20th Century Modern Chess Set Designs: Bauhaus, Man Ray, Max Ernst - AncientChess.com

[@ryanjavierortega8513]

Gosh, the Bauhaus just knocks me over....its a perfect way to represent the philosophy of the Bauhaus, or Building House movement. Man Ray was a Surrealist Photographer, and you're right to say he was a Designer, I do think that there must be an influence from his aesthetic ideology, which would have snubbed (respectfully, of course) at the idea of "conventional Chess design."

[@ryanjavierortega8513]

My Mother one evening said, "Ok, I want you to order that Chess Set you showed me, as she was happy with my recent School performance, as well as my progression in Chess. I was nearly ready to order to order it but I figured it'd be for show alone, as to play with it at the Park would be too risky.

[@jeffk1722]

Yeah, very true, good call. It's also not great for blitz with all the quick grabbing and trying to place the knights quickly with such a narrow base. Let's also remember you wouldn't want a bunch of people eating stuff and touching these nice pieces.

[@Alistairville]

Helpful video - beautiful chess sets - thanks for introducing these to those of us who have not see them previously.

[@AncientChess]

+Alistair McElwee (alistairville) -- Thanks for the good comment. The early 20th century really was a singular moment in the development of new chess designs, the like of which we may not see again. I find it very interesting how these various designs take on the task of 'modernization' from different angles

[@AllieThePrettyGator]

4:33 typically the king the biggest piece, but i do love the hourglass shape figure The knight looks like a claw and the rook looks like a pot

[@AncientChess]

I think Max Ernst is giving us a commentary on how he sees the two sexes: men laid back in their easy chairs with women impressively on display. I tend to see a crescent in the knight, and a clamshell in the bishop. All beautiful figures, which I think is what he was going for.

[@anthdegregorio]

Hey Rick, just wanted to tell you that this channel is phenomenal. Love every upload!

[@AncientChess]

Thanks! I've got a page with all my videos on my web site -- many hours of chess viewing! ancientchess.com/page/videos.htm

[@juliusli7835]

Any idea where to purchase a max Ernst set?

[@AlSuChess]

Very unusual and unique, great video! Thanks for sharing!

[@drjjf78]

Can’t find the man ray and the max ernst sets in your website

[@kitebrethren]

I love the Man Ray design.

[@AncientChess]

Thanks, yeah, I should start selling those again.... When I have them, they will be listed here: www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_dmd=2&iconV2Request=true&_ssn=rickofricks&store_cat=0&store_name=worldchessandfinearts&_oac=1&_nkw=ray

[@robertschleppi2693]

I have made many purchases from Ancient Chess and can recommend Mr. Rick Knowlton without reservation. He is so knowledgable and can help you find what you're looking for.

[@AncientChess]

+Robert Schleppi -- Thanks for the good words, Bob! It's all true. I'm here for the chess lovers

[@noe8615]

2:00 is this Daniel Craig ?

[@TinTownKing]

Are the man ray pieces weighted?

[@jacmaniac]

Always liked these 3 sets . Where Man Ray failed was his insistence to use cones, spirals and spheres to illustrate the purely linear movements of chess. I used to play with it quite a bit in the Chessmaster 5000 program, and I thought it was a little over zealous a goal to replace the Staunton style as the standard for serious play. Of all the patented chess sets conceived, I'd have to say Hartwig's is closest to Chessblocks.

[@AncientChess]

+Jim Coady -- Thanks for the good review! I agree, Hartwig made the most of the 'form follows function' idea. The other fellows leaned more toward sculptural ideals less to the geometric moves of the pieces. I think that in context of the early 20th century it seemed much more possible to introduce a new chess design that could take hold. After all, almost every aspect of art and science was being overturned, and the Staunton design had only been officially adopted by FIDE in 1924. It's hard to picture ourselves in that time period, but major things really were in flux. In hindsight, we know that Staunton prevailed

[@FertChervu]

Definitely, the Bauhaus (Hartwig) one is the PERFECT design: it is a perfect and beyond-any-doubt synthesis of each piece's function, it is perfectly reproducible and perfectly portable. I'm surprised FIDE has never officially used it like the standard pieces; global costs of buying chess, learning to play it and organizing tournaments would drop incredibly, and it would cease to be an elite game once and for all. 😛

[@pastorofmuppets4552]

Anyone notice when he set up the giant set, the king and queen for white were on the wrong squares?

[@AncientChess]

Yeah, it happens. Another mistake while shooting video. Sorry faithful viewers!

[@selectnull4459]

I also do not full recognize which one should be queen and which one is a king in this design ;). At least if the board had dark A1 then everything else is a matter of contract :)

[@ryanjavierortega8513]

Interesting first Set!

[@andrewmacgregor4308]

I’m too old school for this one but very neat! Great channel brother

[@AncientChess]

Thanks for the good comment Andrew. Yes, we do get set into the things we learn when we are young ...and that we spend our lives with. But the world goes on and does it ever surprise us! Send your thoughts on my videos any time. AWorldofChess.com

[@neogeo1670]

nice set

[@AncientChess]

Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions, or want one of these

[@AncientChess]

Thanks for watching this! Check out these items listed on eBay at stores.ebay.com/World-Chess-and-Fine-Arts?_dmd=2&_nkw=modern

[@RabidMortal1]

I seem to be in a minority but I really like the Max Ernst set (definitely is calling out for 2.5" squares though). Thanks for the video.

[@AncientChess]

Thanks for speaking up for the Ernst set! I think the main obstacle to people appreciating these new designs is very simply that it isn't what they learned on, and isn't what they learned is standard. But if we lived in a world of divergent thinkers, the more imaginative among us wouldn't be so special. Right? It's a beautiful design, enjoyable to play and very easy to get comfortable with when first learning the design.

[@ryanjavierortega8513]

I really wish Carlsen was into Art (he famously said that he knew not a single thing about it) and backed these Artists and their respective works, ala Jen Shahade.

[@AncientChess]

I guess it was Duchamp who said all chess players are artists but not all artists are chess players. Kind of cynical, I think. I agree with you, knowing the art of chess adds a fantastic dimension to the appreciation of the game

[@JamesPawson]

Beautiful, but not for me-- I like feeling somehow connected with ancient history when I play chess. If I could afford it, I would love to get a set of Lewis Chessmen.

[@AncientChess]

Yes, you know I LOVE chess history. To me, these 20th century designs are becoming historic, as the 'modern era' fades into the past. The Lewis men are of course beyond classic -- nothing can compare!

[@calypso5304]

That set is creepy

[@lucaswilliams3806]

That man Ray set

[@AncientChess]

Nice style, right?

[@Willibef]

One aspect that, in my opinion, makes chess appealing is the pieces. These modern variants don't contribute to that. Fortunately, tastes differ.

[@AncientChess]

Everybody has an opinion, right? Maybe some more fortunate than others.

[@airtafae4718]

These are pretty but I love my traditional designs These blocks don't give that chess feel

[@AncientChess]

Yeah, I know, we really do get attached to the style of chessmen we have had all these years. For most of us, it's some variation of the Staunton design. But I think you'll find, if you try some of these modern designs, that using them becomes natural quite quickly. The shapes often reference the designs familiar to us, and sometimes indicate the geometry of the piece's move. Thanks for commenting. Share your thoughts any time. AWorldofChess.com

[@timewheel2572]

The shape of every chess pieces hidden in their move. just research it. As ROOK goes horizontal and vertical direction its shape= tube As KNIGHT' s every move create a circle in its 8 square its shape=ball As BISHOP goes diagonal its shape= pyramid As QUEEN goes horizontal and vertical its shape= the king "s upper portion shape used in 2013 fide worlf chess championship . why? Answer» just take a chess bord and place a queen on it in the middle of the board. and mark all those square captured by QUEEN u will get its shape what i mentioned As KING goes all direction only one square its shape= similar like the queen but its wings are not present As PAWN goes straight but capturde pieces digonal one suqare what eould be its shape?? Last one i will not say Invent it..

[@AncientChess]

Sounds great! Let us know if you ever get a prototype worked up!

[@timewheel2572]

AncientChess I have done research on this matter. But can't able to explain everything in word as practical work need to prove my research. Need pencil and a paper to show all thing to prove my research. I have CLASSICAL TYPE of chessmen. MODERN TYPE of chessmen ANCIENT TYPE of chessmen in my research. If i have paper and pencil i will show u all things for prove.

[@AncientChess]

Sounds very interesting. Have you considered making a KZbin video to show it?

[@timewheel5121]

AncientChess no.......i did it just for my own....

[@rabikiran4868]

sorry...but......not admirable...

[@AncientChess]

It's just a shame. The Staunton design, one of many that have flourished in the past 15 centuries, becomes so ingrained in the past 150 years, that even the most brilliant and creative designers cannot budge the imagination of the sad, entrenched chess player. Sorry for your loss.

[@talomanuel04]

Learn how to play taikyoku shogi

[@lex3729]

Wenge (Pronounced Wen-gay)