Cheap VS Expensive Chess Set

By my definition of "cheap" I don't need an expensive set. Also I'm only talking about my personal preferences, I don't judge others by what they like to play with. If somebody enjoys their 15€ Philos set that's fine by me and I wouldn't view them as a philistine for doing so, it's just not what I like and I have the luxury of choice. Same with somebody dropping 1.5k on a set they enjoy, if it makes them happy then so be it. Even if I could afford that I wouldn't do it but I don't feel pity for them if they're doing something that enriches their lives, in the grand scheme of things it's still not *that* much money (if they dropped 1.5 million though I'd question the wisdom of doing that).

Finally I already agreed that you can play chess with basically no investment (apart from some paper or stones in the sand), only that's not everybody's favorite way to play and that's fine.

A Chess set can make a significant difference in playing experience. It is important for the pieces to be easy to recognize and for them to be stable on the board and not shift around or fall over easily. If you enjoy the set you may also be willing to play more.

If my choices were limited, I would use whatever is available to play a game. But if I can choose, then I'd choose a nice set, not necessarily an expensive one, but one that I find to be nice.

Does anyone remember an old (1971) movie starring Max von Sydow? It's called "The Night Visitor". In it, he plays a person that is locked in an insane asylum and has sculpted his own chess set to play with a guard. I'd like to find a copy of that chess set.

A hard truth, hermanjohnell. A number of sets I’ve ‘collected’ are unlikely ever to be played. I enjoy them as visual touchstones to history and to a spirit. Curious discovery for me is that the sets I use most aren’t the expensive ones.

Quite the improbable 'chess in cinema' addition, thank you very much, Laurentiu-Cristofor!

I hope it is fair use to show a capture from the movie The Night Visitor (1971), if not please let me know.

A painted figurative set handmade of clay, I guess. It could have been created just for the movie- do you know if it was?

It's a great chess scene, and (whenever I dare to watch the movie and) if the movie is good, I would take it for all that if ever I come across it. What do you like best about it?

It's role in the plot is that it's kind of hard to like. That's easy, but it's a movie with a story beyond vengeful, so I just watched a few minutes here and there. And the whole chess scene, of course. (Was there more than the main one)?

But one thing I got to mention about this movie- it is very cinematographic, and that is great- but what you gotta love about this movie is the depiction of the asylum's workshop when the police visits the prison, and it is full of ordinary, dear all-Swedish people sitting at their benches handling the pieces of art and craft they are working on silently. Invaluable and beyond

Great stuff!

Please, can you reveal the source of the opening three verses? Is it American Indian? I do not get the second verse, though, one and three seem to say it all for me.

Your genius continuation out of this opening, "chess is played in ones head, not on a board and a chess set is only a prop necessary only for those of us who cannot keep track of the moves and positions with our minds" is a bit like saying "the world is lived in one's head, not in the world, and the real world is only a prop for those of us who cannot keep track of the moves and positions". The cheapest world, therefore, should do just fine?

We can keep track of the world in our minds as little as we can of games of chess because it is lived and played outside, with minds that can only so much jump around inside. Events, like sowing seeds or harvesting or communication of moves are only ever possible via going outside, sharing the same places or the same symbols.

Now we're getting to the point: what makes the quality of the places, and what makes the quality of the symbols? Quality symbols need not be expensive, because what counts is are they perfectly suitable for speaking the language. Are these pieces suitable for playing chess?

Cheapest would not make chess pieces, because creating material symbols is work and work is not cheap. Cheapest chess pieces would be the ones that work, made with the least amount of work..

"Once a game is afoot, no chess player worth his salt occupies his mind with what material the board or pieces are made of or what monetary value.." All chess sets for which this holds true are good chess sets, and the rest are gradual and local refinements? Which make sense because they show that the crafting of the symbols leaves us freedom of expression in form while using them for the same language.

The common language of chess is the one free given, there are practical and impractical sets, there are simpler sets and sets using higher skills, and there are prices for everything.

We just want something of beauty- chess- be for everybody, and wish everybody the most beautiful pieces there are to use for their games.

As I keep seeing, chess, by its rules dancing and fighting, demanding and enabling, is all about friendship, about sharing and creating for community, against poverty.

Expensive keeps the aesthetic

The lines are the gunslinger´s creed from Stephen King´s magnum opus.

My point, in this discussion, is that the game doesn´t need a physical chess set (even if we do). I´ve always been fascinated by the great masters ability to play blindfolded, sometimes against several opponents simultaneously. This is reflected in The Queens Gambit both when Beth visualises the lines in te ceiling and when he and I don´t remember who play a game simply by saying out their respective moves.

Me, I can barely keep track of the action with a board and pieces...