Chess Piece and Chess Board Proportions

Regulations exist, some are specific and some (somewhat)vague in
respect to sizing chess sets to boards. Most guidelines have to do
with tournament play Staunton style sets with kings ranging in height
between 3.375" to 4.5" (85 mm to 115 mm). Regulations go on to say
that a king's base diameter should be between 40 to 50% the height of
the piece and that other pieces should give the set a balanced
appearance. The board should have squares sized so that the king's
base is 75% to 78% (references vary) the size of the square. Other
square sizing guidelines vary with the old "4 pawns all fitting within
the borders of one square" is an old an unrealistic guideline. Others
which dictate a rook on side being equal to the length or width of a
square works fairly well as does two bishops side by side (standing)
beight equal to the diagonal measure of a square.

Of course sets with kings shorter than 3.375" or taller than 4.5" are
not suitable for tournament play and it would seem sizing a set to a
board becomes artistic for lack of a better term.

Personally I like looking at a set-board combination where the board
has squares 1/4" smaller than what regulations would dictate for that
size set. However beyond this I believe purchasing a set to fit a
board or vice-versa is really lacking in one other vital statistic
which may mean that a purchase of a board based upon king dimensions
alone can result in a combination that just does not work.

At present I have several boards ranging in square size from 1.375" up
to 2.25". This would dictate a 1.75" base diameter king being a good
match for the 2.25" square size board and a 1.5" base diameter king
being a good match for the 2.0" square size board. This does work,
but I find some sets that you would think would work really don't
because the whole set is oddly proportioned to the king. One set in
particular, now regularly listed and auctioned weekly on eBay has a
king a bit too short in relation to the rest of the set. (The king is
3.75") Additionally to say that the queen's base is the diameter of
the king's is not really fair as on two sets that I have measured, is
actually slightly larger than the king's base. The other first row
pieces are in proportion to the queen. The pawns are quite robust
being taller than the pawns on two 4" sets that they have been
compared to as well as being ever so slightly taller and wider than
pawns on a 4.25" set that I have. I originally thought that this set
would work well with a 2" square size board, but it is too large.

This inspired me to measure the sets I have, not individually but with
1st row major pieces base to base, and with pawns base to base. I
compared the total measurements of the pieces base tp base to the
width of a board (16" for 2" squares, 18" for 2.25" squares, etc.)
For sets that have kings and other pieces sized correctly to a board
(pawns on virtually all sets are larger today) I noted the percentage
derived (length of bases/length of board playing surface). I also
compared these figures to figures derived with a set where the pieces
as a whole looked too large and crowded and with combinations where
the pieces as a whole looked too small and lost.

For my 4" rosewood set (same as available from "BullDog Pub and Den",
the major pieces have a base to base total length that is 67.5% the
length of the 8 squares of their row (or any other row), for the
"House of Staunton" Collector II, the total length is 68.75% the
length of the 8 squares, and for a 4.25" set from Kazabee, the total
length is 70% the length of the 8 squares. While, according to
established quidelines, 2 of these sets would appear to be too large
for a board with 2.25" squares, they work extremely well, they look
good and a larger board would swallow them.

The set (House of Jacques Regal) already mentioned with a 3.75" king
with a 1.625" base actually has a longer row length than the 4"
rosewood set, and the pawn row is longer than all but the Collector II
set. This set begs for a board with 2.25" squares, it's chief fault
being an undersized king.

Looking at 16 different board and set combinations I find that for
play, the ideal length percentage for the major pieces is between 64%
and 72% and for the pawns is between 50% and 62%. Some may like
somewhat smaller or somewhat larger.

For display only, where I like the look of pieces slightly large in
comparison to a playing set, I find that the length percentage for the
major pieces can go up to 80% and that the pawns base to base can be
up to 70% the length of the row.

Major dislikes - queen too tall in respect to the king (or too short);
knight just marginally taller, the same height, or shorter than the
rook; and a rook just marginally taller or the same height as a pawn.

Bishops look balanced when their height is approximately midway
between the height of the knight and the queen. Pawns look balanced
when their height is about 7/8 that of the rook.

Comments? (other than the fact that I have far too much time on my
hands) -

Barry Simon