Ok, so the reason chess sets look like that is actually pretty neat.
The common set of our era is known as the "Staunton" set. Designed by either Howard Staunton and / or his brother in law John Jaques in the 19th century.
Previously, chess sets were highly embellished and usually carved from ivory, both of which made them prohibitively expensive. They were usually carved to represent the culture of the commissioning party, which made it difficult to play across cultural lines. A shame for a game that eclipses language.
The problem presented itself in that in many eras and cultures, warriors either dressed too similarly to clergy, or the design was just so intricately muddled that all the pieces were similar.
Is this guy the knight just because he has a horse?
What about this shield biting bustard?
(I'm partial to this one for obvious reasons if you know the history of my blog name.)
Could you identify the knight in this Elizabethan set if the board weren't ready and you knew nothing of European culture?
The Staunton set changed all that. It took standard designs of the day and removed the intricate carving work that made the pieces delicate, prone to breaking and often ambiguous.
Now anyone, from any background or culture could play if they knew the rules.
The knight became standardized as the horse and not the rider to differentiate it and stayed somewhat intricate because it was the easiest piece to keep embellishments without confusing human elements.
So while it might seem like the design has been dumbed down, it's actually just been streamlined in the name of inclusivity during a very non-inclusive era.
blakekathryn
baratheonpilled
discoholicmusic
germansingergirl
kianamaiart
jacobvanloon
tangentwithtanner
amandla
pixelskylines
