Main
Date: 13 Jun 2008 05:53:30
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Give Nathaniel Cook Credit (Northern Upright)
When I came across a web site saying that some people have written
that the Staunton pattern of chess pieces was "copied" from a previous
style of Chess pieces, called the Northern Upright or Edinburgh
pattern, I remembered having seen that somewhere else once before.

This time, having seen it on the web, I did a web search for more
information, and found images of several sets in the Northern Upright
pattern.

The Northern Upright pattern is beautiful, and it is an improvement on
the other styles of chess piece then current. It avoids distracting
visual elements in the design of the chess piece, so we have a plain
pillar instead of a thinner pillar decorated with discs.

But aside from that, the general proportions and design are not that
much different from the pre-Staunton styles of Chess piece. The Knight
is a small horse's head atop a column, as it is in English sets, in
Barleycorn sets, in Regency sets. The Bishop is still a U-shaped
analogue of a mitre, not slotted at an angle. The Queen has a large
sphere at the top, which is a unique feature of the design, but not
common to Staunton.

Thus, while the Northern Upright style was the plainest and clearest
style available before the Staunton pattern, and, indeed, it might
well be considered nearly as satisfactory for convenient chess play as
Staunton, the Knight, Queen, Bishop (and usually the King) of modern
Chess pieces are very different. Basically, the Northern Upright
pattern did demonstrate the advantages of a simpler, plainer style of
Chess piece; but it was the Staunton pattern that took this farther,
by enlarging the visually distinctive elements of some pieces.

It's surprising that a style of Chess piece aiming to be simple to use
and easy to recognize was as original as the Staunton pattern; I would
have expected a more gradual evolution, but if the Northern Upright
pattern was its closest predecessor, then the Staunton pattern was
genuinely novel.

John Savard




 
Date: 15 Jun 2008 08:43:26
From:
Subject: Re: Give Nathaniel Cook Credit (Northern Upright)
On Jun 15, 11:24=A0am, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 3:35 am, "John Townsend" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I would be interested to hear about sources for research into these ches=
s
> > patterns. =A0The National Archives at Kew holds a number of design
> > registrations. =A0I don't know much about chess patterns, but I have see=
n the
> > Nathaniel Cook registration there, and several others. =A0I was impresse=
d by
> > the illustrations.
>
> > Does the Northern Upright pattern have a distinguishing cross on the Kin=
g's
> > knight? =A0I would imagine not, as I understand this feature to have bee=
n new
> > in the Staunton pattern. =A0I have a vague memory that Staunton himself =
had
> > suggested the desirability of this feature as early as 1841. =A0(I could=

> > probably dig out the reference from the C.P.C., if wanted)
>
> I thought it was the King's Rook that had the distinguishing crown
> printed on it; this had something to do with an old Chess rule.

As far as I know, putting an identifying mark on the king's knight
and king's rook had two purposes:

1) To make it clear which piece to move when, as sometimes happened
in older publications using English descriptive notation, a move was
disambiguated by printing, say, "35. KKt-B5" or "47...QR-KB7" at a
point in the game where it was not obvious which piece had started the
game on the king's or queen's side of the board.
2) For draw claims by threefold repetition. If, in three otherwise
identical positions, it could be demonstrated that in one of them it
was the KN or KR on a certain square, while in another it was the QN
or QR, then the two positions could not be considered as identical.


 
Date: 15 Jun 2008 08:24:17
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Give Nathaniel Cook Credit (Northern Upright)
On Jun 15, 3:35 am, "John Townsend" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> I would be interested to hear about sources for research into these chess
> patterns. The National Archives at Kew holds a number of design
> registrations. I don't know much about chess patterns, but I have seen the
> Nathaniel Cook registration there, and several others. I was impressed by
> the illustrations.
>
> Does the Northern Upright pattern have a distinguishing cross on the King's
> knight? I would imagine not, as I understand this feature to have been new
> in the Staunton pattern. I have a vague memory that Staunton himself had
> suggested the desirability of this feature as early as 1841. (I could
> probably dig out the reference from the C.P.C., if wanted)

I thought it was the King's Rook that had the distinguishing crown
printed on it; this had something to do with an old Chess rule.

So far, my research had basically been a web search - a couple of
people have some very nice collections of Chess pieces pictures of
which have been posted to Picasa.

John Savard


 
Date: 15 Jun 2008 10:35:41
From: John Townsend
Subject: Re: Give Nathaniel Cook Credit (Northern Upright)
I would be interested to hear about sources for research into these chess
patterns. The National Archives at Kew holds a number of design
registrations. I don't know much about chess patterns, but I have seen the
Nathaniel Cook registration there, and several others. I was impressed by
the illustrations.

Does the Northern Upright pattern have a distinguishing cross on the King's
knight? I would imagine not, as I understand this feature to have been new
in the Staunton pattern. I have a vague memory that Staunton himself had
suggested the desirability of this feature as early as 1841. (I could
probably dig out the reference from the C.P.C., if wanted)

Regards,

John Townsend,
Howard Staunton Research Project:
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/index_files/Page324.htm




 
Date: 14 Jun 2008 10:10:20
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Give Nathaniel Cook Credit (Northern Upright)
I have been continuing my research.

Of non-Staunton sets that seem to be adequate for playing chess, aside
from the Northern Upright or Edinburgh pattern, some of the shorter
sets identified as "St. George", and sets from Calvert seem quite
good. However, I'm wondering if these sets might not be post-1849.

The same might also apply to the ones I've seen pictures of called the
"Lund pattern", apparently named for William Lund, who also made chess
sets in London, rather than after the Norwegian city.

Also, the "Philidor" chess set, made to compete with the Staunton,
appears to quite strongly resemble the Northern Upright style,
although it is a bit plainer.

Will "vegetable ivory" make a comeback, given diminishing world oil
supplies?

John Savard