | begin to resemble modern chess, including the rule that the King
       | cannot be captured but must be rendered helpless: shah mat, the
       | King is helpless, gives us the word checkmate.
       | 
       | Checkmate is by far the weirdest rule in chess, as capturing the
       | king would lead to an essentially identical strategy and game,
       | but without all the extra rule complexity of checks and
       | checkmates.
       | 
       | (The exceptions are castling details and the stalemate rule. If
       | kings could be captured, stalemates would not exist. But I argue
       | that's a feature not a bug. Stalemates do little to enhance
       | fundamental strategy, their primarily use being hail mary gotchas
       | for low level plays. In any case, kings-cannot-captured exists to
       | make stalemates possible.)
        
       | tzs wrote:
       | Public service announcement: if you want to give a gift to a
       | semi-serious or serious chess player don't give them a
       | reproduction of an historical set such as those in the article
       | and don't give them a modern themed set such as an Alice in
       | Wonderland set or a Civil War set or a Sherlock Holmes set or a
       | Lord of the Rings set no matter how much they are fans of the
       | subject of the set's theme unless you have very good reason to
       | believe they actually will want the specific set you want to give
       | them.
       | 
       | To a majority of semi-serious or serious players those sets are
       | only interesting as art objects. They will almost never actually
       | use them to play chess. When they actually want to play a game
       | they usually want a set that meets FIDE or their local
       | federation's tournament standards, and is sturdy enough that it
       | won't be damaged in a mad rush to beat the clock in an endgame.
       | 
       | Even if they personally are OK with playing on an historical or
       | themed set they might have trouble finding people to play with.
       | If I come to their house and they want me to play chess with them
       | I am _not_ going to play on their Sherlock Holmes themed set [1]
       | where I 'll spend half my time trying to remember if Inspector
       | Lestrade is a rook or a bishop.
       | 
       | [1]
       | https://www.houseofstaunton.com/catalog/product/view/id/3658...
        
         | QuantumGood wrote:
         | Agree. I have strong negative emotional reactions to poor
         | lighting and non-standard pieces; it feels like being forced to
         | look at a spreadsheet with a background of a trash heap--a
         | continual assault on my senses when I'm focusing on data.
         | 
         | (I played in the U.S. Open, World Open, and New York Open in
         | the '80's, when time controls were longer in general than
         | today. Lots of hours staring at sets.)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-05-29 23:02 UTC)