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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting, these two points. The best playing set around, especially for fast time controls, is the plastic triple-weighted "Ultimate" set:
formatting link
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.
formatting link
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.
Ultimate set! Oh, well, I'll leave that part in for the humor of it. Jeez.
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!
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.
Yes. My memory is failing me, so let me go dig it up.
formatting link
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").
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.
I haven't had anything come close to charring through, even with a really too hot pour.
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.
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)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.