Yesterday I played in a tournament where one player brought this set. It doesn’t look quite so ghastly in the pictures, but I couldn’t even begin to look at it. The designs around the algebraic symbols were distracting, as where the opposite colored tops on the kings and queens. While it’s a Staunton design, I couldn’t help thinking I would be unwilling to play on that set. So if I have the white pieces and my opponent trots that out, will his right to choice of equipment prevail?
2 Likes
Were we at the same tournament? I also saw this set being played yesterday and determined that if I had white against them I’d request a standardized set, which I’m sure the player wouldn’t object to. They were new and this is the set they have. No biggie.
I’d allow the enforcement of standardized sets against this particular set in my events. While the tops are different between King and Queen and the other pieces are of the Staunton family I found their sizing, design, color, and over all appearance enough to consider it a novelty set.
I’m not an expert in the rules but I believe 39a. “… The director is the final arbiter of whether the equipment in question is standard.” covers this rules wise.
1 Like
Yes, we were at the same tournament. Like you, I’m fairly sure the owner would agree to a switch. But this particular forum includes all the people who can tell you what the rules actually are, and I’m curious as to how they see it. I actually went over to look at a game where it was in use and I got disoriented. The fact that the pieces are a bit large (4.4 inch king) and a little bit too large for the squares didn’t help.
From the post’s title, I cringed a bit. But soon enough I think the only oddities are the K/Q crowns. I once played against someone with Burnt Zagreb pieces in a later round of a tournament after noticing the pieces for a couple rounds. I wasn’t sure if they were standard enough but we used them. While playing I didn’t mind them, even admired them, so I took it as an example of me needing to adapt better. Similarly, it doesn’t bother me anymore to play with blue/purple vinyl boards 
1 Like
That’s a fair perspective, although I’m primarily interested in whether some of our TD gurus would rule it “standard” or not. It’s close enough to standard that I can see people viewing it as such. But it’s much worse in person, I’ll tell you that. From this picture, it doesn’t look so ghastly.
As to your actual point, I’m pretty adaptable, I have no problem with the odd colored vinyl boards or the logos in the corners of the boards used in the Irwin. We have had one player who legitimately could not play on those for medical reasons, and while under current rules those are legal, the TD granted his request for a standard board(as would any reasonable opponent).
These pieces, which are too large for the squares, and the queen’s knob (which is way bigger than any I’ve ever seen), were too much for me. Now I only looked at it for a couple minutes and I still couldn’t have told you one salient feature about the position. While I couldn’t have claimed a medical reason, I know that I couldn’t have played on it. Maybe when I was younger I could have, but not now when I’m pushing 70.
That’s something that bugs me a lot! To be clear, I was only talking about my hang ups.
The board looks fine to me, assuming that it’s in the normal 2-2.5" square size range (41C). From the picture, the king looks to be holding around the normal 80% of the square space (41C). The border contents are optional so I don’t see that as a problem (41D). The color seems reasonable (41B).
The pieces are a closer call, but I first want to note that you said the king was 4.4", which is a perfectly fine size (40B). The colors are similarly fine (40D).
The only open question, to me, is if the queen’s variation is a “minor variation in design” from Staunton or not. The king and queen clearly have different tops (40C).
All in all I think I would allow it. It’s a nice looking set and more expensive than the standard vinyl boards we see; I’d like to encourage people to bring their nice looking things.
The specs indicate that the board has 2.25" squares and the base diameter of the King is 1.50". Both of those are typical. (The 4.4" King is tall, but still within the rules; a standard tournament set is 3.75" King with 1.50" base). However, when I look at the set in the picture, the base of the King looks too big relative to the square. 2.25" square means almost exactly 3" diagonal which means the 1.50" base should cover 50% of the diagonal. To my eye, it’s bigger than that, so either the base is bigger than advertised or the board has smaller squares. I have an inlaid wooden board with 2" squares (looks pretty, but I would never use it for a tournament) and I wouldn’t be surprised if that picture is taken with 2" squares.
There would obviously be some judgment involved, but I think I would operate under two basic principles.
First, is the fancier design of the set and board a potential distraction? In this case, I am inclined to think so, and if the opponent could provide a more standard set and wished to use it, I would probably grant the request.
Second, are there any accessibility issues? Many years ago, I played in an event in Atlanta. I noticed a set and board that were being used that had strong red and green elements to its coloring, both for the board and the pieces, although they were not pure red and green. I asked a tournament director about it, and he said he would allow it. But I followed up that I am red-green colorblind, and he said that would be different. In this case, I don’t see a particular accessibility issue at first glance, though.
I would agree with Tom Doan that the king diameter is a potential concern. The king’s base diameter appears to be more than 78% of the width of the square. But maybe that’s a matter of marketing, as Tom suggests.
So, if players agreed to use the set, no problem. If one of the players objected and could provide a more standard set, I would probably require the more standard set.
For the record, I would not want to play on this set, but if a TD ruled that I had to do so, I would not pursue the matter further.
I think Tom hit the nail on the head on what I found problematic. The pieces all seemed so jumbled together in the center of the board; it was too crowded to make sense. I do not normally have any kind of problems in this area. I wish I had taken a picture of an actual position during the middle of the game. I don’t think that marketing picture represents what I saw in a game.
I would allow the set to be replaced if there were a complaint.
3 Likes
Are the equipment rules available for USCF only available in the paid rulebook?
Think in FIDE you could claim red is a not natural wood color for the squares?
The right thing to is play and make sure a piece is misplaced for the good of future opponents.
The rules are only in the paid rulebook (Chapter 4, Rules 39-43). The color notes (41B for the board, referencing 40D for pieces) really only require “the colors of naturally light and dark wood…or approximations of these colors, such as simply white and black”, noting that you should be able to look at it for a long time, that squares should probably not exactly match piece colors, and that red/black checkerboards are not standard.
FIDE regulations:
2.6 The “white” pieces may be white or cream, or other light shades of these colours. The “black” pieces should be brown or black, or other dark shades of these colours. The natural colour of wood (walnut, maple, etc.) may also be used. The pieces should not be shiny and should be pleasing to the eye.
3.1 For competitions organised under the aegis of GSC, wooden boards should be used. In all cases boards should be rigid. Natural wood with sufficient contrast, such as birch, maple or European ash against walnut, teak, beech, may also be used for boards. The boards must not be shiny, and have a dull or neutral finish. A combination of colours, such as brown, or very light tan and white, cream, off-white ivory or buff may be used for the chess squares in addition to natural colours.
I don’t see anything that would specifically allow you to claim that red is not a natural wood color, and the existence of Brazilian cherry wood among other things suggests that it is.
If someone complained and could provide another set, I would replace it.
1 Like
It is not standard due to the base being too narrow. According to rule 40B, “The diameter of the king’s base should be 40-50 percent of the height.” The published height of the set’s king is 4.4 inches. Therefore the base should be at least 1.76 inches. However the published diameter of the base is 1.5 inches, at least 0.26 inches too narrow. Therefore it is not standard.
1 Like
Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, and especially to Louis who gave a definitive answer.
1 Like
I don’t get the sense, though, that it is the base size that people find most objectionable (though that is certainly a legitimate objection). Rule 39 is also relevant, and in particular:
“In general, simple, functional designs are preferred for use in tournaments so players, spectators, and directors are not distracted by ornateness, unusual design, or other aesthetic values.”
So even if the base were acceptable, you’d have reason to declare this set not standard.
2 Likes
Is this chess set regulation?
No.
2 Likes
Agreed, but the rule 39 criteria are somewhat subjective. The base size is objective. I can tell you that the ornateness was my main problem with the set when I saw it in use, but the jumbled mess in the center also gave me problems, and that’s at least partly related to the base size. I’m just glad I didn’t have to play on it.
I have let the TD from that tournament know of the opinions shared here. On site he also agreed with me, but since none of the opponents complained he didn’t have cause to make a ruling.