Talk:Chess piece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] size?

I want to know what is the size of every piece in chess, to be used in tournaments, on chessboards of 5cmx5cm, each square? Thank you

I think the paragraph regarding the recommended size of the squares and pieces is helpful, but it puts too much emphasis on one specific size. From my experience, the game will be comfortable as long as the proportions are ok, regardless of the size (within reasonable limits). I've enjoyed using many games with 3.5 cm² squares and a 7 cm king, and this paragraph seems to suggest that this is too small.

--Max.

That is certainly too small. Those recomendations about the range of the size come from the USCF and FIDE and are in fact rules. One one occaision I even enforced the rule in a tournament. I don't play with kings less than 3.75 inches (9.5 cm) and squares less than 5.4 cm. Bubba73 16:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the info, I didn't know that :) But not all readers of this page are tournament players, and a somewhat smaller or larger size is just fine to play at home, providing that the proportions are good. The information about the recommended size is useful, and I'm not saying it should be removed, but that more emphasis should be put on the importance of proportions. Maybe it could just be rephrased, or a sidenote might be added. Anyway, size doesn't matter ;) --Max.
You're right, proportions are important. I put the stuff about the size in there because at the top of this page someone asked about sizes for tournament play. That should be mentioned in the article. Bubba73 20:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned under rook, bishop, queen, and pawn that they can't jump over pieces, except for castling? It seems to me that it would be good to mention it there, instead of just under "knight". --Bubba73 05:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what is this?

The article says "Chess set colors are usually black & white, brown & cream, black & red, or green & white." Is this talking about the board? I've never seen black & red pieces. There are white & red pieces, and cheap black and red cardboard boards. I've never seen green & white pieces either, but there are plenty of greeen and white boards. Bubba73 (talk), 06:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of term 'piece'

In standard chess parlance, the pawns are not refered to as pieces. Thus each player has 8 pieces and 8 pawns, not 16 pieces.

It depends on the context. Sometimes a piece means any of the pieces, sometimes it means a non-pawn. Sometimes it means a minor piece, etc.
For instance, the FIDE rulebook, section 2.2 includes the pawns as pieces. Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal definition of a Staunton set

I wish there was a Staunton set article with as many hard guidelines as possible. From what I gather

  • the pawn must be shortest of all and have a roughly spherical top for ease of handling
  • the rook is the shortest full piece (disregarding the pawn) and must recall a castle tower
  • the knight must be taller than the rook and shorter than the bishop and resemble a horse's head
  • the bishop must be taller than the knight yet shorter than the queen; also, its top must resemble (slightly at least) a clerical mitre and be noticeably different from that of a pawn either because of a slash or due to a top marking of different colloring than that of the piece's body
  • the queen must be taller than the bishop yet shorter than the king; also, it must be adorned with some sort of symetrical crenellation of a circular overall shape
  • the king must be tallest of all and topped by something resembling a cross (I heard there are alternatives such as a fleur-de-lis

I would love to see a serious and clear compilation of the rules that define a Staunton set. Can anyone point me to one? Thanks! Luis Dantas 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We should have a Staunton chess set article. For now the best we have is Nathaniel Cook and Jaques of London. I don't think there's an official definition of the design, but the characteristics you note are accurate. An important part of the design is the ratio of the height to the bases of the pieces. There is some information available in The Oxford Companion to Chess and other sources. I'll put a note up on the Chess WikiProject requesting this article. Quale 09:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There is some information under "chess sets" in this article. As far as what defines a Staunton set, the first one is pictured at the top of the article. It is hard to define what a Staunton set is, but you know it if you see one. Bubba73 (talk), 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Another aspect of a Staunton set is that they are not very ornate. But that is hard to define. Also, the cut in the bishop is usually a lot smaller than the one pictured, and some sets have no cut at all. Also, sometimes the king has a ball instead of a cross. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to I edit a section ?

I want to add Hindi names for the chess pieces, but somehow I cant find the right way to reach the page to edit the table.

can someone help me with that ?

raghav.. Raghav 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


You are looking for this page. Let me know if you need any help or if you have any further problems. MatthewYeager 17:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

There are in-text citations for several things, plus two (I think) general references. It wouldn't hurt to have more, though. Bubba73 (talk), 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)