Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The paint cane said it was good for ALMOST all plastics..

The book they are standing on is the 'Classified Encyclopedia of chess variants'

The camel is like my piece 'fetiche'. OK OK.. it is lame.. awkward, weak.. it doesn't even worth two pawns(?!).. etc, but it still feels like one of the most logical fairy pieces to add to a game, and in this particular, to a decimal game.

Hope you like the pics. they are poor quality because were made with a cheep mobile phone.

In this picture we can see the Camel compared to the Bishop and a pawn.

I agree: I have always disliked such 'cut and paste' representations,
both as symbols in diagrams as in 3d pieces. If I would have to design a
Capablanca set from scratch, I would use a piece with a wide-rimmed hat as
Marshall. Much like the one shown below in the picture with King and
Cannon, from the ExChess piece set (where it is supposed to represent a
Centaur (K+N), called 'Veteran' in Superchess).

The Archbishop design, as a Bishop with a V-cut mitre, does seem OK to me.
Close resemblance to the Bishop is no disadvantage there, as the name
already suggests that.

Of course I know that Archbishop and Marshall were not the original names
given to those pieces by Pietro Carrera, but I do not care much for the
name Centaur as a B+N compound.

I think Capas should be given a viceroyal status, as an analogy with the
Queen. They should not be given a tacky design like a Knight on a Rook or
vice-versa.

I think that 'proprietary design' means simply that the proprietors have
the sole right to make and sell these.  Once we've bought them, we can
tie them to our hats, arrange them in triangles and bowl at them with
marbles, or do whatever else we like with them.

about the size of the elephants... make sure their ears are small. We are
talking about Indian elephants (Chaturanga) not African ones! : D

'Plase endow the elephant with prominent tusks so that it can be taken for
a young mastodon or mammoth, too.'

This is not so easy: in the current design, the direction of the tusks is
perpendicular to the grain of the wood. This means they would almost
certainly break off very quickly if I would try to make them longer. They
can only survive by being fused to the lower part of the trunk.

I considered maing the grain of the wood run front to back, so that it is
in the correct orientation for supporting free-standing tusks. This,
owever, causes the problem that the trunk is now perpendicular to the
grain, and would become extremely fragile. (Although it would not be so
bad as the tusks, wich are thinner.) This could be solved by not making a
completely free-standing trunk, as in the current design, but one curving
back towards the front of the head, touching it before bending forward
again. (And the end would then point forward, in the same directio as the
tusks.) The separation between lower art of the trunk and head would then
have to be a driled hole.

I guess an illusion of longer tusks witthin th fraework of the current
design could be made by cutting more space between turnk and front of the
head. Together with making the tips of the tusks stick out just a few
millimeter more forward, this might be good enough.

Plase endow the elephant with prominent tusks so that it can be taken for a
young mastodon or mammoth, too. 
/Mats

Rich:
| But, if you wanted to run a publicized tournament and use their 
| pieces for other than what they intended, you may risk them suing you.

Were did you get this information? It doesn't say that anywhere in the add
I referred to, which offers these pieces for sale. So if I bought them from
that source, the only legal recourse they would have is sue the company
that sold them. Not me!

The company sells them without restrictions, so I can do anything I want
with what I buy there. That is the legal reality of the situation, and if
anyone told you different, they have been telling you fairy-tales.

Not that I would even want these pieces...

Proprietary means that the designers, Harper and Seirawan, haven't given
anyone permission to use the pieces for any other purposes than what they
intended.  You can't take the Hawk, and use it as something else, and you
are not permitted to use it in any other game, but what Harper and Seirawan
approved of, which now is just Bughouse.

Ok, people on their own can use them as they choose.  But, if you wanted
to run a publicized tournament and use their pieces for other than what
they intended, you may risk them suing you.  This is what is meant by
proprietary.

John Ayer writes: 'As for hating plastic pieces (I play with plastic, wood, ceramic, metal), I ask seriously: has anyone ever seen wooden checkers for sale? preferably matching chess pieces?'

Crokinole pieces can be purchased separately in Canada - they make great wooden chess pieces.

The problem is more:
1. They are plastic, thus ugly
2. They are totally out of style with normal Staunton pieces
3. The set from which they come is even more ugly (way too small Queen).

The challenge is to design something that blends well with a wooden Staunton set. This is made
extra difficult by the fact that Elephants require a non-cylindric design, so that only the
Staunton Knight can serve as a guide to define the style.

Too bad the Seirawan pieces are proprietary.  They would be a great
addition to the Variant community.

OK, Joe, thanks for the feedback. It it indeed a bit bulky (but what else
can you expect from an Elephant...?)

Flattening the backside, to make the ears thin, and thus indeed more like
ears, has the disadvantage that the backside looks more like a traffic
sign than a Chess piece. Perhaps it would give a better effect if the ears
were made thin by cutting away two other vertical cylinders behind them,
just as is already done to create the face, so that the top look would be
something like a square with 4 quarter disks, centered at the 4 corners,
cut out of it. (The disks on the front side having a slightly larger
radius than those on the back, so that the 'neck' is thicker than the
trunk.)

The ears would still cause it to have a very massive and prominent frontal
view, though. This could be reduced by making it smaller size, but OTOH, it
would look a bit silly to have a small Elephant next to a big Horse. In
some variants, the Elephant is only a very minor piece. (Shatranj, where
it apears as the Alfil, and even worse, Xiangqi, where it cannot even jump
or cross the river.) In other variants it is used for F+A, which has
approximately Knight value. In Superchess it is a quite strong piece (a
Mastodon that can capture to pieces at once). Of course in Mastodon Chess,
one would be likely to use this physical piece to represent the Mastodon.
In these latter variants, the impressive appearence of the piece is quite
justified.

In fact it is not really true that the size of a piece is related to its
power in play: a normal Chess set is designed based on esthetics. The
Rookis smaller than Knight or Bishop, while there is no doubt that it is
the stronger piece.

That's not a bad start for an elephant. I would definitely flatten the
back, and try to get a hint of ear on the back, too. Based on the picture,
the elephant as is will bulk more than any other piece on the board. I
think you should remove material. Others may differ, as it is a good
elephant.

The model I made has a round backside, but currently I am leaning more to making that flat.

Please tell me what you think of it!

This is not an exhaustive list.
For regular checkers (not cheap)
http://www.chessusa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F3-200&Category_Code=CHK&Product_Count=4
http://www.chessusa.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=F3-007&Category_Code=CHK&Product_Count=3
http://www.thechessstore.com/c=mUwXbvqJe2zEk7s142bYNXos9/category/260_other_games.checkers

Unfinished wood checkers (much cheaper)
http://www.craftparts.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=checkers

As for hating plastic pieces (I play with plastic, wood, ceramic, metal), I
ask seriously: has anyone ever seen wooden checkers for sale? preferably
matching chess pieces?

Sure it would look better. But that is a moot point, as one cannot machine
S-shapes with a lathe, as they violate cylinder symmetry. The objective is to do the best one can within the imposed limitations of the production process, and so far I couldn't come up with anything better than this one.

I think the Elephant piece would look better if it were facing forward with
the trunk hanging down in sort of an S shape.