Chessman

Tom Watson wrote:

> I think that the color is only part of the design thinking. I like
> pieces with some heft to them. Now, the bottoms could be hollowed and
> filled with glued in metal (I think that molten lead would char the
> wood), so maybe that makes the heft thing go away.

Molten lead *will* char the wood, but probably not enough to matter. That's
what I do to weight my son's Jummywood Derby cars. It works fine. I made
a little crucible out of some scrap copper, with a pointy pouring spout on
one end. It's a bit of work to juggle everything so you don't pour molten
lead on yourself. That smarts. DAMHIKT.

It flows at a relatively low temperature though, and if you get the amount
of drop just right, it will still be liquid, but will have cooled almost to
the point of being solid again by the time it hits the wood. The trick is
to pour a little, let it cool, pour a little more... If you fill it to the
top in one shot, the lump of lead will stay hot longer, and have more time
to char the wood fibers.

> turns and holds detail. See, there's another thing - the wood needs
> to be able to hold some pretty fine detail without a lot of the small
> stuff breaking off later.

True. Something with closed pores and tight grain would be in order, I
suppose. Maple would probably work. Walnut might be iffy. I guess a
cheating man could make the whole set out of maple, and then "ebonize" the
black pieces. Lots of those $BIGNUM House of Staunton sets at the cheaper
end of the extremely expensive spectrum are ebonized in that fashion. I
seem to recall that you don't get better until you're in for a grand or so.

> Here's the set that I'm using for a model:

Yours are a little bigger and a little nicer than mine, but they're both
really quite extraordinarly excellent, I must say. Damn good looking for
plastic.

Thanks for turning me onto them back when. I've since purchased three sets.

> The last chessboard that I made was knocked up from cherry and maple
> ply, with a walnut border:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/page31.htm

Spiffy. I don't have any pictures of mine yet. Never did get around to
taking any. The board didn't come out quite right, but it's close enough
to play on. I'm going to do it all again, and get it right this time,
applying lessons learned. Probably once more in walnut/soft maple with a
walnut frame.

I'm thinking about playing with my scroll saw too. I haven't tried this on
a large scale yet, but I've done some neat stuff by clamping two pieces
together and cutting curvy stuff through the middle, then swapping pieces
and gluing back together. I'm planning to do that for my box. I guess it
will pretty much demand mitered corners to look right, so I have to think
about doing splines or something to reinforce them. Good project when
spring finally gets around to showing up.

> I like the look of the black and white men on the wood board.

I do too, but wood doesn't come in black and white unless you paint it. :)
Even ebony (all the ebony I've seen anyway) isn't really quite black.
White is easier. Lots of woods are pretty close to white. I guess holly
is *really* close to white, but I think my grandpa would get pissed off at
me if I went down and cut down his holly trees. ;)

Ever work with holly? I never have. It might be worth going down there and
lopping off a few fat branches toward the back. He'd never notice. ;)

> Mike Hide would be the man to talk to about carving the Knights. His
> carving work is extraordinary, whereas mine is extra-ordinary.

Mine just flat sucks. I get what you're saying about breaking it down into
smaller objectives, but my problem is when something chips off and I have
to start the damn thing all over again. That's why I like working in clay
better.

> As you said, these particular plastic men look better than any pieces
> that I've ever owned, so, if I screw up - we'll always have Plastic.

Yeah, if only these were wood, I wouldn't even think about trying to make my
own. I'll bet their more exotic wood sets look this good too. Some of the
detail is astonishing. Then again, so are the prices.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Jim Wilson wrote:

> noted that the stabilized materials -- especially burls -- that I've seen
> have had a "plasticky" appearance and feel, almost like it was
> impregnated under pressure (or vacuum?) with something like epoxy. It
> would be nice to know more about the processes available, and whether any
> leave a more natural appearance to the surface, which is my personal
> preference.

Dang... The details are escaping me, but I read about just that very thing.
They (someone, somewhere) did something to the wood (vacuum or pressure, I
don't remember) to make it draw epoxy into itself, yielding something that
was as much a wood/plastic hybrid as any natural material.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

I knew this guy Norm and he liked big chests on guys and would get wood
when he saw them shirtless.

I knew this guy Norm and he liked big chests on guys and would get wood
when he saw them shirtless.

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 <[email protected]> wrote:

>pieces with some heft to them. Now, the bottoms could be hollowed and
>filled with glued in metal (I think that molten lead would char the
>wood), so maybe that makes the heft thing go away.

I poured molten lead into the hollowed-out bottoms of teak clock
weights with no charring problems.

Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)

Jim Wilson wrote:
> Grandpa wrote...
>
>
>>Out of curiosity, why not place lead shot or strips in the bottom of the
>>chessmen and then fill the rest of the cavity with epoxy? No charred
>>wood or concern over density etc.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with that, if you can fit enough material in to get the
> weight up where you want it.

I supposed another solution would be to pour molten lead into a small
container the same size as the cavity and when it cools to epoxy that
in. Hmmm, I like that better than the lead shot etc!

Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 9:33pm [email protected] (Tom=A0Watson) says:
<snip> Which I intend to start replicating tomorrow morning. <snip>

OK, you scaling them up, or down?

JOAT
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
- Pete Maccarrone

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 29 Jan 2004.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/

Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> I love the look of ebony, but it's just too brittle for a "player"
> set. For an occasional set or decorative one, it's fine, though.

What do you recommend instead of ebony for a "player's" set?

-- Mark

Larry Jaques wrote...

> Heck, it wouldn't take much of your spare time, not more than
> two or three hundred hours. Maybe less if you used a Foredom
> Dremel, or HFT rotary tool for the fine details.

A chess set was my very first turning project, so I had no experience or
skill starting out, but I did keep track of how long it took to do the
job.

The pawns averaged about 20 minutes each; a bishop or rook needed 30
minutes. The kings took about an hour; the queens slightly less. The
walnut knights took two hours apiece; the maple ones took around two and
a half to three hours.

These times included sawing the lathe blank from the lumber, turning,
sanding, and applying one coat of oil, but not boring the base, pouring
the lead ballast, felting the bottom, or applying the second (final) coat
of finish. Oh, the times do include that lost on the half-dozen or so
that I ruined with dig-ins and various other goofs.

I did not carve much detail, really, but that was a design choice. I
suppose it would have taken perhaps another twenty or thirty minutes on
each of the knights, and something less on the queens and rooks to bring
the level of detail reasonably close to what is common for wood Staunton
sets. I think it would be quite difficult to get it to what is common for
the plastic sets; the material just isn't as suitable for such fine
detail.

So, something in the range of 25 to 30 hours to get the basic pieces out,
plus another five or six hours for weight, felt and final finish.

Jim
http://www.paragoncode.com/woodworking/chess_set

Tom Watson wrote...
> I think that molten lead would char the wood

If you keep the thickness of the wood to 1/8" minimum and keep the pour
relatively cool, you shouldn't have a charring problem. That's how I did
mine.

> I've got some ebony around here somewheres and I was thinking of using
> some satinwood for the white pieces but might try to scratch up some
> holly (or use some apple that I've got but I don't know how well that
> turns and holds detail. See, there's another thing - the wood needs
> to be able to hold some pretty fine detail without a lot of the small
> stuff breaking off later.

Ebony is problematic for chess pieces. It turns beautifully, and takes
fine detail very well, but if the set will be used with any frequency,
you will break pieces. The collars of the pawns will go first. The
knights' noses and parts of the mouth (if it's open) will be right
behind. Basically any small cross-section of face grain will be weak. I
love the look of ebony, but it's just too brittle for a "player" set. For
an occasional set or decorative one, it's fine, though.

Cheers!

Jim

Mark Jerde wrote...

> What do you recommend instead of ebony for a "player's" set?

Hard to say. Walnut and "rosewood" are popular. I put rosewood in quotes
because I don't know what kind of wood those "rosewood" sets are really
made of, but it's much lighter than the rosewood I've worked with
(dalbergia stevonsonii). *That*, by the way, would be an excellent
choice. I absolutely love that stuff, but I suppose any dark wood with
good split resistance would be ok for Black.

I used walnut because I like it, and I had some dark 8/4 material handy.
You might worry that walnut is too soft, but it has held up well for
right at ten years now of fairly heavy use. I play weekly for several
hours at a time.

For White, maple and boxwood are the species I've seen most frequently,
but there are plenty more good choices for the light color. Boxwood is a
little lighter in color and weight and takes detail very well. Maple is
bit difficult to carve, owing to its hardness.

Cheers!

Jim

Tom Watson wrote...
> I wonder if there is any kind of treatment that would render the
> pieces more resistant to this kind of damage without substantially
> altering the look.

Not that I know of. Ebony is so dense that liquids don't penetrate into
it very well. I should temper that a bit; I've only worked with Gaboon
ebony, but the ebony chess sets I've played seemed very much the same.

> I remember back when lots of folks were using PEG
> (PolyEthyleneGlycol)(sp?) to stabilize wood - not for this purpose but
> the basic idea of an immersion in something that would alter the
> characteristics of the wood is what I'm going at.

There might be something to that. I've tried to look into wood
stabilizing some, and have been unable to find anything definitive. One
of those "industry secret" things. (BTW, I *hate* that!) However, I have
noted that the stabilized materials -- especially burls -- that I've seen
have had a "plasticky" appearance and feel, almost like it was
impregnated under pressure (or vacuum?) with something like epoxy. It
would be nice to know more about the processes available, and whether any
leave a more natural appearance to the surface, which is my personal
preference.

Good luck!

Jim

Silvan wrote...

> Molten lead *will* char the wood, but probably not enough to matter. That's
> what I do to weight my son's Jummywood Derby cars. It works fine. I made
> a little crucible out of some scrap copper, with a pointy pouring spout on
> one end.

Me too, exactly the same thing. I haven't had a problem with charring,
though, just a little at the edges of the hole (and inside it, of
course). But as long as the thickness of the piece is reasonable, it
doesn't char through.

> It flows at a relatively low temperature though, and if you get the amount
> of drop just right, it will still be liquid, but will have cooled almost to
> the point of being solid again by the time it hits the wood. The trick is
> to pour a little, let it cool, pour a little more... If you fill it to the
> top in one shot, the lump of lead will stay hot longer, and have more time
> to char the wood fibers.

Silvan's technique is more cautious than mine. I complete the pour in one
go, but I do fill the hole at just a trickle, and I pour with the lead
cool enough that it solidifies within a few seconds after the pour is
finished.

BTW, the lump of lead always shrinks a bit, and the wood does, too, owing
to the moisture lost from the heat. It's a good idea to drip in a thin
glue around the lead after it cools to fill the gap.

Jim

Tom Watson wrote (in part)...

> >I'm thinking about just using the damn plastic ones. They may be plastic,
> >but they sure look good. Much nicer than any chess sets I've ever had
> >before, and I've had wood in the past.

<snip>

> I think that the color is only part of the design thinking. I like
> pieces with some heft to them.

Interesting, these two points. The best playing set around, especially
for fast time controls, is the plastic triple-weighted "Ultimate" set:

http://www.wholesalechess.com/chess_p/Ultimate+Chess+Pieces

The third micro-thumbnail at the left links to a nice image of the set.
(No affiliation with that site, BTW; I just DAGS to find an image of the
set.)

If you want, I can get you the weights of all the pieces.

> Here's the set that I'm using for a model:
>
> http://www.shopuschess.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/scstore/p-S759B.html?L+scstore+ikhd9548+1073169214

Yours is prettier. I had mentioned about the pawn collars breaking if you
did your pieces in ebony, but I don't think they will with this design.
(I should have followed the link the first time.) The queen's crown would
be a problem, though, as will the knights nose and mouth, and possibly
the tops of the rooks. If you're willing to alter the design a bit you
might be able to avoid those thin cross sections.

> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/page31.htm

Ha, ha, ha! I should have followed this link before posting about the
Ultimate set! Oh, well, I'll leave that part in for the humor of it.
Jeez.

Jim

Grandpa wrote...

> Out of curiosity, why not place lead shot or strips in the bottom of the
> chessmen and then fill the rest of the cavity with epoxy? No charred
> wood or concern over density etc.

Nothing wrong with that, if you can fit enough material in to get the
weight up where you want it.

Jim

Grandpa wrote...

> Speaking of large chessmen, is there a standard correlation between the
> size of the squares on a board and the footprint or height of the men -
> excluding the obvious? I'd like to make a larger board, maybe 3' across.

Four pawns should just barely fit on a single square.

There are no hard and fast standard base and height relationships for the

rest of the pieces, but there are some conventions that work well.

A pawn is usually about 15% taller than its base. The king is usually
about twice the height of the pawn. The other pieces are generally sized
to fit "smoothly" between the king and pawn: king, queen, bishop, rook,
knight, pawn.

The Staunton design and minor variations of it dominate the chess scene.
A standard competition chessboard square is 2-1/4".

Here are some notes I took when making my set:

Traditional Staunton set
Bases - inches (units)
==================================
P - 1.19" (0.53 times standard square size)
R - 1.24" (1.04 times pawn base)
N - 1.31" (1.10 times pawn base)
B - 1.25" (1.05 times pawn base)
Q - 1.50" (1.26 times pawn base)
K - 1.55" (1.30 times pawn base)

Heights - inches (units)
==================================
P - 1.85" (1.55 times pawn base)
R - 2.10" (1.14 times pawn height)
N - 2.30" (1.24 times pawn height)
B - 2.65" (1.43 times pawn height)
Q - 3.30" (1.78 times pawn height)
K - 3.70" (2.00 times pawn height)

The dimensions of the popular "Ultimate" chess pieces give some
perspective:

Ultimate Staunton set
Bases - inches (units)
==================================
P - 1.18" (0.52 times square size)
R - 1.31" (1.11 times pawn base)
N - 1.34" (1.14 times pawn base)
B - 1.39" (1.18 times pawn base)
Q - 1.45" (1.23 times pawn base)
K - 1.57" (1.33 times pawn base)

Heights - inches (units)
==================================
P - 1.84" (1.56 times pawn base)
R - 2.10" (1.14 times pawn height)
N - 2.34" (1.27 times pawn height)
B - 2.65" (1.44 times pawn height)
Q - 3.00" (1.63 times pawn height)
K - 3.53" (1.92 times pawn height)

In some of the "oversize" chess sets I've seen, the variations between
the sizes of the pieces is not so pronounced. The king might be only 1.5
times the height of a pawn.

Jim

Jim Wilson wrote...
> A pawn is usually about 15% taller than its base.

Oops. That was supposed to be 50% taller. Sorry.

Jim

Silvan wrote...

> http://www.houseofstaunton.com/faq.html#001

Interesting reference; thanks.

> 1. How do you choose the right size squares to match your set to a board?
> The proper square size for a set of properly proportioned Staunton chessmen
> is such that the width of the base of the King should be 78% of the width
> of a square. So, divide the King's base diameter by 0.78 and you get the
> proper square size. You can increase the square size by 1/8", but the
> square size should not be any smaller. For example, a Staunton King with a
> base diameter of 1.75" would require a square size of 1.75"/0.78 = 2.25".
> Hence, you should use a chessboard with either 2-1/4" or 2-3/8" (+1/8").

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.

Cheers!

Jim

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

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

Tom Watson wrote...
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:01:11 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
> 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

Fred the Red Shirt wrote...
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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

<PLONK>

web TV.....who knew?

Rob

--



******PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESS******

[email protected]

Please visit our (recently updated) web site:
http://www.robswoodworking.com

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I knew this guy Norm and he liked big chests on guys and would get wood
> when he saw them shirtless.
>

Silvan wrote:

<snipped>
>
>>>(Or scale them up and make some honking bigass chessmen... :)
>>
>>4-footers are for sale online somewhere.
>
>
> More like a 9" king or thereabouts. I'd have to play with it. I'd probably
> need 4" squares or such like. Be a honking bigass chess box too.

Speaking of large chessmen, is there a standard correlation between the
size of the squares on a board and the footprint or height of the men -
excluding the obvious? I'd like to make a larger board, maybe 3' across.

Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote:

> Speaking of large chessmen, is there a standard correlation between the
> size of the squares on a board and the footprint or height of the men -
> excluding the obvious? I'd like to make a larger board, maybe 3' across.

Yes. My memory is failing me, so let me go dig it up.

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/faq.html#001

1. How do you choose the right size squares to match your set to a board?
The proper square size for a set of properly proportioned Staunton chessmen
is such that the width of the base of the King should be 78% of the width
of a square. So, divide the King's base diameter by 0.78 and you get the
proper square size. You can increase the square size by 1/8", but the
square size should not be any smaller. For example, a Staunton King with a
base diameter of 1.75" would require a square size of 1.75"/0.78 = 2.25".
Hence, you should use a chessboard with either 2-1/4" or 2-3/8" (+1/8").

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Jim Wilson wrote:

> though, just a little at the edges of the hole (and inside it, of
> course). But as long as the thickness of the piece is reasonable, it
> doesn't char through.

I haven't had anything come close to charring through, even with a really
too hot pour.

> BTW, the lump of lead always shrinks a bit, and the wood does, too, owing
> to the moisture lost from the heat. It's a good idea to drip in a thin
> glue around the lead after it cools to fill the gap.

I avoid this problem by scooping out a few random spots inside the hole, so
the plug is too wide to come out the bottom. I've never needed it to last
very long for a Jummycar, so I've never really thought about how it might
get wiggly over time. I suppose if the thing started to rattle, I could
shoot some epoxy or even hot glue into the hole to keep that from
happening.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Tom Watson wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:48:25 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
> 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 Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:51:52 -0500 (EST), [email protected]
(T.) wrote:

>Fri, Jan 30, 2004, 9:33pm [email protected] (Tom Watson) says:
><snip> Which I intend to start replicating tomorrow morning. <snip>
>
> OK, you scaling them up, or down?


I bought a set that is the size I want to make. That scaling stuff is
too sophisticated for me.

I was going to cobble up a simple copying device for the lathe that
should let me copy pretty fine detail. My old duplicator is OK for
bigger stuff but not for these little things.


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

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:48:25 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
> 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

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. :(

Tom Watson wrote:

> I'm posting this because I truly believe that the Staunton plastic men
> are a good model for making yer own Chessmen.

I don't know which set you got, but I agree. Mine are the "Marshall"
version, which is what I needed to get to size for that board I made.

> Now, if I can only remember where I put that Satinwood solid stock ...
>
> ...and the Ebony - where in Gosh's name did I put that stash of Ebony?

I got a lathe for Christmas, and one of my plans for the thing was a set of
chessmen based on these plastic ones. I don't have any suitably thick
stock in any appropriate wood though. I never thought about that until I
started turning. 4/4 lumber does not a good turning blank make when the
base of the thing is 1 1/4" in diameter.

Anyway, I'll come up with something eventually.

Your post reminded me of one that I had been meaning to make, so I'll tack
it on. What do you, wood wrecker and chess grand master extraordinaire,
think about contrasting pieces with the board?

I'm going to make myself a walnut/maple chess box when the weather gets
warmer. I've been debating whether to make the pieces out of walnut/maple,
or choose something else, like cherry/ash or whatever I can come up with in
turnable stock.

One argument says making pieces out of the same boards as the chess board
would be very cool indeed (but I'd have to do a glue-up to make the blanks
in that case, or else mail order some 8/4 or whatever lumber), and another
one says that pieces *exactly* the same color/texture as the board might
tend to be easy to overlook. Not exactly invisible, but maybe I forget
about the walnut rook on the walnut square until it checkmates me. In the
latter case, going for strong contrast might be a good thing, and I could
pick any pair of light/dark woods that I could get in log form for my
stock.

What do you think?

BTW, I have no freaking idea how I'm going to do the knights. None
whatsoever. I couldn't carve my way out of a wet paper bag with a CNC
carving machine.

Truth is, given what a bitch it will be to make all these pieces look right,
I'm thinking about just using the damn plastic ones. They may be plastic,
but they sure look good. Much nicer than any chess sets I've ever had
before, and I've had wood in the past.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Tom Watson wrote:

> A horses head is a whole 'nuther kettle o'fish.

Could always carve a horse's ass. :)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Larry Jaques wrote:

>>whatsoever. I couldn't carve my way out of a wet paper bag with a CNC
>>carving machine.
>
> So learn.

I'm not really all that interested in carving. I've tried my hand a time or
two, dating all the way back to the days when I used to make myself
replacement laser guns for my Star Wars action figures out of balsa.
Carving has never really tickled my fancy. For that kind of thing, I'd
much sooner work in clay, where I can put material back if I've removed too
much.

> Heck, it wouldn't take much of your spare time, not more than
> two or three hundred hours. Maybe less if you used a Foredom
> Dremel, or HFT rotary tool for the fine details.

I do have a Dremel with a flex shaft attachment, but knights look like
complicated little critters. This is something I'd really rather trade for
beer, really. I'm hoping to hook up with a carver at some point.

I'll work up to the turning soon though. My biggest problem at this point
is with getting the pieces to look *just* like the prototype. I can get
the features in there, but I haven't had great success getting an accurate
reproduction of a turned salt shaker yet. I figure nail the salt shaker a
few times, and then try something much, much smaller.

(Or scale them up and make some honking bigass chessmen... :)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:41:45 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
>I'm going to make myself a walnut/maple chess box when the weather gets
>warmer. I've been debating whether to make the pieces out of walnut/maple,
>or choose something else, like cherry/ash or whatever I can come up with in
>turnable stock.
>
<mo bigger snip>
>
>BTW, I have no freaking idea how I'm going to do the knights. None
>whatsoever. I couldn't carve my way out of a wet paper bag with a CNC
>carving machine.
>
>Truth is, given what a bitch it will be to make all these pieces look right,
>I'm thinking about just using the damn plastic ones. They may be plastic,
>but they sure look good. Much nicer than any chess sets I've ever had
>before, and I've had wood in the past.

<no mo snips>

I think that the color is only part of the design thinking. I like
pieces with some heft to them. Now, the bottoms could be hollowed and
filled with glued in metal (I think that molten lead would char the
wood), so maybe that makes the heft thing go away.

I've got some ebony around here somewheres and I was thinking of using
some satinwood for the white pieces but might try to scratch up some
holly (or use some apple that I've got but I don't know how well that
turns and holds detail. See, there's another thing - the wood needs
to be able to hold some pretty fine detail without a lot of the small
stuff breaking off later.

Here's the set that I'm using for a model:

http://www.shopuschess.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/scstore/p-S759B.html?L+scstore+ikhd9548+1073169214

The last chessboard that I made was knocked up from cherry and maple
ply, with a walnut border:

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/page31.htm

I like the look of the black and white men on the wood board.

Mike Hide would be the man to talk to about carving the Knights. His
carving work is extraordinary, whereas mine is extra-ordinary.

The best tip I was ever given for replicating carving was to break
down the piece into elements that you can understand, rather than
trying to think of the whole thing at once - that's too scary. But
the really good carvers that I've seen go after a piece differently
than that. I'm going to work from the general outline to the details
and work the details one at a time, from the largest to the smallest.

As you said, these particular plastic men look better than any pieces
that I've ever owned, so, if I screw up - we'll always have Plastic.


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

Larry Jaques wrote:

>>I'm not really all that interested in carving. I've tried my hand a time
>>or
>
> So don't learn, Grasshoppah.

Now we're talking.

>>beer, really. I'm hoping to hook up with a carver at some point.
>
> Yeah, a drunken carver'd do a right proud job, woonhe?

He gets the beer after, dolt.

>>(Or scale them up and make some honking bigass chessmen... :)
>
> 4-footers are for sale online somewhere.

More like a 9" king or thereabouts. I'd have to play with it. I'd probably
need 4" squares or such like. Be a honking bigass chess box too.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 19:48:25 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
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/

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:58:04 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>>whatsoever. I couldn't carve my way out of a wet paper bag with a CNC
>>>carving machine.
>>
>> So learn.
>
>I'm not really all that interested in carving. I've tried my hand a time or

So don't learn, Grasshoppah.


>I do have a Dremel with a flex shaft attachment, but knights look like
>complicated little critters. This is something I'd really rather trade for
>beer, really. I'm hoping to hook up with a carver at some point.

Yeah, a drunken carver'd do a right proud job, woonhe?


>I'll work up to the turning soon though. My biggest problem at this point
>is with getting the pieces to look *just* like the prototype. I can get
>the features in there, but I haven't had great success getting an accurate
>reproduction of a turned salt shaker yet. I figure nail the salt shaker a
>few times, and then try something much, much smaller.

<g>


>(Or scale them up and make some honking bigass chessmen... :)

4-footers are for sale online somewhere.


============================================================
Help Save the Endangered Plumb Bobs From Becoming Extinct!
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
============================================================

One of my summer projects will be a set myself. I've collected several
pictures and bought a few books for 'inspiration' and hope to make a set
that is a combination of turned and 3D compound, at lest for the knight
anyway. I may even do a compound set on my scrollsaw as I've gotten
some good inspiration from numerous pics. If I had any artistic skills
(wood carving) I'd make a nautical themed set, however I lack those
skills so I'll stick to something I *may* be able to make. I've a
number of smaller pieces of Juniper and really like the reddish color
with the contrasting white areas in it. Don't know what the other half
will be, perhaps white pine.

Tom Watson wrote:
> I today received a package that I've been waiting for, for six months.
>
> I've always wanted to make my own set of Chessmen and I lacked a good
> model to go from.
>
> I'm not gifted enough visually to go on my own and create my own set,
> and I've always admired the Staunton Standard, anyways.
>
> Well, today's UPS delivery brought me a much delayed but very nice
> surprise.
>
> I've now got a faithful plastic replica of the Staunton Chessmen that
> I've always most admired.
>
> Since I now work in an environment where CNC is freely available, I'm
> tempted to have the guys work them up in Cocobolo (not really).
>
> I'm posting this because I truly believe that the Staunton plastic men
> are a good model for making yer own Chessmen.
>
> Which I intend to start replicating tomorrow morning.
>
> If I have enough kero for the heater to run long enough.
>
> Ya know, the Knights are always the problem, and these plastic Knights
> are detailed down to the level of their teeth.
>
> Hot damn !
>
> Now, if I can only remember where I put that Satinwood solid stock ...
>
> ...and the Ebony - where in Gosh's name did I put that stash of Ebony?
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:01:11 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
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.)

!!

(shit - 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/

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:27:12 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Watson wrote...
>> I think that molten lead would char the wood
>
>If you keep the thickness of the wood to 1/8" minimum and keep the pour
>relatively cool, you shouldn't have a charring problem. That's how I did
>mine.
>
>> I've got some ebony around here somewheres and I was thinking of using
>> some satinwood for the white pieces but might try to scratch up some
>> holly (or use some apple that I've got but I don't know how well that
>> turns and holds detail. See, there's another thing - the wood needs
>> to be able to hold some pretty fine detail without a lot of the small
>> stuff breaking off later.
>
>Ebony is problematic for chess pieces. It turns beautifully, and takes
>fine detail very well, but if the set will be used with any frequency,
>you will break pieces. The collars of the pawns will go first. The
>knights' noses and parts of the mouth (if it's open) will be right
>behind. Basically any small cross-section of face grain will be weak. I
>love the look of ebony, but it's just too brittle for a "player" set. For
>an occasional set or decorative one, it's fine, though.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Jim


Thanks for the tips.

I wonder if there is any kind of treatment that would render the
pieces more resistant to this kind of damage without substantially
altering the look.

I remember back when lots of folks were using PEG
(PolyEthyleneGlycol)(sp?) to stabilize wood - not for this purpose but
the basic idea of an immersion in something that would alter the
characteristics of the wood is what I'm going at.

I'm not much for having stuff around the house that can't be used in
the hurly burly of everyday life, so this set will be a user rather
than a showpiece.


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

Tom:

I'd be interested in a running dialog on this project of yours. I made a few
chessboards a while back and am toying with trying to make a set of men..You
could either scare me or encourage me...not sure which way it'll fall right
now <g!>.

Rob

--



******PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESS******

[email protected]

Please visit our (recently updated) web site:
http://www.robswoodworking.com

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I today received a package that I've been waiting for, for six months.
>
> I've always wanted to make my own set of Chessmen and I lacked a good
> model to go from.
>
> I'm not gifted enough visually to go on my own and create my own set,
> and I've always admired the Staunton Standard, anyways.
>
> Well, today's UPS delivery brought me a much delayed but very nice
> surprise.
>
> I've now got a faithful plastic replica of the Staunton Chessmen that
> I've always most admired.
>
> Since I now work in an environment where CNC is freely available, I'm
> tempted to have the guys work them up in Cocobolo (not really).
>
> I'm posting this because I truly believe that the Staunton plastic men
> are a good model for making yer own Chessmen.
>
> Which I intend to start replicating tomorrow morning.
>
> If I have enough kero for the heater to run long enough.
>
> Ya know, the Knights are always the problem, and these plastic Knights
> are detailed down to the level of their teeth.
>
> Hot damn !
>
> Now, if I can only remember where I put that Satinwood solid stock ...
>
> ...and the Ebony - where in Gosh's name did I put that stash of Ebony?
>
>
> Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker (ret)
> Real Email is: tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
> Website: http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:41:45 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>BTW, I have no freaking idea how I'm going to do the knights. None
>whatsoever. I couldn't carve my way out of a wet paper bag with a CNC
>carving machine.

So learn.


>Truth is, given what a bitch it will be to make all these pieces look right,
>I'm thinking about just using the damn plastic ones. They may be plastic,
>but they sure look good. Much nicer than any chess sets I've ever had
>before, and I've had wood in the past.

Heck, it wouldn't take much of your spare time, not more than
two or three hundred hours. Maybe less if you used a Foredom
Dremel, or HFT rotary tool for the fine details.


============================================================
Help Save the Endangered Plumb Bobs From Becoming Extinct!
http://www.diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
============================================================

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:01:11 GMT, Jim Wilson <[email protected]>
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/

Jim Wilson wrote:

> Tom Watson wrote...
>
>>I wonder if there is any kind of treatment that would render the
>>pieces more resistant to this kind of damage without substantially
>>altering the look.
>
> Not that I know of. Ebony is so dense that liquids don't penetrate into
> it very well. I should temper that a bit; I've only worked with Gaboon
> ebony, but the ebony chess sets I've played seemed very much the same.

Out of curiosity, why not place lead shot or strips in the bottom of the
chessmen and then fill the rest of the cavity with epoxy? No charred
wood or concern over density etc.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 04:49:23 GMT, "Rob Stokes" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom:
>
>I'd be interested in a running dialog on this project of yours. I made a few
>chessboards a while back and am toying with trying to make a set of men..You
>could either scare me or encourage me...not sure which way it'll fall right
>now <g!>.
>
>Rob


I'll be right along with you, Rob. I've no expertise in this kind of
wooddorking. It does seem like an interesting project, though.

I'm most looking forward to the challenge of the Knights.

My carving experience is limited to furniture details like shells and
such, which are pretty geometrical and thus easy to do.

A horses head is a whole 'nuther kettle o'fish.

Will update as progress (or frustration) is made.


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

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:33:10 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> brought forth from the murky depths:

>Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of large chessmen, is there a standard correlation between the
>> size of the squares on a board and the footprint or height of the men -
>> excluding the obvious? I'd like to make a larger board, maybe 3' across.
>
>Yes. My memory is failing me, so let me go dig it up.
>
>http://www.houseofstaunton.com/faq.html#001
>
>1. How do you choose the right size squares to match your set to a board?
> The proper square size for a set of properly proportioned Staunton chessmen
>is such that the width of the base of the King should be 78% of the width
>of a square. So, divide the King's base diameter by 0.78 and you get the
>proper square size. You can increase the square size by 1/8", but the
>square size should not be any smaller. For example, a Staunton King with a
>base diameter of 1.75" would require a square size of 1.75"/0.78 = 2.25".
>Hence, you should use a chessboard with either 2-1/4" or 2-3/8" (+1/8").

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


------
We're born hungry, wet, naked, and it gets worse from there.
- http://diversify.com Website Application Programming -

Jez, I was there last night and never saw the FAQ link - it was late I
guess<sigh>. Thanks!

Silvan wrote:

> Grandpa <jsdebooATcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking of large chessmen, is there a standard correlation between the
>>size of the squares on a board and the footprint or height of the men -
>>excluding the obvious? I'd like to make a larger board, maybe 3' across.
>
>
> Yes. My memory is failing me, so let me go dig it up.
>
> http://www.houseofstaunton.com/faq.html#001
>
> 1. How do you choose the right size squares to match your set to a board?
> The proper square size for a set of properly proportioned Staunton chessmen
> is such that the width of the base of the King should be 78% of the width
> of a square. So, divide the King's base diameter by 0.78 and you get the
> proper square size. You can increase the square size by 1/8", but the
> square size should not be any smaller. For example, a Staunton King with a
> base diameter of 1.75" would require a square size of 1.75"/0.78 = 2.25".
> Hence, you should use a chessboard with either 2-1/4" or 2-3/8" (+1/8").
>

Thanks Jim, I'll print and keep this - much appreciated.

Jim Wilson wrote:
> Grandpa wrote...
>
>
>>Speaking of large chessmen, is there a standard correlation between the
>>size of the squares on a board and the footprint or height of the men -
>>excluding the obvious? I'd like to make a larger board, maybe 3' across.
>
>
> Four pawns should just barely fit on a single square.
>
> There are no hard and fast standard base and height relationships for the
>
> rest of the pieces, but there are some conventions that work well.
>
> A pawn is usually about 15% taller than its base. The king is usually
> about twice the height of the pawn. The other pieces are generally sized
> to fit "smoothly" between the king and pawn: king, queen, bishop, rook,
> knight, pawn.
>
> The Staunton design and minor variations of it dominate the chess scene.
> A standard competition chessboard square is 2-1/4".
>
> Here are some notes I took when making my set:
>
> Traditional Staunton set
> Bases - inches (units)
> ==================================
> P - 1.19" (0.53 times standard square size)
> R - 1.24" (1.04 times pawn base)
> N - 1.31" (1.10 times pawn base)
> B - 1.25" (1.05 times pawn base)
> Q - 1.50" (1.26 times pawn base)
> K - 1.55" (1.30 times pawn base)
>
> Heights - inches (units)
> ==================================
> P - 1.85" (1.55 times pawn base)
> R - 2.10" (1.14 times pawn height)
> N - 2.30" (1.24 times pawn height)
> B - 2.65" (1.43 times pawn height)
> Q - 3.30" (1.78 times pawn height)
> K - 3.70" (2.00 times pawn height)
>
> The dimensions of the popular "Ultimate" chess pieces give some
> perspective:
>
> Ultimate Staunton set
> Bases - inches (units)
> ==================================
> P - 1.18" (0.52 times square size)
> R - 1.31" (1.11 times pawn base)
> N - 1.34" (1.14 times pawn base)
> B - 1.39" (1.18 times pawn base)
> Q - 1.45" (1.23 times pawn base)
> K - 1.57" (1.33 times pawn base)
>
> Heights - inches (units)
> ==================================
> P - 1.84" (1.56 times pawn base)
> R - 2.10" (1.14 times pawn height)
> N - 2.34" (1.27 times pawn height)
> B - 2.65" (1.44 times pawn height)
> Q - 3.00" (1.63 times pawn height)
> K - 3.53" (1.92 times pawn height)
>
> In some of the "oversize" chess sets I've seen, the variations between
> the sizes of the pieces is not so pronounced. The king might be only 1.5
> times the height of a pawn.
>
> Jim