Not only are these expensive, they’re hard to find.
A few years ago I asked my (Indian) in laws to gift me a nice wooden chess set in lieu of the usual gifs they get for me from India. I asked for it thinking it’ll be easy for them to get and it’ll be something I’ll cherish and find use for instead of dealing with clothing sizes or designs I might like.
It was absolutely not like that. The quality of the pieces is so drastically different and now I know why. Even now after they spent 2x-4x more than a good quality plastic set the bishop isn’t that much taller than the pawns. The rook is as tall as the pawns. And that was after they spent a lot of time finding a decent set that had a good feel and ensuring the due isn’t chipping off.
Unless the in laws were serious chess players, I'd be afraid to ask for a chess set as a gift. The chances would be too high that they would get some theme or novelty set that might be great as a decorative object but is not so good for playing, especially if you want to play with other people.
So if you are into say WW2 history, you might end up with something like this [1]. Religious? Maybe you get this [2]. Once mentioned you read an interesting article about Frank Lloyd Wright? They might remember and get you this [3]. Like marijuana? They might think this is the perfect set for you [4].
What I'd want is a set that if I took it to tournament I could choose to use it when I'm playing Black and White would have to accept it. (Note for non-US players. Typical tournaments in the US do not provide equipment. The players are supposed to bring sets and clocks. If both players offer equipment for a game, Black gets to choose which is used unless Black's choice is not considered standard [5] and White's is in which case White's is used).
[5] Standard is pieces of plastic or wood or something with a similar appearance. King height 8.65 to 11.54 cm. The cross or other finial no more than 20% of the King height. King base 40-50% of King height. Other pieces proportionate in height and form. All pieces well balanced for stability and comfortable moving. Staunton design, with minor variations allowed. Color should be the colors of naturally light and dark wood or approximations of those, or simply black and white. Board must be opaque and made from something smooth that allows easy movement of pieces. Colors should offer high contrast between the dark and light squares. Red and black checkerboards are explicitly called out in the rules as nonstandard. Square sides should be approximately 5 to 6.4 cm. Divide the diameter of the King's base by 0.78 to get the ideal square size. The square should not be smaller than that, but it is OK if it is up to 4 mm larger.
So they're expensive (and rare) because apparently the certification is pretty strict and it takes a lot of skilled manual labor to comply with the certification.
But why is the certification so strict? Why isn't the certification somewhat looser, so that official sets can be less expensive? It's not like the exact dimensions, weights, shapes or materials influence the game play like e.g. a football ball does, or a formula racing car.
> But why is the certification so strict? Why isn't the certification somewhat looser, so that official sets can be less expensive? It's not like the exact dimensions, weights, shapes or materials influence the game play like e.g. a football ball does, or a formula racing car.
Isn't it a general lack of demand? Machine-produced chess sets are commonplace and much cheaper to make en masse.
A handmade chess like this is also also a luxury item at this point, and luxury items may have arbitrary price tags.
OK - isn't it a general lack of demand for the certifications to be changed, then? If the certification process looks like this now, then what is the force that would bring it out of its current inertia?
Ok, but there's a difference between a cheap fancy set and a set that has the correct shapes and colors but is made of molded plastic instead of hand-carved wood. The latter is still cheap (probably cheaper than the fancy one) but it's not confusing.
> It's not like the exact dimensions, weights, shapes or materials influence the game play like e.g. a football ball does, or a formula racing car.
It most certainly might in faster time controls. You could also argue that the quality of the chess set influences players psychologically in slower time controls, though that's of course not as clear cut.
I mean sure, $500 may be expensive for many players at home, but it hardly breaks the budget for a top championship that centers around said board for hours.
How many championships are there? The video mentions another certification (?) class ("tournament") that's presumably no less official than the "championship" one, just less exclusive. And there you have the answer: exclusivity.
Keeping an artificially scarce class of artisanal playpieces around to fill the upper market niche that is still focused on clean line functionality and standards seems like a very clever way to keep the higher priced market segment from losing itself even more than it already does in fancy novelty designs.
Strategies that good rarely get invented, usually they are chance discoveries. They should absolutely keep this up, it's good for the game.
Are they that expensive though? Plenty of sports have more expensive equipment and often that's not even handmade, much less durable and associated with a strong in-group/out-group mechanism that I don't really see in chess. If you made it to the world championships never having touched anything but plastic pieces, would they think less of you? I suspect quite the opposite..
It seems very likely that the market cap for high-end wooden sets is not large enough for automation. It makes sense that for this particular niche, they'd be hand made. To fill in some other bits:
The pieces need to be rather precisely formed, because the players' pattern matching can be greatly bothered by anomalies in their shapes. I can only speak of the lower ranks of competitive chess, but you'd generally get tons of practice with good quality plastic sets, which are extremely uniform. If you are not used to playing on a variety of different types of sets, the quality of your play could easily be impacted. I recall looking for a new set many years ago with my brother, and having reviewed dozens of hand made sets with a variety of irritating issues, we ended up specifically hunting for a set that wasn't hand made, for this very reason.
Another good question is why they need to be made out of wood for high-end competitions. I am guessing it's just a fashion / elitist statement.
No, but you might make something as long as there’s a profitable market for it.
I’m guessing the ultimate answer you are looking for is mostly “history”. Once upon a time, all chess sets were handmade and expensive. Then mass production techniques came on line and the market moved to cheap, machine-made sets. There’s still some people who would prefer a handmade set and you can get one for only $500. That seems pretty inexpensive to me. If I wanted a nice chess set, it might be what I would buy.
I would assume it's to have a uniform and expected experience by the players. Players don't want to think about the pieces themselves, only the position. The fact that you can get a set of pieces for only $500 that can be used for many games means that there's little pressure to change the rules.
On top of all that, it's a nice link to the past. If chess players and fans are at all like baseball players and fans, that can matter.
The Youtube version of this video was released a while ago. The video fails to answer the more meaningful version of the "why": The "why does it have to".
There is no limit to how expensive you can make a chess set (Fill it with diamonds, pay the Queen to piss on it, use wood smoked on burned dollar bills).
But why does a championship chess set need to be produced expensively?
That was the question I was hoping for, when I watched this video a long time ago, and now I dislike all the videos from this series when the appear on my recommendation feed on YT.
You can always make an expensive version of something. It is interesting to know _why_ something has to be expensive.
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect answering that question would take longer and all they needed was enough material to justify the title, which was the real value proposition all along, as the title was enough to get clicks.
Some of it may simply be volume. They make 250 of these sets a year, @$500 that's a gross of just $125k. The actual revenue for the factory must be much lower. It's hard to imagine maintaining a reliable supply at a lower cost.
I think they said the factory makes other kinds of sets too. They said they can make 200-250 of the lesser kings a day but only like 30 of the championship ones.
They even go as far to say that it can affect the game. But they don't really articulate why or how. They sort of imply that it's less likely a player will make a mistake mixing up the pieces - but I find that incredibly hard to believe for this level of players.
Someone else linked https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IowQeiC4V8I. I think if you watch the full thing, Hikaru Nakamura’s explaination is a reasonable take. BI reports it as if it’s comparing against other modern day sets but the person being interviewed who makes them is actually comparing against sets from much longer ago when the pieces were not easily distinguished from each other. Otherwise the claim that it can impact gameplay is complete bunk which is why he laughs so hard at it.
>But why does a championship chess set need to be produced expensively?
In a word: Regulation. You have to use one of the specified sets from a specified manufacturer not just any. Fewer manufactures means less competition.
This still doesn't answer the why though: "because it's the rules" leads us to want to understand how the rules came to be. Is the president of FIDE a shareholder in the approved manufacturer? Or is their cousin? Or did they fall out with a different manufacturer? Or is that the only manufacturer that makes the sets in a particular way that benefits championship chess, and if so in what way is that a benefit? Why not just mandate that form of construction?
Maybe you shouldn't be asking 'Why' repeatedly (that sounds threatening but isn't meant to be). Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price. By all means delve deeper but by going deeper you're changing the topic at hand. Why does regulation affect pricing of a good or service? That's another topic tangential to the one we're discussing.
Feynman doesn't argue against asking why; he just says that you'll eventually reach a question he can't answer in the allotted time, or perhaps that he can't answer at all. If he didn't think recursively asking why magnets repel each other as in the video was a good idea, he probably wouldn't have won the Nobel prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics.
> Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price.
I read the original question of "Why are championship chess sets so expensive?" as two questions:
1. Why do chess championships use specific chess sets?
2. Why are those chess sets expensive to make?
The second question is easily answered, but I'm more curious about the first, and I think others here are as well. I'd probably be content with just one layer of why, such as "the regulators have an interest in the company that makes them" or "in the X year championship, Y problem occurred due to a substandard chess set".
If anyone is interested, here's Hikaru Nakamura, a super GM reacting to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IowQeiC4V8I. The video is long but I think the main takeaway is already clear from the first 13 seconds. :)
Everyone is asking "why does it need to be so expensive"? I think it's basically the same reason why anything that doesn't have to be expensive, is:
1) To make money
2) To elevate status
For 1), buying world championship chess sets is not something done en-masse. You buy one because you really like chess and have disposable income, otherwise there is literally no reason not to buy a normal cheap one.
For 2), you don't want people to say the chess championship gives you shitty chess pieces that break, no? 95% of people won't care, but those that will will. And 500 dollars is not very much for an event this size (although chess championships haven't been the biggest event..)
The fact that they made a video showing off "look how expensive and nicely done our chess sets are" basically proves it's a status thing.
They way I look at it they are more like FIFA World Cup balls each year slightly different and for the last 50 years made by Adidas. Except there it's much clearer that they have little meaning outside the specific tournament games and value in sales outside it is clearly seen as collection item not as tool for performing the sport. There is no impression that those are only balls which could be used for proper football competition.
From what I understood by reading "Standards of Chess Equipment, venue for FIDE Tournaments" Even official FIDE registered games could happen with other chess sets as long as they are approved by Chief Organiser and the Chief Arbiter of the tournament and comply with much weaker and vaguely defined requirements listed in that document. Although I wouldn't be surprised if many organizers due to prestige and to avoid any unnecessary complaints from players would still try to buy the official sets.
It's common to hear "handmade is higher quality", but is it always true?
Automation with solid QA can be more reliable than humans, but a fraction of the cost.
Mass production has a bad rap, but it's an art too, and can be done correctly.
Interestingly, higher quality was one of the selling points of mass-produced vs. hand-made items back in the day. “Machines are more consistent”. The “hand-made is better” myth sounds invented to justify higher prices for hand-crafted stuff and help keep some workers in business in the age of machines.
You're thinking of mass producers like Apple, which hit both high volume and high price points. Mass producers like Apple have enough revenue to pay for the higher quality standards within mass production.
Championship chess sets, even if you could somehow produce them for $5/set, are not going to have the sales volume to justify the cost of the automation + solid QA.
>Automation with solid QA can be more reliable than humans, but a fraction of the cost.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn for 'handmade', but of course the best version of 'handmade' has the humans doing the complex parts to connect all the tools together. It's like QA on the front end.
There's also the concept that the artifacts (imperfections) of being hand-made add value; much in the same way that people prefer vinyl because of it's imperfections. Having a master crafted _item_ vs a machine made one can be considered to add "quality/value", even if it's not as technically perfect.
55 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadA few years ago I asked my (Indian) in laws to gift me a nice wooden chess set in lieu of the usual gifs they get for me from India. I asked for it thinking it’ll be easy for them to get and it’ll be something I’ll cherish and find use for instead of dealing with clothing sizes or designs I might like.
It was absolutely not like that. The quality of the pieces is so drastically different and now I know why. Even now after they spent 2x-4x more than a good quality plastic set the bishop isn’t that much taller than the pawns. The rook is as tall as the pawns. And that was after they spent a lot of time finding a decent set that had a good feel and ensuring the due isn’t chipping off.
So if you are into say WW2 history, you might end up with something like this [1]. Religious? Maybe you get this [2]. Once mentioned you read an interesting article about Frank Lloyd Wright? They might remember and get you this [3]. Like marijuana? They might think this is the perfect set for you [4].
What I'd want is a set that if I took it to tournament I could choose to use it when I'm playing Black and White would have to accept it. (Note for non-US players. Typical tournaments in the US do not provide equipment. The players are supposed to bring sets and clocks. If both players offer equipment for a game, Black gets to choose which is used unless Black's choice is not considered standard [5] and White's is in which case White's is used).
[1] https://www.chessusa.com/product/2S-009.html
[2] https://www.chessusa.com/product/2Z-W02.html
[3] https://www.chessusa.com/product/2Y-030.html
[4] https://www.chessusa.com/product/2Y-420.html
[5] Standard is pieces of plastic or wood or something with a similar appearance. King height 8.65 to 11.54 cm. The cross or other finial no more than 20% of the King height. King base 40-50% of King height. Other pieces proportionate in height and form. All pieces well balanced for stability and comfortable moving. Staunton design, with minor variations allowed. Color should be the colors of naturally light and dark wood or approximations of those, or simply black and white. Board must be opaque and made from something smooth that allows easy movement of pieces. Colors should offer high contrast between the dark and light squares. Red and black checkerboards are explicitly called out in the rules as nonstandard. Square sides should be approximately 5 to 6.4 cm. Divide the diameter of the King's base by 0.78 to get the ideal square size. The square should not be smaller than that, but it is OK if it is up to 4 mm larger.
But why is the certification so strict? Why isn't the certification somewhat looser, so that official sets can be less expensive? It's not like the exact dimensions, weights, shapes or materials influence the game play like e.g. a football ball does, or a formula racing car.
Isn't it a general lack of demand? Machine-produced chess sets are commonplace and much cheaper to make en masse.
A handmade chess like this is also also a luxury item at this point, and luxury items may have arbitrary price tags.
Nothing like losing or wining because you tried to checkmate using your opponents pawn as a bishop…
It most certainly might in faster time controls. You could also argue that the quality of the chess set influences players psychologically in slower time controls, though that's of course not as clear cut.
The table or chairs are probably more expensive.
Yes… but why are they made this way?
Keeping an artificially scarce class of artisanal playpieces around to fill the upper market niche that is still focused on clean line functionality and standards seems like a very clever way to keep the higher priced market segment from losing itself even more than it already does in fancy novelty designs.
Strategies that good rarely get invented, usually they are chance discoveries. They should absolutely keep this up, it's good for the game.
Fundamental answer then - they don’t need to be this expensive.
The pieces need to be rather precisely formed, because the players' pattern matching can be greatly bothered by anomalies in their shapes. I can only speak of the lower ranks of competitive chess, but you'd generally get tons of practice with good quality plastic sets, which are extremely uniform. If you are not used to playing on a variety of different types of sets, the quality of your play could easily be impacted. I recall looking for a new set many years ago with my brother, and having reviewed dozens of hand made sets with a variety of irritating issues, we ended up specifically hunting for a set that wasn't hand made, for this very reason.
Another good question is why they need to be made out of wood for high-end competitions. I am guessing it's just a fashion / elitist statement.
Well there we go - turns out no good reason at all.
I’m guessing the ultimate answer you are looking for is mostly “history”. Once upon a time, all chess sets were handmade and expensive. Then mass production techniques came on line and the market moved to cheap, machine-made sets. There’s still some people who would prefer a handmade set and you can get one for only $500. That seems pretty inexpensive to me. If I wanted a nice chess set, it might be what I would buy.
Again... question people are trying to answer is why do they need to use these for championships?
On top of all that, it's a nice link to the past. If chess players and fans are at all like baseball players and fans, that can matter.
There is no limit to how expensive you can make a chess set (Fill it with diamonds, pay the Queen to piss on it, use wood smoked on burned dollar bills).
But why does a championship chess set need to be produced expensively?
That was the question I was hoping for, when I watched this video a long time ago, and now I dislike all the videos from this series when the appear on my recommendation feed on YT.
You can always make an expensive version of something. It is interesting to know _why_ something has to be expensive.
In a word: Regulation. You have to use one of the specified sets from a specified manufacturer not just any. Fewer manufactures means less competition.
Feynman on 'Why':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
> Regulation is sufficient explanation for why something has a minimum price.
I read the original question of "Why are championship chess sets so expensive?" as two questions:
1. Why do chess championships use specific chess sets?
2. Why are those chess sets expensive to make?
The second question is easily answered, but I'm more curious about the first, and I think others here are as well. I'd probably be content with just one layer of why, such as "the regulators have an interest in the company that makes them" or "in the X year championship, Y problem occurred due to a substandard chess set".
You can buy very high quality weighted wooden sets for around $100. But ebony ones start at $1500...
It seems like a lot of this process could and should be automated to improve consistency and quality.
As a fan of "craftsmanship porn" videos, I feel seen. :)
1) To make money
2) To elevate status
For 1), buying world championship chess sets is not something done en-masse. You buy one because you really like chess and have disposable income, otherwise there is literally no reason not to buy a normal cheap one.
For 2), you don't want people to say the chess championship gives you shitty chess pieces that break, no? 95% of people won't care, but those that will will. And 500 dollars is not very much for an event this size (although chess championships haven't been the biggest event..)
The fact that they made a video showing off "look how expensive and nicely done our chess sets are" basically proves it's a status thing.
From what I understood by reading "Standards of Chess Equipment, venue for FIDE Tournaments" Even official FIDE registered games could happen with other chess sets as long as they are approved by Chief Organiser and the Chief Arbiter of the tournament and comply with much weaker and vaguely defined requirements listed in that document. Although I wouldn't be surprised if many organizers due to prestige and to avoid any unnecessary complaints from players would still try to buy the official sets.
Mass production has a bad rap, but it's an art too, and can be done correctly.
Championship chess sets, even if you could somehow produce them for $5/set, are not going to have the sales volume to justify the cost of the automation + solid QA.
I'm not sure where the line is drawn for 'handmade', but of course the best version of 'handmade' has the humans doing the complex parts to connect all the tools together. It's like QA on the front end.
I'm finding it hard to believe that machines that can produce something like this can't handle some fairly simple standardised chess shapes.
https://preview.redd.it/xbk6s64gu6181.jpg?width=794&format=p...