Larry Jaques wrote...

What if the chessmen have a bit of middle-age spread?

(G) These -- Tom's set is a good example -- are actually advantageous;
the pieces are harder to topple accidentally.

Jim

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:48:25 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:


This size relationship between the pieces and the boards results in a
crowded board, in my opinion. It is certainly not the worst I have seen
(I think those Mexican agate sets would win that prize), but it is
quite a bit more crowded than standard competition sets and boards. These
typically have a King base diameter between 69% and 74% of the square
width.

I would also note that the fixed 1/8" buffer is probably an ok variance
for regular sized boards, but that it makes better sense to use a larger
variance for larger sets. I don't imagine a 1/8" larger square size would
be noticeable at all in a lawn or park set.


I was curious to see what the USCF rules might say about this and
found the following in the Fifth Edition, published in 2003:

From Section 41C. Proportions.:

"The guidelines for determining the proper square size for a Staunton
chess set is that the King should occupy around 78 percent of the
square. An acceptable square size may be up to 1/8 inch larger than
this number, but not smaller."

Fussy l'il debils, ain't dey.



Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote:

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:48:25 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

This size relationship between the pieces and the boards results in a
crowded board, in my opinion. It is certainly not the worst I have seen
(I think those Mexican agate sets would win that prize), but it is
quite a bit more crowded than standard competition sets and boards. These
typically have a King base diameter between 69% and 74% of the square
width.

I would also note that the fixed 1/8" buffer is probably an ok variance
for regular sized boards, but that it makes better sense to use a larger
variance for larger sets. I don't imagine a 1/8" larger square size would
be noticeable at all in a lawn or park set.



I was curious to see what the USCF rules might say about this and
found the following in the Fifth Edition, published in 2003:

From Section 41C. Proportions.:

"The guidelines for determining the proper square size for a Staunton
chess set is that the King should occupy around 78 percent of the
square. An acceptable square size may be up to 1/8 inch larger than
this number, but not smaller."

Fussy l'il debils, ain't dey.

Ya spekt deers uh pup-porshun tween da size uh da base an da hite uh da
peece two? I doone tink day wan us ta make dem tings wid uh 2" base an
be 9" taul.

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:19:25 -0700, Grandpa jsdebooATcomcast.net
wrote:


Ya spekt deers uh pup-porshun tween da size uh da base an da hite uh da
peece two? I doone tink day wan us ta make dem tings wid uh 2" base an
be 9" taul.


From the USCF rulebook:

"The king's height should be 3-5/8 to 4-1/2 inches. The cross (or
other king's finial) should occupy no more than 20 percent of the
total height of the king. The diameter of the king's base should be
40-50 percent of the height."

I toltcha dey was fussy.


Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote...
I was curious to see what the USCF rules might say about this and
found the following in the Fifth Edition, published in 2003:

From Section 41C. Proportions.:

"The guidelines for determining the proper square size for a Staunton
chess set is that the King should occupy around 78 percent of the
square. An acceptable square size may be up to 1/8 inch larger than
this number, but not smaller."

Fussy l'il debils, ain't dey.

Yep. It is interesting that the two most popular sets sold by the USCF
don't meet those guidelines, technically. (G) That's where I got my
dimensions. Together, these two sets fill at least 99% (literally) of all
the boards in a typical tournament hall, whether the sets are provided by
the organizer or the players.

Actually, I don't know if the USCF is directly selling equipment anymore,
what with all the money they (we) were losing; I think we've farmed it
all out. But the sets are still the same.

Cheers!

Jim

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:01:11 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

Actually, I don't know if the USCF is directly selling equipment anymore,
what with all the money they (we) were losing; I think we've farmed it
all out. But the sets are still the same.


I hope that they do farm it out. My experience in ordering with them
has been borderline awful.

They really aren't set up to do proper online ordering. You have to
order without knowing what is in stock and, when you call, no one can
tell you when new stock might be in.

I suspect that they have fallen in arrears with some vendors and are
not being sent new stock.

The current restructuring (which has produced the hideous,
sixties-look magazine), may have some positive outflow.

But, it's wait and see.

(tom - who actually enjoyed the pre-algebraic days when King-Pawn to
King-Pawn-Four really meant something - it's so damned dry now.)


Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:01:11 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:


Yep. It is interesting that the two most popular sets sold by the USCF
don't meet those guidelines, technically. (G) That's where I got my
dimensions. Together, these two sets fill at least 99% (literally) of all
the boards in a typical tournament hall, whether the sets are provided by
the organizer or the players.


Pretty much everyone at the Monday Night Chess Club meeting plays with
roll-up boards.

I've been thinking of sneaking in one of my wood ones in an attempt to
generate some sales.

Maybe I can work a deal on the sales so that some of those guys won't
kick my ass so bad - sose I can get my rating up to "breathing".

(watson - who is currently not breathing so well, because our club has
too many Masters.)

!!

(**** - i read the books ?!? )

(watson - who still likes the King's Pawn opening - it worked for
Bobby ! )

( !?!)

(@#$%^&*()




Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
(Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:01:11 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:

Actually, I don't know if the USCF is directly selling equipment anymore,
what with all the money they (we) were losing; I think we've farmed it
all out. But the sets are still the same.


I hope that they do farm it out. My experience in ordering with them
has been borderline awful.

They really aren't set up to do proper online ordering. You have to
order without knowing what is in stock and, when you call, no one can
tell you when new stock might be in.

They aren't set up to do *any* order service at all! I was talking about
this stuff with Doris Barry a couple weeks ago (she was on the executive
board until a year or two ago, and her husband, Denis, rest his soul, was
USCF president before that). Doris told me it takes six USCF employees to
process an order. And they were turning only something like $2M per
year!!

The USCF is so mired in politics that it has a hard time being effective
at anything.

I suspect that they have fallen in arrears with some vendors and are
not being sent new stock.

That in fact did happen. From what I hear, they're pulling out of it,
though.

Jim

(tom - who actually enjoyed the pre-algebraic days when King-Pawn to
King-Pawn-Four really meant something - it's so damned dry now.)

*cough* (G)

Tom Watson wrote...

Pretty much everyone at the Monday Night Chess Club meeting plays with
roll-up boards.

They are so easy to transport. I can't fit a wood board in my chess bag
so it would be another thing to carry to the club or pack on a tournament
trip.

I've heard "theoreticians" say that the non-wood colors (dark green and
ivory in particular) are better for playing, as they contrast the pieces
well, and don't "glare" at you. I sure do appreciate the look of a nice
wood board, though, and enjoy playing on them.

At many of the tournaments I've organized or participated in, we've used
the vinyl boards for most of the hall, and wood boards for the one, three
or five top boards.

For match play, especially at the atmospheric levels of chess, wood
boards are more common.

I've been thinking of sneaking in one of my wood ones in an attempt to
generate some sales.

You might get some. I'm always getting remarks about my set, and have
been asked to make boards on several occasions.

Maybe I can work a deal on the sales so that some of those guys won't
kick my ass so bad - sose I can get my rating up to "breathing".

(watson - who is currently not breathing so well, because our club has
too many Masters.)

Don't they all! Tough being a minnow in a pond of sharks.

(watson - who still likes the King's Pawn opening - it worked for
Bobby ! )

"e4! and crush"

(@#$%^&*()

!? I don' reckonize dat one. (G)

Jim

Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:48:25 GMT, Jim Wilson
wrote:


This size relationship between the pieces and the boards results in a
crowded board, in my opinion. It is certainly not the worst I have seen
(I think those Mexican agate sets would win that prize), but it is
quite a bit more crowded than standard competition sets and boards. These
typically have a King base diameter between 69% and 74% of the square
width.

I would also note that the fixed 1/8" buffer is probably an ok variance
for regular sized boards, but that it makes better sense to use a larger
variance for larger sets. I don't imagine a 1/8" larger square size would
be noticeable at all in a lawn or park set.


I was curious to see what the USCF rules might say about this and
found the following in the Fifth Edition, published in 2003:

From Section 41C. Proportions.:

"The guidelines for determining the proper square size for a Staunton
chess set is that the King should occupy around 78 percent of the
square. An acceptable square size may be up to 1/8 inch larger than
this number, but not smaller."

Fussy l'il debils, ain't dey.


Doing the algebra I see that if the base of the king occupies 78%
of the square the diameter of the base of the king is equal
to the length of one side of the square. Now, it seems to me that
just coming out and saying that the diameter of the base of the king
should be no more one eight of an inch smaller than the side of
a square is more straightforward so I wonder if the folks at the USCF
have a funky notion of what it means to 'occupy' some partion of a
square.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote...
Tom Watson wrote in message . ..
From Section 41C. Proportions.:

"The guidelines for determining the proper square size for a Staunton
chess set is that the King should occupy around 78 percent of the
square. An acceptable square size may be up to 1/8 inch larger than
this number, but not smaller."


Doing the algebra I see that if the base of the king occupies 78%
of the square the diameter of the base of the king is equal
to the length of one side of the square. Now, it seems to me that
just coming out and saying that the diameter of the base of the king
should be no more one eight of an inch smaller than the side of
a square is more straightforward so I wonder if the folks at the USCF
have a funky notion of what it means to 'occupy' some partion of a
square.

Funky is a good word for that spec. There's no way that the USCF
intends that the king's base should occupy 78% of a square's area, even
though that is the way the rule reads. They mean that the diameter of the
King's base should be 78% (or less) of a square's side. And they're wrong
about that, too. (G)

By the way, the spec Tom cited is a new one. It had been revised in the
4th edition, and was further "clarified" in the 5th. I don't have a 5th
edition on hand, but the 4th states, "The king and queen, for example
should be subject to easy placement on a square without touching any
edge." And as you noted, this isn't the case if the king truly occupies
78% of a square.

Cheers!

Jim

Tom Watson quoted

From the USCF rulebook:

"The king's height should be 3-5/8 to 4-1/2 inches. The cross (or
other king's finial) should occupy no more than 20 percent of the
total height of the king. The diameter of the king's base should be
40-50 percent of the height."

I toltcha dey was fussy.



Fussy - and no sense of design.