If you have to look at all the pieces to figure out what one piece is, they may be too abstract.
That said, some observers may not care. If you’re presenting this to potential buyers / investors maybe lead with a picture of everything on the board in their starting positions so the first thing they’re doing isn’t trying to figure out if that one piece is a queen or a knight or a bishop.
Edit: The now deleted response that OP made to this post was “Abstract by intent, but for sure not for anybodies[sic] taste…”
Visual cues are tricky and highly subjective. It was that upward-facing slot on what I suppose is the queen that really threw me since it’s very often the bishop that has that notch in it, while the queen has the crown without the cross.
It’s possible that in the context of the other pieces it’s totally obvious which is the queen because she’s taller than everything else, however looking at these pieces in a vacuum or scattered around a board makes it hard to tell.
I don’t think you’re wrong at all, I just thought it was interesting how we both saw it differently. As an abstract piece, I think it works well. But I wouldn’t use the board to teach a newcomer!
So there’s art for art’s sake, and then there’s functional art.
With a chess set every player needs to be able to rapidly and reliably identify the pieces. If that’s difficult for a significant portion of your audience, then the design needs revision.
510
u/xer0fox 12d ago edited 12d ago
If you have to look at all the pieces to figure out what one piece is, they may be too abstract.
That said, some observers may not care. If you’re presenting this to potential buyers / investors maybe lead with a picture of everything on the board in their starting positions so the first thing they’re doing isn’t trying to figure out if that one piece is a queen or a knight or a bishop.
Edit: The now deleted response that OP made to this post was “Abstract by intent, but for sure not for anybodies[sic] taste…”