3 ms·
"Exquisite" chess sets are among the worst kind of kitsch. Why? Because they are non-functional. No one would play a serious or even a friendly game of chess
by aj7 10y ago
"Exquisite" chess sets are among the worst kind of kitsch. Why? Because they are non-functional. No one would play a serious or even a friendly game of chess with them.
So what is their function, other than to convey clutter, confusion, and ugliness? Perhaps "to capture the game's global heritage."
- abritinthebay 10y agoI would argue that if you can't play chess on them ("non-functional") you are a pretty awful player (and also have a really bad memory).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- setr 10y agoI don't know much about the topic, but going off the article, and assuming a non-ornamental set; There's really no reason to claim its non-functional; its just not useful for games against arbitrary players. But its hardly a complex adaptation, requiring but a few games to achieve proficiency (this I know from my own experience with an ornamental set, against my brother) Anyone you play with repeatedly can be played with on a variant set; and since I imagine most don't only play against randoms in a park/tournament, there's quite a bit of use to find. And as the article notes, knowing an additional set doesnt detract from knowledge of the first (bilingual) Tbh, the only reason I can think of to explicitly deny owning or using non-standard set, ignoring random pick-up games and tournaments, is either pretentiousness or genuine love for the Staunton set